I have been reading the forum for a little while and have appreciated most of the insights and posts. This is my first question (or thread) however. I have been dealing with a controversy that is not new, but does seem to be rearing it's head again. It is the classic KJV-only position. I have done a lot of reasearch on the internet, but was wondering if anyone on the forum had heard of or read a good critique of the KJV and/or the Textus Receptus. I would appreciate any information you might have. If you like more specific information, e-mail me. Thank you! Trying to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, W. Keith Wood

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000

Answers

Keith;

I wrote an article for my web column not too long ago on this subject. If it doesn't answer your questions, at least it should start the topic off.

---

Often I hear people say that true Christians should only use the King James Version of the Bible, that it is the "Authorized" version and therefore "the very words of God for the English speaking world." Now I will by no means tell you that the KJV isn't "the very words of God" ... I believe it is!! I believe the King James Bible is a useful translation -- I use it when witnessing to cultists all the time! It is a version they accept and thus provides some common ground. It is also very poetic; definitely a literary masterpiece. But I also believe those very words of God also are in the other scholarly translations that exist out there.

Before proceeding any further, let's get some background perspective. In making their translation, the King James translators used the Textus Receptus, which was derived from only about half a dozen Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine family (a large family of several thousand manuscripts!), and the Latin Vulgate translation of the New Testament. Most contemporary translations (RSV, NASV, NIV, CEV, etc.) rely on manuscripts from the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean families as well as the Byzantine texts. In over 95 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical, word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining five percent, most of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Many are spelling variants, similar to the difference in spelling between the American "color" and the British "colour". Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and absolutely none of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-quarter of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.8% we agree on! So it is, almost literally, "much ado about nothing!"

Many KJV-only supporters put heavy emphasis on the word "Authorized," as in, "The King James version is the Authorized version of the Bible." The implication is that it is the only version of the Bible authorized by God for English speaking people, which is a misrepresentation. The King James Version is Authorized only in that King James authorized, or gave permission to, the translators to do the work, in a day when permission was needed from the king, who was the head of the Church of England. Technically, it was the THIRD such authorized Bible, the first being the Great Bible of 1539, and the second being the Bishops' Bible of 1568 (and the FOURTH being the Revised Version of 1881-85!). Others use the word "Authorized" as if it were synonymous with "authoritative" (which it is not!), as if to say, "The King James version is the only authoritative version of the Bible. This too is a misrepresentation.

Did God work through translators in 1611 but not today? The King James translators accepted the other existing English translations of their time - the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, et. al. - as the authoritative word of God (see below) ... why is it inconceivable that God continues to move men to make newer, more up- to-date translations? Why should we assume that God stopped with the King James Version?

I hear many KJV-only proponents say we must only accept the 1611 King James Version. If we are only to accept the 1611 King James Version, which "1611" version should we use? The one actually printed in 1611, or one of the numerous revisions done between 1611 and 1616? (Especially the one where the printer accidentally rendered Exodus 20:14, "Thou shalt commit adultery?") Or perhaps the 1629 revision? How about 1644? Or the 1701 revision (which added Bishop Usher's dating system)? Or perhaps the 1762 revision (which added the italic type, indicating words added by the translators not found in the original languages), or maybe the 1769 one (which, by the way, is the one you actually have in your hands today!)? And should we accept the Apocrypha? The 1611 edition of the KJV contains the Apocrypha! (In fact, it was not removed until 1644, because of objections by the Puritans)! And which modern publication of the KJV should we use, since there are minor variations between each publication?

Thankfully, the KJV was revised; you probably couldn't read the actual 1611 version today anyway. I've tried, its almost incomprehensible. The spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and use of italics have been changed throughout. For instance, John 3:7 in todays KJV (the 1769 revision) says, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." In 1611 it read, "Marueile not that I saide vnto thee, Ye must be borne againe."

To their credit, the 1611 translators, like modern translators, included marginal notes offering more precise or alternate translations. (For example, it indicated that "a worshipper" in Acts 19:35 is literally "the temple keeper" in Greek.) Also, verses which had poor manuscript support were noted, such as Luke 17:36. Unfortunately, all of their marginal notes and alternate readings have been removed from modern editions of the KJV. But the 1611 translators had no illusions that their work was by any means a perfect work. In fact they themselves said as much.

In the original 1611 edition, a section was printed from "The Translators to the Readers," which has also been removed from later editions. (It is excellent reading!!!) Here are some excerpts from that document which which are very enlightening, outlining how the original King James translators felt about their translation and about translations in general:

"We desire that the Scripture ... may be understood.... What can be more available thereto than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?" "[There is] No cause therefore why the Word ranslated 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." I have no doubt that were the King James translators alive today, they would undertake to make a modern, current translation in today's English, a "tongue which [we could] understand." They also understood that translating was a scholarly art, and imperfections would be present no matter how "perfect" you wanted a translation to be. They had no illusions that their translation was by any means "perfect."

