Is
the King James Version the Only True Version of the Bible?
There has been much confusion and much ignorance
regarding the King James Version of the Bible.
Some Christians believe very strongly that the KJV is the only true Word
of God in English, that all modern translations should be avoided, or, at
least, that the KJV is superior to all other translations. In the defense of the KJV, much false
information has been disseminated. Hopefully the following facts about the KJV
will help clear up any confusion or faulty beliefs about the KJV. Also some of the weaknesses of the KJV will
be exposed.
Brief
history
In 1604, King James I called a meeting (known as the Hampton Court Conference 1, p. 68; 2, p. 339) with
representatives of the diverse religious groups to deal with the issue of
religious toleration. It was there that
the king authorized the making of a new translation to solve intense bickering
among the diverse religious groups over which translation was the best. The king would allow the new translation only
under the condition that he lay down the main requirements to be followed by
the translators and that they be strictly
observed. In 1607, the work officially
began 1, p. 68. Fifty-four scholars were selected (47 actually participated 3 and were divided into six groups
1, p. 68; 3). Each group was assigned different portions of
Scripture to be translated. Each group
was to then pass its work to the other groups to be reviewed and revised. The work was completed in two years and nine
months, and the first edition was printed in 1611 A.D. The KJV at that time was the best translation
available and represented the best of biblical scholarship and literary
excellence. Be that as it may, there are
many valid reasons why it is no longer the best translation available today.
Textual
basis
The area of textual basis seems to be a major
sticking point with those who advocate the superiority of the KJV over all
other translations. Before some of their
main arguments are addressed, it is important to know a little about what texts
the KJV translators had to work with during the time of their translation, what
texts modern translators have to work with today, and to know a little about
manuscript families.
At the time of translation, there were only four
Hebrew manuscripts (Massoretic, so-called because these are Hebrew MSS that
were copied by the Massorites) of the Old Testament available to the
translators 3. Only one of the five major uncial (Greek MS in all capital letters –
indicating its age because this was the style of copying from the 1st
– 9th centuries 1,
pp. 16-17) manuscripts of the Greek New Testament was available in
1611 4. In total, the
translators had only about 25 Greek manuscripts 4 to work with, and all of these originating no earlier
than the 10th century AD (with
the exception of the one uncial). 5
Since the KJV was completed, whole Greek MSS (manuscripts) of the NT dating back to
the fourth century AD and partial MSS dating back to the early second century
have been discovered 5 (e.g.
Codex Sinaiticus – 340 AD, Codex Vaticanus – 350 AD, codex Alexandrius
– 450 AD, Codex of Eaphream – 450 AD) 6; 1, pp. 18-22,72. We
now have around 5,400 Greek manuscripts and fragments, some dating as early as
the second century AD 4. Besides the discovery of many older Greek
MSS, many older NT versions (translations
of the NT into other languages) have been discovered since the time of the
KJV. As far as the Old Testament goes,
we have discovered a few Massoretic MSS of the OT that are a little older than
those used by the KJV translators. Also,
the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947.
These contain portions of the Hebrew OT that date as far back as 200 BC. These predate the Hebrew MSS that the KJV
translators had in there possession by over 1,000 years. Clearly, the textual evidence in our
possession today greatly exceeds what the KJV translators had.
There are basically three major families of Greek
MSS of the NT. They are called families
because all of the MSS of a particular family share similar traits (phraseology, spelling, and grammatical
peculiarities) and can presumably be traced back to the same MS copy. As a MS is copied, there are bound to be
mistakes made by the scribe in copying.
As copies of this copied MS are made, the later copies would share the
same mistakes as the previous copy.
These would form a family. All
MSS can basically be traced down to three distinct groups/families. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (“received text” – This is a term coined to
refer to the Greek texts printed by Erasmus, Stephanus,
Beza, and others. They are all based on and
essentially similar to Erasmus’ printed text.). The “Textus Receptus” is a descendent of the
Byzantine family [actually, this is not
completely true because one of the half dozen MSS that Erasmus had to work with
was independent of the Byzantine tradition] and, therefore shares many of
the similarities of the other Byzantine MSS.
