Seven Posts about the King James Version
I have done a fair bit of reading, research, and writing on the King James Version. Part of the reason I have spent much time on the issue is because I have often heard the teaching that modern English Bible translations are theologically dangerous. I have had many charitable exchanges with friends who have argued that we should only use the King James Version, and my heart desires people to think biblically and accurately about Bible translations. Thus, I thought it would be helpful to list all of the posts I have written about the King James Version for easy accessibility. In light of this, the following posts deal with various issues pertaining to the King James Version and Bible translation in general.
1. Thou Shalt Not Only Use the King James Version
This post acts as an introduction to the King James Version and briefly discusses why it is not possible that the translators of the King James Bible were inspired by God. Anyone can prefer the KJV, but it is seriously incorrect to say that the King James Version is the only Bible that should be used.
2. Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)?
Because some people argue that the King James Version is inspired, it is necessary to show that there are errors in the KJV. This post briefly highlights some of the discrepancies between the original 1611 King James Version, and the modern 1769 translation.
3. Common Arguments from Those Who Hold to KJV Only
This post examines some of the common arguments that are put forward by those who advocate the King James Version as the only translation that Christians should use. These arguments include the idea that new translations are part of a conspiracy to corrupt God’s Word.
4. The Received Text, the KJV, and Erasmus
This post goes into the background of the King James Version, specifically talking about what is often called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus). A short history lesson helps us understand why the King James Version reads differently in some places than newer translations.
5. 15 Rules of Translation for the King James (KJV)
This post looks at the rules which regulated the translators of the King James Version. It demonstrates that the translators were not trying to create a newly inspired Word of God. Rather, they were more or less collating other good English translations into one main translation.
6. Can We Trust Our Bible Translations?
Although not dealing specifically with the King James Version, it is a natural question which comes when studying these issues.
7. Bible Translations and the Myth of a Literal Translation
This is a natural topic that people wonder about. Often the debate is framed as dynamic equivalence versus literal translations. But, that is a bit too simplistic as this post discusses.
Peter Goeman
Peter serves at Shepherd's Theological Seminary in Cary, NC as the professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages. He loves studying the Bible and helping others understand it. He also runs The Bible Sojourner podcast and Youtube channel.
One Comment
Paul Artale
You present seven false and easily-refuted beliefs:
I) The KJV translators were inspired
Ignoratio elenchi (strawman); people don’t believe this.
II) Orthography changes since 1611 are errors
Strawman; corrected typos don’t invalidate a translation’s text.
III) KJBB Common Arguments are wrong: i. God didn’t promise an inerrant Bible; ii. Isaiah 13.15 [“captured” not “joined”] and Hebrews 10.23 [“hope” not “faith”] are errors; iii. there is a conspiracy to corrupt God’s “Word”.
The first is refuted by Psalm 12.6-7, Isaiah 34.16, Matthew 24.35, etc.; the second is ipse dixit (your personal preference); the third by scripture (II Corinthians 2.17, AV).
IV) The “Received Text” [TR] must also be inerrant
Non sequitur; an inerrant “TR” (there isn’t even a single “TR” anyway) is not a necessary condition for an inerrant KJB.
V) Per the 15 Translation Rules, the KJB was merely a compilation of prior English versions
Suppressed evidence (cherry-picking); it was a full translation out of the original tongues.
VI) New versions based on modern textual criticism [MTC] are trustworthy
MTC is a foolish man-centred philosophy of Original Autographs Onylism (OAO). Do you have any scripture which says only the original writings were inspired?
VII) Perfect translation is impossible
Daniel 5.24-28 is one example of a perfect translation and there are many more in the Bible. It is surprising you believe this.
Do you believe the ESV (or any other version or collection of writings you prefer) are the scriptures today given your OAO faith?