Issue:
Has God preserved His Word in English exclusively through the King James translation, or is His Word accurately translated for us in other versions as well?
What We Believe:
We joyfully and lovingly embrace The King James Version Bible, and yet, we most emphatically endorse other modern translations, such as The New International Version, The Amplified Bible, The New Living Translation, The New King James Version. Why? First of all, in order to have a basis for any reasonable discussion on this topic, we must first determine what the foundation or “Blueprint” for our belief really is. Should we rely entirely on a translation of the original, completed 400 years ago? Or rather, should we use the oldest manuscripts available, of which some are over 3000 years old? The Bible is God's Word, without error in its original autographs and supernaturally preserved by the power of God from the date of its writing to the present. Human authors were used to write down the Words of God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. God supernaturally inspired the writing of the Bible, through prophets and apostles in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These "original autographs" have been copied down through the centuries, and today we read reliable English translations of God's inspired Word. In fact, throughout the centuries, faithful copyists and translators have made it available in more languages than any other book in world history.
The Bible is God's specific revelation of Himself to humanity--a Book that describes not only who He is, but His work in and among people since the beginning. The Bible details the plan of God in creation and in redemption, and it alone is able to make the seeking soul "wise for salvation." The timeless truths of the Bible are just as relevant and meaningful today as they were in their original context, and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training people in righteousness, thoroughly equipping the reader for every good work. All that the Bible says is true historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually, every prophecy therein has or will be fulfilled, and every promise or principle therein will not return void. The Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice for the church, the government, and the individual. God's Word is to be respected, honored, studied, cherished, and obeyed by all people everywhere as they find upon its pages answers to life's deepest questions, real hope for the future, and most importantly, as they discover how to have a personal relationship with their Creator. (2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Tim. 3:15-17, Heb. 4:12, 1 Peter 1:23, Psalm 119).
The King James Only (KJO) position is a hotly-debated and emotionally-charged topic in many churches today, particularly in those that identify themselves as Independent or Fundamental Baptists. They suggest that the true Scripture is only available to English-speakers via the King James Bible, first translated in 1611. Their view believes that God preserved His Word through a particular line of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (Byzantine) and that all other manuscripts which differ from this "standard" must have been corrupted by anti-Christian forces in the past. Thus, modern translations which make use of such variant manuscripts are considered to be polluted.
Given the fact that most Christians today are woefully ignorant of church history, manuscript evidence, and the specifics of translation, this view has managed to cause much confusion and division within the body of Christ. Young believers are told that they cannot read their NIV or NKJV because "Satan wrote them" and that they must read the Shakespearean English translation of generations past. Those who complain that the text is hard to understand are told that they simply must learn to understand, and that the Bible shouldn't be ‘dumbed’ down. Yet this KJO position is flawed in its assumption that the King James Bible is the only reliable copy of God's Word in the English language, and this assumption has caused immeasurable harm both to new believers and the church as a whole. The following are “Claims” of the KJO position:
Claim #1 -- The modern translations are based upon corrupted sources (Alexandrian texts, etc.) that were not trusted or used by early believers, but were instead modified by Catholics, Arians, and the like.
ANSWER: This is a classic "debate from silence" that cannot be demonstrated historically. There is no evidence of this "corruption" that can be seen today, nor is there any way to prove that it took place. Proponents of the KJO position assert that various verses and doctrines were "removed by the pope," but they are unable to furnish viable proof of these assertions. Their statements show a grave misunderstanding of church history. KJO proponents argue that the early church used the texts upon which the King James Bible is based, and that through use, these have been worn out over the centuries...thus they are not available. They then claim that older manuscripts which are found must not be right because they are slightly different from the King James Bible. Again, the argument from silence does not prove anything, and the fact that KJO proponents must resort to such tactics shows the weak foundation upon which their theory is built. The only true evidence we have is in the present, and so it is prudent to diligently compare translations and manuscripts to see if they are corrupted by non-Christian sources.
Claim #2 -- The modern translations weaken key doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the virgin birth, blood of Christ, deity of Christ, and perfection of Christ.