The majority of our MSS belong to the Byzantine family. The earliest Byzantine MSS date only to
around 500 AD. The number of MSS in
agreement with each other does not necessarily equal textual certainty. There may be a thousand MSS in agreement with
one another on a particular reading, but if they can all be traced back to the
same MS copy which is believed to be in error on that particular reading, then
the majority of MSS would be in error on this reading. However, most of our oldest manuscripts such
as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Ephreami belong to
the Alexandrian family. 6
The argument is often put forth (by those who try to establish the
superiority of the KJV over modern translations) that the KJV is based on a
better Greek text. This is probably one
of their biggest gripes about modern translations. The argument usually goes something like
this:
The
KJV is based on the Textus Receptus.
Modern translations rely heavily on three or four much older manuscripts
(i.e., the codex Sinaiticus – 340 AD,
codex Vaticanus – 350 AD, codex Alexandrius – 450 AD,
and the Ephreami Rescriptus
– 450 AD). Even though the Textus
Receptus is of a later origin, it is considered to be more accurate than
manuscripts of much earlier origin because it comes from the Byzantine family,
which was used more by the churches.
Think about it. The reason why we
do not have any Byzantine texts of earlier origin is that since they were used
more, they would naturally wear out quicker and not last as long. The reason why the older texts we have today
lasted as long as they did is because they were not used by the churches as
much (if at all) in their services,
and this, no doubt, was because they weren’t considered as reliable. If you had two Bibles and you knew one to be
more accurate than the other, which one would you use and which would you keep
on the shelf? You’d use the more
reliable one and shelve the less accurate one.
Consequently, the less reliable one would last longer since it was kept
on the shelf, and the more accurate one would wear out quicker since it got
used more. In defense of the KJV, John
Morris puts it this way: ‘The fact that these two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) may have been
older does not prove they are better.
More likely, it indicates that they were set aside because of their
numerous errors. Thus they would naturally
last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly’. 7
This argument is an attempt to judge the motives
and intentions of those who last held the Bible MSS before they were
rediscovered. It is based entirely on
faulty logic and speculation and has no historic record as evidence to prove
it. Through such speculation, the
contrary can be quite effectively argued.
One could say that the very reason an older MS was placed on the shelf
is because it was thought to be the most accurate and, therefore, the most
valuable. Instead of being employed for
daily use, it was put away for safe-keeping.
Since it was considered more accurate and more valuable, a different
copy was made and put into common use while the more valuable MS was put back
on the shelf for safe keeping. The valuable MS was eventually forgotten since
it had been stored away for safe keeping.
That is why the MS lasted so long. Before the printing press (especially near the time of the original
writing of the NT), copies of the NT were rare because of the tedious and
time-consuming process of hand copying.
If I were alive at that time and had in my possession a MS I knew to be
extremely accurate, I would take much better care of it than I would of a MS I
deemed less accurate. Such is all
speculation though.
The most logical and plausible conclusion regarding
the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and other older MSS is that since they
are older and, therefore, closer to the time of the original writings, they
more accurately reflect the original documents of the NT (especially when in unanimous agreement with one another on a
particular reading). Unlike the
argument speculating on motives and intentions, this argument is based on the
known nature of copying by hand and the effects that time gaps tend to have on
the reproduction of a work of literature.
The Greek New Testament was handed down to us through hand copying. Through the process of hand copying, there
are bound to be errors made in copying.
The passage of time and repeated copying only multiplies those errors (Have you ever played “telephone” – where
people line up and the first person whispers something into the second person’s
ear and so on down the line until you get to the last person?). This explains why no two MSS in our
possession today are exactly the same.
Since there are less copies and less time in between the older MSS and
the original Bible documents, they are more likely to be the most accurate.
Others attempt to vilify such ancient MSS as the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by saying that they were the works of heretics (false teachers) who purposefully
mutilated the texts to support their false teaching. They claim that the Alexandrian church was
the most heretical in its beliefs. Codex
Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and others originated from this church. Also, if you were to take just a few verses
in the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephremi and compare
the three MSS with each other, you would find many disagreements between the
three. These are supposed to be the
oldest and most reliable texts, but how can we trust them because they are in
such disagreement with each other? What
the KJV-only supporters fail to tell you, however, is
that in over 99% of the cases, the “disagreements” have to do with mere differences
in spelling or word order and in no way affect the actual meaning of the
sentences. The KJV-only supporters say
that the texts the KJV is based on are in complete agreement with each other.
