• Scripture

    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…

  • Scripture

    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: Translation rules 1, 6, and 14 are interesting. Rule #1 mandated that their translation use the Bishop’s Bible as a base text whenever possible. This was likely because the Bishop’s translation was the official Bible of the Church. However, Tyndale’s translation ended up being far more influential, accounting for 4/5 (80%) of the KJV New Testament. Rule #6 mandated no study notes in the margins of the new translation. The Geneva Bible (which was the most popular English translation of the time) had many marginal notations, some of which King James read as challenges to his royal authority. This was the main motivation for a new translation. Thus, the KJV translation was limited from study notes. Translation rule…

  • Scripture

    Bible Translations and the Myth of a Literal Translation

    Bible translations are traditionally classified as literal-formal or dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is normally used to refer to translations which attempt to emphasize the meaning of phrases rather than each individual word (NIV is often used as an example). Literal-formal equivalence is touted as emphasizing a word-for-word approach, and trying to be more objective in its translation (KJV and NASB are common examples). Although Bible versions are often referred to as either dynamic or literal-formal, I think it is too simplistic to refer to translations in an “either/or” kind of way. The truth is, there is no such thing as a completely literal-formal translation. Any time you have one language being translated into another, you have idioms, grammatical irregularities, and vocabulary discrepancies that are impossible to translate in a one-for-one correspondence. In addition to that, you also have certain cultural oddities that can be confusing. One such example of cultural…