ANSWER: These claims can be tested easily by comparing the modern translations with the translations of old. For example, a person growing up under the teaching of the New International Version, in this view, should come to different doctrinal conclusions than someone who grew up in a King James Only environment. However, this is not the case. The most notable translations of the Bible (King James, New King James, New International, New American Standard, and New Living Translation) do not lead people to divergent beliefs on any issue whatsoever. Claims that the modern translations teach that "Jesus was a sinner" or that "Jesus wasn't God" are completely erroneous, and can be found to be so by any intelligent comparison of the texts. It should be noted here, however, that some groups have purposely corrupted Scripture and published it, as has been happening since the first century. ( i.e. The "New World Translation" of the Jehovah's Witnesses) If a person has questions about one of these obscure "translations", he or she should pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, compare the beliefs presented with those of historical Christian teaching, consult the Greek and Hebrew resources available, or ask a trustworthy evangelical scholar who is learned in the original languages.
Claim #3 -- Allowing multiple translations causes people to question the true Word of God.
ANSWER: Of all KJO proposals, this is the best argument they put forward. However, it too is essentially indefensible for three reasons: A) people who use multiple translations do not by-in-large "question" or "mistrust" the Bible any more than King James readers. Their faith in God and His Word is just as strong, and their commitment to obey the Bible is just as real. B) This argument presupposes that God's eternal Word is bound to a man-made translation. C) There have always been multiple translations available, even during the period that the King James Bible was written. In fact, during that time there were several Bibles of note: The Wycliffe Bible, the Tyndale Bible, to name a few. These translations had slight differences, yet no one questions the fact that they were reliable copies of God's inspired Word. The King James translators themselves realized this and stated in their preface to the original KJV : "Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…" They go on to explain that this is why they included footnotes with alternative meanings to difficult passages of Scripture (these appeared in the original King James Bible).
Claim #4 -- The King James Bible is a literal, word-for-word translation of the original texts, while the modern translations are not.
ANSWER: Anyone familiar with the study of language understands the fallacy of the above statement. Even languages similar to English, such as Spanish or French, cannot be translated word-for-word. Ancient Hebrew and Greek are very different from English (in 1611 or in the present) in syntax, word-order and sentence structure. Thus, the work of translation is not merely a one-word-at-a-time affair...instead, the sentences must be translated and arranged so that the truth of the verse makes sense to the English reader. Thus, while some translations are "more literal" (like King James or New American Standard), no translation is a perfectly literal, word-for-word copy. The goal of a trustworthy translator is not to copy the Greek into English, but rather to best communicate the Greek words in a way that an English reader can understand.
Claim #5 -- The translators of the modern translations had alternative agendas and questionable motives, lifestyles, and philosophies. They cannot be trusted.
ANSWER: Of all the misinformation that circulates regarding Bible translations, this is perhaps the most deceptive. Men of God have had their reputations ruined and their work for the gospel forgotten because of such lies and slander. Rumors about various translators being homosexuals, Bible-haters, New Agers, etc. have not been proven to be true, nor can any "bad fruit" within the translations be seen to prove these "evil biases" of the translators. It is helpful to read the introductions to various translations to see the reasoning, philosophy, and convictions of the men and women who served on the translation committees. Consider these words from the preface of the NIV: "We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that it will lead many to a better understanding of the Holy Scriptures and a fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures so faithfully testify."
Claim #6 -- The new translations are all about making money. The Bible shouldn't be copyrighted as the new translations are.
ANSWER: On the surface, this seems like a reasonable argument...after all, who "owns" God's Word? However, the argument is fallible for two reasons: 1) The King James, like the modern translations was also "copyrighted" when it was originally written by the English Crown. Although the terminology was different, the fact is that no one else was allowed to print the KJB for many years, very similar to our own copyright system. 2) Copyrights are not all about making money. They are also about protecting the integrity of a work. If, for example, the New American Standard publishers did not copyright their work, then some other group could come along and publish a Bible under the same name with changed words...and people would be deceived into buying something that was not real or true. We should be thankful that, at least in the United States and most Western nations, copyright laws do exist so that authors, translators, and the like can protect the integrity of the work they do.
Claim #7 -- The modern Bible translations "delete", "omit", or "alter" many hundreds of Bible passages, such as 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37, etc.
ANSWER: This charge is based upon the idea that the King James is the standard, and that all others must line up with it. From history and from common sense, we can easily deduce that this is not the case. The Hebrew and Greek texts are the standard, and all English translations need to line up with them. (see the Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689.) The King James Bible is a good translation, but there are parts that could be translated more accurately (as the translators themselves admitted.) KJO proponents are quick to point out the "missing verses" to unsuspecting new believers, who do not realize the deeper textual issues involved.