However, if you were to randomly take a few of the many Byzantine MSS and
compare them with each other, you’d find just as many “disagreements”. So their claim that “the texts that the KJV
translators had were in complete agreement” is just plain false. In fact, in the 1611 KJV, the translators
actually point out in some of their marginal notes that the MSS in their
possession did not agree with one another on certain readings 8; 9. Later, this issue
will be addressed more.
KJV defenders also like to point to small textual
variations between the TR (Textus Receptus)
and older MSS through the use of verse comparisons between readings in the KJV
and readings in modern versions (e.g.,
“the KJV has “judgment seat of Christ” for Rom. 14:10, while the NASB, based on
older MSS, has “judgment seat of God.”
By the way, this was not a conspiracy on the part of the NASB
translators to de-emphasize Christ because they translate 2 Cor.
While there is no real evidence to suggest that the
texts behind which the modern translations are based are unreliable, there is
clear evidence to question the reliability of the TR, the text on which the KJV
is based. Allow me to quote Daniel
Wallace:
The
Greek text which stands behind the KJV is demonstrably inferior in certain
places. The man who edited the text was
a humanist named Erasmus. He was under
pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the
Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that some
monks were just about to publish their edition of the Greek New Testament and
he was in a race to beat them. Consequently,
his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of
literature! It is filled with hundreds
of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus
had no Greek MS (he only used half a
dozen, very late MSS for the whole NT anyway). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’
the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have
never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might
have been. Secondly, for I John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in
reading ‘there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the
blood.’ However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text
did not read ‘there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Spirit.’ Erasmus said that he
did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that
reading. This implicit challenge – viz. [namely], that if he found such a
reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text – did not go
unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at
Lightfoot confirms this in How We Got The Bible p. 37.
Ironically, one of the big gripes of many KJV-only
advocates is that modern translations leave out the phrase “the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Spirit” from 1 John 5:7-8, as if it were some large conspiracy on
the part of modern translators to destroy the teaching of the trinity (which it is not. There are plenty of places
in the Bible to back up the teaching of the trinity). Evidently, they are unaware that the textual
evidence simply does not support the trinitarian reading of 1 John 5:7-8.
[Note: The
above arguments over textual basis deal primarily with the New Testament. There is usually little debate about the
textual basis behind the Old Testament of modern translations because both
modern translations and the KJV use the Hebrew Massoretic texts (so-called because these are Hebrew MSS that
were copied by the Massorites) as their basis. However, the 1995 updated edition of the NASB
makes use of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which would give it an advantage (in terms of textual basis) over the
KJV, since some of the Dead Sea Scrolls predate by over 1,000 years the Hebrew
MSS that the KJV translators had to work with.]
At the time of the KJV translation, there was no
science of textual criticism 11.
(Textual criticism is also known as lower
criticism, the goal of which is to recover the exact words of the author’s
original composition by comparison and study of all the available
evidence. Scribes tend to make errors in
copying and add words and phrases. “The New Testament
text-critic seeks, in short, to weed out the chaff of bad readings from the
genuine Greek text” 1,
pp. 28-29). Because of the science of textual criticism
and the discoveries of many older manuscripts, the Greek and Hebrew texts of
today more closely represent the original Bible text than do the texts of King
James’ day.
Keep in mind that in this whole discussion about
differences and variations in the Greek MSS, we are dealing with a very small
portion of the New Testament. There is
very little in doubt as to what was part of the original autographs (original Bible documents written by the
apostles and associates), and we can be confident in the Bible we have
today regardless of what MS family it comes from. Of all the MSS and families, where there are
significant differences (differences
beyond mere spelling or orthography), these differences make up less than
one half of one percent. We know where
in our text these differences exist so that we can be absolutely certain about
the authenticity of the rest of the text.
Even where there are significant differences between MSS, none
contradicts or alters any basic point of Christian doctrine 1; 9; 10. One can be saved and come to the fundamental
beliefs of the Christian faith no matter which translation he reads.