Greek scholars have long noted that the Greek used in the New Testament was completely different from classic Greek. For centuries, the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were the only examples of this form of the language. It greatly puzzled Biblical linguists, who eventually decided that this form of Greek must be a special form, the "language of the Holy Spirit." Then about 100 years or so ago, in Alexandria, writings were found written in this form of Greek which proved that this Greek, the "language of the Holy Spirit," was the language of the common people. God spoke in the language of the common man! Why then should we assume, in the dawn of the third Millenium, that God no longer speaks to men in the language of the common man, but rather only in a form of the language 400 years dead, that few understand and most are confused by?

"... [a] variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." "We affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession ... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God." The King James translators had no concept of "King James only." They believed that since translating was a scholarly art, and not an exact word-for-word production (the construction of Greek, Hebrew and English being quite different), the more translations you could make use of the better you could grasp the sense of the original languages. Indeed, there was a great uproar when the KJV was published. The people who were using the Geneva Bible at that time were saying, "We already have the Word of God in English! We don't need another translation!" The same was being said by those who used Tyndale's translation and the Bishops' Bible. But the King James translators had no such exclusivism in mind, finding all scholarly translations to be profitable, and indeed, to be the Word of God.

Please realize I am not by any means bashing the KJV or saying one should not use it. If you want to use it, go for it! But I personally believe to say that the KJV is the only version an English- speaking person should ever use is presumptuous, legalistic and divisive, and is not supported by either good scholarship nor by the original translators of the KJV themselves.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000

John,

Good article!

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Yes, good article. Most KJV only folk I know, though, are really Textus Receptus only and that's a horse of a different color. In fact, I'm getting a headache just thinking about the discussion. Gotta go get an aspirin. Later!

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Thanks, John.

Very informative.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

By the way, John ~ did you notice that that information came from 'Calvin College'? That is my son, Tim's, alma mater. :-)

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Which information came from Calvin college? Never heard of the place before.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

I 'clicked' on the highlighted portion ('The Translators to the Reader') and printed out the message and a couple of the 'addenda', and at the end of each it says: "This document is from the 'Christian Classics Ethereal Library' at Calvin College", which is a Reformed School in Grand Rapids, MI.

Connie

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

As I mentioned on a previous thread here, the book "The King James Only Controversy" by a guy named named White is to me the best one which gives a more balanced view of the whole issue.

John's comments are good. This is a very difficult issue, especially in some parts of the US (like Florida, where Peter Ruckman lives). I had thought this was a peculiarly Baptist phenomena, but I guess it isn't. Beware, beware, beware. Some Independent Baptists are so into the "1611 KJV is the inspired word of God" thing that it borders on cultism.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

I really need to have notes when I post here. The name of the book I mentioned is "The King James Only Controversy", by James R. White. It should be found in any Christian bookstore.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Connie - Thats news to me. The CCEL used to be hosted by Wheaton College, but they recently moved to a new server but I didn't know where. A great resource no matter who's hosting it. I am currently using it to research Montanism. ("Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.")

John - I agree with you, it does border on cultism for a lot of them. Although I do have one friend in Kentucky who is a 1611-er, yet I have heard him on occasion quote from other versions. So its not homogeneous.

I noticed that a lot of 1611-ites are a bit conspiracy-theory oriented. They also seem to buy into a lot of "the Illuminati is in league with the Catholics and the Tri-lateral Commission" kind of wierd stuff ... stuff you see coming out of Chick publications and Texe Marrs' writings. "Lunatic fringe" would be my word for it.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Incidentally, James R. White has a website, "Alpha and Omega Ministries", that has a page devoted to the KJV-only controversy (http://www.aomin.org/kjvo.html).

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Thank you for you responses. John I appreciated your article. It was well written and contained good information. I have checked out White and some other websites and have found some good information. It is kind of ironic that the person (at least one of) who is spreading this in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ is out of Florida as well. Maybe he lives too close to Ruckman :)

I plan to do some more study, especially into textual criticism just so I am more prepared to answer questions and handle arguments.

Thanks again!

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

The Vice President of Summit Theological Seminary of Peru, In. has just written a booklet on the KJV. The author is Terry Carter. It is well written and is done is a "Frequent Ask Question" style. It is fair and very informative. I do not want to advertise it as far as price is concerned as that may not be allowed on the forum but you can call us or write us for more info. I think it may answer the sincere searcher. George L. Faull at Summit

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000