-
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…
-
The Received Text, the KJV, and Erasmus
We can’t talk about the KJV without talking about the Received Text (often called the Textus Receptus, or TR for short). The Received Text is the Greek text which underlies the KJV. It is called the Received Text because that was the phrase used in the introduction of the Elzevir brothers 2nd edition of their Greek New Testament in 1633. The phrase “Received Text” became a moniker to refer to the Greek text from Erasmus in 1516 on. This Greek text is largely different from the Greek text which underlies the modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.). Why does that matter? Modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, etc) use a translation philosophy which is usually called an “eclectic approach,” This means they evaluate over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, looking at patterns, external and internal evidence, and thereby determining what the original Greek manuscript read. Some of these manuscripts that are utilized in the…
-
Common Arguments from Those Who Hold to KJV Only
In the last two posts we have discussed some of the problems with holding to the KJV as the only translation that should be used today. The first post addressed the general background of the translators who worked on the KJV. The second post looked at differences between the 1611 KJV and the modern KJV. Today I want to address some of the common arguments that are used by those who hold to the KJV only position. 1. There has to be a Bible version that is completely inerrant, hence God gave us the KJV. There are multiple problems with this. First, is it true that God has to give us an inerrant translation? No, God never promised us an inerrant translation. He promises His Words are perfect and inerrant (which is in the form of the original text). However, saying that God has to now provide an inerrant translation…
-
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)?
Last time we looked at some of the reasons why one should not hold to a view that the KJV is the only version Christians should use. Today I want to go deeper into the issue and look at the KJV itself. We will note some of the corrections that have been made from the original publication to the modern version. The KJV was originally published in 1611 by translators who followed 15 principles of translation. However, as the years past, the KJV (also known as the Authorized Version) was in serious need of an update. Because English grammar and spellings had changed, in 1762 a Cambridge printer, Joseph Bentham, made many revisions. These revisions updated the spellings, punctuation, and the like. However, this version never caught on because the printing impressions were largely destroyed by fire. In 1769, however, Benjamin Blayney, took Bentham’s revisions and incorporated them into his…
-
Thou Shalt Not Only Use the King James Version
My first Bible growing up was the King James version. I did not only use the KJV, but I memorized all my verses in the King James version and I learned much reading through its stories. Then, one day my parents got me the New King James version. It was a lot easier to read, and I memorized more verses. Years later, in high school I switched to the New American Standard Version. After college, I decided to make the switch to the English Standard Version. Thus, I have run the version gamut. In high school I first ran across people who said that you should only use the King James Version. This always struck me as a bit odd, but I better understand now where they were coming from. It is important to differentiate between two groups. First, there are people who only use the KJV because that is…
-
15 Rules of Translation for the King James (KJV)
When King James commissioned the King James Version, he approved 15 principles of translation which were instituted by Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London in 1604. These translation principles are as follows: The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith. The Division of the Chapters to be…
-
Does Your Theology Start with Jesus? I Hope Not.
Jesus is to be recognized as sovereign Lord in the church. But, is it justified to start with Jesus when it comes to forming theology? Many Christians affirm just that. For example, I was once listening to a podcast and the subject was raised about how we formulate our theology. One speaker said something like, “We must get our theology from the life and person of Jesus who is God incarnate. If your theology does not match with who he is, then go back to him and start over.” In the above podcast, one of the reasons this particular individual wanted to start with Jesus was to deny the validity of other parts of Scripture that seem to be quite clear. For example, this individual rejected places in the OT where God commands Israel to eliminate other nations, including children (e.g., 1 Sam 15). His reasoning was, “I cannot imagine…
-
Should Christians Quote the Bible to Unbelievers?
I remember reading an article by Matt Walsh, conservative blogger and devout Catholic, entitled, “When Christians Shouldn’t Quote the Bible.” In his article, he made a fairly bold statement: I contend that Christians should not appeal to the Bible when arguing with unbelievers about political and cultural topics. There is no need to quote Scripture when trying to explain, for example, why it’s wrong to kill babies. You don’t need to pull out Genesis to convince someone that a man in a dress isn’t a woman. It’s not necessary to mine the Epistles in order to advocate for free speech rights. And if your interlocutor doesn’t believe in the Bible, then this appeal to authority is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. You have now turned a conversation about logic, reason, or science, into a theological debate with a person who rejects the entire premise of your theology (emphasis added). Walsh…
-
The Danger of a Bible Cross Reference
We cross reference all the time. A cross reference is simply using one text of Scripture to understand another text. But is it always good to cross reference? Consider the following situation. Let’s say a friend or neighbor comes up to you and says, “The Bible is clear that baptism is necessary for salvation.” Now, you may be immediately put off by such a suggestion, but what if he goes on to quote Acts 2:38? Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” How would you respond to such a statement? Perhaps you would respond by saying, “We know that baptism is not necessary for salvation because of Ephesians 2:8-9.” Many will default to answering these issues with a cross reference like this. Although common,…
-
New Evidence for the Validity of the Text in Our Bibles
Two days ago, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Modern Technology Unlocks Secrets of a Damaged Biblical Scroll.” The sum of the story is as follows. Archaeologists found a badly damaged ancient scroll in En-Gedi around the Dead Sea in the 1970s. Until recently have been unable to read it due to its fragile condition. However, there is now a computer technology (spearheaded by the University of Kentucky) which allows this scroll (and others like it) to be read. This particular scroll has now been analyzed and contains the first two chapters of Leviticus. What is most amazing about the find, however, is that the experts who examined the scroll claim it is an exact match with the Masoretic text. The Mastoretic text refers to the Hebrew manuscripts which certain scribes, called the Masoretes, copied from the 6th to the 11th centuries. In other words, this En-Gedi scroll…