Knowledge
of the original languages
“In the seventeenth
century, Greek and Hebrew had only recently become subjects of serious study” 1, p.73. Our knowledge of the original languages of
the Bible (Greek and Hebrew) has
dramatically increased since the time of the KJV translation. Many archaeological finds and recent
discoveries have shed much light on the meanings of words and the rules of
grammar in Greek and Hebrew 4. In 1611, the KJV translators only knew of
classical Greek. The New Testament was written in Koine (common) Greek, so-called because it was the dialect of the common
man in everyday usage at the time the NT was penned. It was the common trade language throughout
the
The
character and beliefs of those behind the translations
KJV supporters often oppose modern translations
because they say that these translations are the work of liberal scholars. They say that B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort (two
Based on this logic, we should reject the KJV as
well. First of all, the KJV
relied heavily upon a printed edition of the Greek NT compiled by Desiderius Erasmus 9. Erasmus was a humanist and a Roman Catholic 12. Erasmus was into the occult – he was involved
in kaballism and astrology 12. Erasmus also
was openly opposed to evangelical Christianity 13.
Second, it was King James I who commissioned and
authorized the KJV. He personally laid
down the guidelines and instructions as to how the KJV was to be
translated. King James was an open
homosexual and often engaged in drinking binges 14. If anyone’s
prejudices were likely to show up in a Bible translation, it would be King
James’ prejudices, and it would be the KJV that would be corrupted as a result.
Third, the KJV was a product of the Church of
England. The translators were members of
the Church of England which taught such erroneous doctrines as infant baptism,
baptism by sprinkling (instead of
immersion), and baptismal regeneration (the
teaching that faith in Christ as Savior is not enough to be forgiven of one’s
sins and be saved, but that one must also be baptized).
A favorite argument that KJV supporters like to
make is that modern translations corrupt the Word of God and attack such
fundamental doctrines as the trinity, the Deity of Christ, the inspiration of
Scripture, etc. They will pick out certain
verses in the KJV and compare them with the same verses in modern translations (as has already been mentioned, but bears
repeating in order to deal in depth with this specific issue) and then
proceed to show where modern translations “omitted” and/or “changed” certain
words. Such comparisons are then touted
as “proof” that any translations made from modern
Greek editions (like Wescott & Hort’s or Nestle’s, both of which
take into consideration the older MSS) are corrupted. In the words of Gary Hudson, “Very rarely is
the true manuscript evidence of such variations discussed by KJV-onlys; they simply assume a text is “wrong,” not because it
differs from what may have been original, but because it differs from the
TR/KJV!” 16
Here is an example of such verse comparison:
Matt. 19:16-17 in the KJV says, “And behold, one
came, and said unto him, Good Master,
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him,
Why callest
thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God…” The NASB (following the better manuscript evidence)
reads: “And someone came to Him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do
that I may obtain eternal life?’ And He
said to him, ‘Why are you asking Me about what is
good? There is only One who is good…’”
“See,” says the KJV defender, “They removed the
word ‘good’ from ‘teacher’ and the words ‘that is God’. This is clear evidence of an attack on the
Deity of Christ!”
This is hardly the case, as the NASB translates a
parallel passage, Mark 10:17-18, “…A man ran up to him and knelt before him, and
asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is
good except God alone.’” See also Luke 18:18-19 in the NASB. The likely explanation for the different
reading of Matt 19 in the KJV is that some later scribe noticed that it did not
conform with the other parallel passages and attempted
to “correct” it.
The KJV-only argument actually works both
ways. By comparing verses to see what
has been “omitted”, we can “prove” that the KJV “attacks” the Deity of
Christ. The NASB in Jude 25 reads: “to
the only God our Savior, through Jesus
Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and
forever.” The KJV says, “To the only
wise God our Saviour, be
glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever.” Not only does the TR/KJV leave out “through
Jesus Christ our Lord”, it also leaves out the phrase “before all time.” “See, there it is, black-and-white proof that
the KJV denies not only the Lordship of Christ, but also the doctrine of His
pre-existence.” Such arguments are
obviously ridiculous. Consequently,
there is extremely good manuscript evidence to back up the NASB reading “before
all time” (Gk. “pro pantos
tou aionos”). Dr. Bruce Metzger states, “Several of the
later uncials, as well as most minuscules (followed by the Textus Receptus), omit
‘pro pantos tou aionos’, perhaps because the expression did not seem to be
appropriate in a doxology. The words are strongly supported by [Gk. MSS] Aleph, A, B, C, L, 5, 378,
436, 467, 623, 808, 1827, 1845, 1852, vg, and [NT versions] syr(h), cop(sa,bo), arm(eth), Ephraem.” 17
Archaic
language
Besides having an inferior textual basis, another
weakness of the KJV is the fact that the language it uses is quite outdated
and, consequently, makes it very difficult for modern English speakers to
comprehend. The English language has changed quite a bit since the writing of
the KJV. As a result, the KJV is full of archaic words and phrases that are no
longer in use today. Many are still
intelligible, but are cumbersome and distracting. For example, “howbeit,” “holden,”
“peradventure,” “wherefor,” “wheresoever,”
“whither,” “whence,” “henceforth,” “aforetime,” “because that,” “for that,”
“haply,” “verily,” “thee,” “thou,” “thine,” etc. Other words are hardly intelligible. For those who say they have no problem
understanding the KJV, could they please tell me what the following words mean. I challenge
them to find them in a modern dictionary:
Agone –
1 Sam. 30:13; Alamoth – 1 Chron. 15:20; Almug – 1 Kings 10:11-12; Asswage – Job
16:5; Astonied
– Ezra 9:4; Bewray – Isa. 16:3; Prov. 29:24; Cocle – Job 31:40; Collop – Job 15:27; Lowring – Matt.
16:3; Neesing – Job 41:18; Pressfat – Hag. 2:16; Scall – Lev. 13:30-37;
14:54.
Grammar changes including sentence structure and
word order also make reading the KJV cumbersome and difficult at times. Where
we might say, “Don’t go there.”, the KJV might say
something like, “Go ye not there.” In
the KJV, “which” is used for “who” (e.g.,
Phil.
Words
have changed meaning
Not only is the KJV full of obsolete language, but
many of the words in the KJV that are still being used today have dramatically
changed meaning so as to make the KJV misleading, if not, unintelligible in
some places. Below are a few examples.
¨ “Allege” meant “to produce as evidence or to prove” (e.g. Acts 17:3 – KJV). Now it means “to claim or assert without proof.”
¨ “To let” meant “to hinder” (e.g., 2 Thes. 2:7 – KJV). Now it means “to permit.”
¨
“To prevent” meant “to precede”
(e.g., Matt.
¨
“Conversation” meant “manner of living” (e.g., Gal.
¨
The KJV (in
Matt.
¨
The KJV (in
Acts
¨ The KJV (in Acts 28:13) has “we fetched a compass” for “we sailed around.”
¨
The KJV (in
Lk.
¨
The KJV (in
Acts
¨
The KJV (in
Acts 17:3) has “must needs have” for “had to.” 1, pp. 74-75
The
KJV has more than 300 such words. 18
One would be hard pressed to explain the meaning of
“Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels” (2 Cor.
Even if the KJV rested on a better text base (which it does not, as has been previously
demonstrated. Besides if it did, the differences would be very minor anyway.),
the use of archaic language would nullify many times over any advantages that a
better text base would give it. What
good does it do to have an accurate text base if you can’t understand the
language?
KJV
is a revision of previous translations
Many supporters of the KJV are unaware of the fact
that it is not an original translation.
The 1611 KJV was never intended to be a new translation, but merely a
revision of previous translations. “The
scholars were instructed to revise the Bishops’ Bible, changing it only where
required by the original Hebrew or Greek, using earlier translations where
these were closer to the originals. In
practice, the translators made extensive use of the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles,
and the
Here are some specific instructions issued by King
James I to the translators:
“The
ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be
followed, and as little altered as the original will permit. These translations to be
used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. [namely] Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s,
Matthew’s, Wilchurche’s,
The
KJV translators themselves state this in “The Translators to the Readers” (published in the preface of the original printing
of the 1611 Authorized King James Version): “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that
we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good
one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal
good one…”
The KJV was itself a revision of a previously
existing version – the Bishop’s Bible (1602
ed.), which was, in turn, a revision of the Great Bible (1539), which was, in turn, a revision
of Matthew’s Bible (1537), which, in turn,
was a revision of Coverdale’s Bible (1535)
and Tyndale’s Bible (1534) – Lightfoot, pp. 66-68. Neil R. Lightfoot in his book, How We Got
the Bible, states that “nine-tenths of Tyndale’s translation is preserved
today in the King James Version” (p. 70).
KJV
of today is not the same as the 1611 edition
Many who say that only the KJV should be used in
public worship and preaching sometimes point out that if we allowed for the use
of more modern translations in public worship and preaching, then it would throw
the churches into confusion and divide the body of Christ. The reason being, there are so many new
translations that church members wouldn’t know which to choose and would have a
hard time following the preacher if they happened to have a different version
in their hands than the preacher was using.
However, if we decided to use the KJV, we would have the same
problem. The question would be: “Which
King James Version should we use, the 1st 1611 edition, the 2nd
1611 ed., the 1613 ed., the 1629 ed., the 1638 ed., etc. ??!!”
Many KJV supporters are unaware of the fact that
there have been numerous revisions of the 1611 KJV. The “Authorized Version” that most people
hold in their hand is quite different from the “Authorized Version” published
in 1611. There were revisions published
in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769, 1850, and others 3. The one in most common use today is basically the
same as the 1769 edition. Since 1611,
many errors have been found and corrected.
(Yes, the original 1611 version
actually had errors in it! There were so
many that it was necessary to publish a new edition in 1613. The 1613 edition
contained more than 400 variations from the original 1611 version 1. Since that time, many other errors have been
found and corrected. “As early as 1659,
William Kilborne found 20,000 errors in six KJV
editions.” 4). Many changes have
been made as well. Most involve changes
in spelling, but there are many significant changes as well.
A few familiar passages:
¨
Matt.
¨ John 3:7 (1611 KJV) – “Marueile
not that I saide vnto thee,
Ye must be borne againe.”
¨ John
Some significant changes:
¨ 2 Kings
¨ 1 Chron. 7:5 (1611)
– “were men of might.” Current KJV – “were men of valiant
might.”
¨ Matt.
¨ 1 John
KJV
translators didn’t consider the translation infallible
Some KJV-only advocates go so far as to say that
the KJV translators were inspired by God and that the KJV is the inerrant,
inspired Word of God in English, the final authority. Some go even further and say that the KJV is
the only true, inerrant, inspired Word of God and more accurate than the Greek
text on which it stands! Obviously, such
claims are unfounded (not to mention just
plain ridiculous). As has already
been pointed out many errors have been found in the KJV, necessitating many
subsequent revisions. Not only that, but
the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha (pseudo-scriptures
inserted by the Catholics into the OT in 1546 AD). So to say that the 1611 KJV is THE Word of God is to also say that the
Apocryphal books are also the Word of God!
No God-fearing Protestant or Jew would ever make this claim. This is an important point because KJV-onlys like to criticize older translations like the Latin Vulgate
(Latin translation from the 4th
cent.) and the Alexandrian Septuagint (Greek
OT) because they contain the Apocrypha.
The translators were evidently unaware that they
were inspired by God. Speaking of their
translation in the preface of the 1611 KJV, “The Translators to the Readers,”
the translators acknowledged: “For
whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that
is men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged
with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?” (This is a rhetorical question, meaning in modern English: “Nothing
that mere men do here on earth is perfect, with the exception of what the
apostles and their associates did under the power of the Holy Spirit, who
guided their hands so that what they wrote was infallible.”)
The original 1611 KJV contained marginal notes
offering more precise or alternate translations (e.g., it indicates in Acts
One of the arguments put forth by the KJV-only
crowd has to do with the marginal notes in modern translations. They claim that the use of marginal notes in
modern translations is likely to destroy people’s confidence in the Bible. To put notes in the margin offering alternate
meanings can cause confusion as to what God has to say to us. Even worse, to put in marginal notes that say
things like “Many older MSS do not contain the words…” or “some MSS add…” can
cause people to wonder if their Bible is trustworthy. It can cause them to
doubt the Bible and maybe even doubt their faith. Some KJV-only people even insinuate evil
intentions on the part of the translators.
They say, “Modern translators put such footnotes in there in order to
cause the reader to question and doubt God’s word.”
However, the KJV translators put the same kinds of
marginal notes in the 1611 Authorized Version.
For example, the 1611 KJV has a marginal note for Luke 17:36 that says, “This verse is wanting in most manuscripts.” For Luke 10:22, we see in the margin, “Most
manuscripts add these words…” For Acts
25:26, “Some copies read…” For Eph. 6:9,
James
Of course, these claims are clearly false. The purpose of marginal notes is to inform
the reader of the manuscript evidence and to give possible alternate meanings
so that the reader can gain a greater understanding of God’s word and be aware
of the MS evidence. As has been pointed
out, the KJV translators made extensive use of marginal notes for such
purposes. There are over 8,000 marginal
notes in the 1611 version, including the Apocrypha. In the OT, 4,111 of the marginal notes give
the more literal meaning of the Hebrew or Aramaic, 2,156 give alternative
translations, and 67 give variant readings.
In the NT, 112 give the literal rendering of the Greek, 582 give
alternative translations and 37 give variant readings. 19
KJV
translators were in favor of having a current translation
The KJV translators recognized the rapidly changing
nature of the English language. They
also realized that our knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is continually
expanding. Their desire was to provide a
translation that was most accurate and “understandable” to the people of their
time. They wanted a translation that
reflected the changes in the English language.
They expressed this desire in their preface, “The Translators to the
Readers”, “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be
the word, or forbidden to be current,
notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the
setting forth of it” (emphases mine). [It is interesting to point out again that
they recognized that there were likely to be errors in their translation (which there were), but that this was no
reason to not have a current translation.]
The translators also wrote: “But we desire that the Scripture may speak
like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of
the very common people.” Ironically,
they also argued against the use of obscure language which keeps a translation
from being understood such as that used in the Roman Catholic’s English
translation of 1582 15.
It is for these very same reasons that the KJV
translators stated for making their version of the Bible that many modern
translations are made today. Should the
common man be denied a translation that makes the Bible more understandable to
him?
KJV
translators were in favor of having multiple translations
Many KJV supporters are opposed to the use of other
translations in the churches and argue that it would throw the churches into
confusion and divide the body of Christ.
Perhaps, they should take a bit of advice from the men who authored the
work they hold so dear. “The KJV translators quoted Augustine in their
preface. ‘Variety of
Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures’”
15; 20. In defense of other translations, the KJV
translators argued: “The translation of the Seventy differs from the original
in many places, neither does it come near it, for
perspicuity, gravity, majesty, yet which of the Apostles condemned it?” 15. Notice that the KJV translators actually
defended the Septuagint (“The Seventy”,
the Greek translation of the OT).
Some KJV-only people say that the Septuagint is Satan’s work and a
“fake” Bible (partly because it contains
the Apocrypha). Perhaps they should
realize that some of the passages in the NT that are quotes from the OT are
actually taken from the Septuagint. And
they should read what the KJV translators had to say about it themselves.
The KJV translators affirmed the validity of other
English translations: “Now to the latter (the
Puritans) we answer that we do not deny; nay we affirm, and avow that the
very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our
profession (for we have seen none of
theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the
word of God, nay is the word of God (“the
Translators to the Readers”).” To
say that we should do away with all other English translations and use only the
KJV is to go against the very reasoning of the KJV translators as to why there
should be another translation, namely, the KJV.
KJV
translators did not consider the KJV to be exempt from improvement
The translators wrote: “Truly (Good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that
we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good
one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal
good one, not justly to be excepted
against; that hath been our endeavor, that hath been our mark.” Their inclusion of the phrase “not justly to
be excepted against” shows that the translators did
not believe their work was exempt from improvement, or that another translation
would not be necessary at a later time.
The
KJV was not well received at first
KJV supporters are constantly attacking and
resisting modern translations. They
often point to the popularity of the KJV.
It is interesting to note that the KJV was not well received at
first. “The KJV was
initially opposed by the Puritans, the Geneva Bible being preferred” 18. The Geneva Bible was actually the most
“popular” Bible of the common people, until the 1640’s. Many questioned the new version as to its
accuracy and as to the need for a new translation 15. The very same
people who defend the KJV today would have probably opposed the KJV in 1611 had
they been alive then.
Conclusion
The KJV of the Bible is not only not the only true
version of God’s Word but, in fact, is not the best version.