There are two primary reasons for the differences in translations:
1) Since the translation of the King James, many more manuscripts have been found, that had slight variances with the KJV. Through the science of textual criticism, theologians and scholars attempt to figure out which manuscripts are the most reliable and which readings are the most like the originals. When it is determined that there is a better way to phrase something than what the KJV had, a change is made. Thus, the first reason for differences in translation is not for doctrinal omission or to delete verses, but rather to clarify the original meaning of the text.
2) Another reason for the differences is a tendency among those who hand-copied the Scriptures called "increasing piety." When an original manuscript said "Jesus Christ," a faithful scribe who loved the Lord might write "Lord Jesus Christ" instead. Such additions are not usually wrong, but they simply do not appear in older manuscripts, and thus are not included in more reliable translations. Usually when a question exists in the minds of the translators regarding a certain verse, a footnote is added that explains the differences. Thus, the claim of KJO proponents that the new translations are out to destroy the truth is actually just the opposite...they are seeking to clarify and uphold it.
Practical Considerations
Readability. The primary purpose for the Bible's existence is so that God's Word can be communicated to mankind. God did not write His Word merely for the "wise and learned" but for the average person. This is evidenced by the fact that the New Testament was written in koine Greek...the common, street language. Certainly if God wanted His Word to be in lofty, scholarly language, He could have written it that way. But God chose to communicate in a language that people understood. Certainly we should not sacrifice accuracy on the altar of readability when we translate, but it must be noted that if God's Word cannot be read by the average person, a great problem exists for the advancement of the gospel.
The reality is that in 21st Century America, language is different than it was in 17th Century England. Not only have many word definitions changed, but even the general flow of language and word order is different. Thus, it becomes necessary to translate the Bible so that it can be understood by all, not merely those accustomed to reading the Elizabethan English of the 1600's. This conviction was obviously held by William Tyndale (whose text forms the basis for the KJV), because his translation came a few decades after John Wycliffe's. Wycliffe's Bible was in "Middle English" and had become very different from the more modern English spoken in Tyndale's time. Thus, a new translation was deemed necessary. Although it is a rather subjective argument, the average youth in America today is in no position to read, understand, and enjoy his King James Bible.
Language has changed. The honest truth about the KJV is that it is tough stuff...just like other things written four hundred years ago. Of course people can be trained to understand, but that isn't the point. Why can God not communicate in our language? If Jesus were to come today, would He speak in 1611 language? Or would He use the language that you and I use to communicate to one another? A heartbreaking story from Wycliffe Bible Translators sums up this consideration. It is told that a missionary went into a remote tribe that had no Scriptures. He learned their language and then began to tell them about God and His power. One tribesman asked: "If your God is so smart, why doesn't He speak our language?" One might wonder if the children and youth of some churches today ask the same question in their hearts.
Ignorance. The Proverbs are right when they explain that everyone seems right when he makes his case...until a neighbor comes and questions him. New believers without discernment or training are easily wooed into the KJO movement by simplistic arguments and misrepresentations of facts. This then causes them to feel as if the whole rest of the Christian world is against them, and that somehow they alone must stand for the truth. They become more and more set on the path, until their mind hardens against the possibility that they might be wrong. Everyone who dares disagree is seen as part of the "Alexandrian cult" or a "Bible-twister". Thus, instead of standing on the truth of God's Word and heralding the gospel to the lost world, some spend their time confusing other people about the same issue. Ministries are torn apart, people are offended, churches are divided, and the seed doesn't get scattered...all in the name of the "AV 1611 Inspired Bible". (The point made here is not that all KJO proponents are ignorant in the bad sense of the word...but it is to say that they have been deceived by highly emotional and unsubstantiated arguments.)
Perhaps the most heartbreaking aspect of this point is the fact that it tends toward a greater ignorance of the Scriptures among the average church members. They have been told it is a "sin" to read other versions, and so they are forced to read something that they cannot understand. Ivory tower-types look down on such people, assuring them that if they would just try harder, they would understand. One man who admitted he was getting nothing out of his quiet times and asked the all-important question: "Is it wrong for me to read a Bible I can understand?"
A Lost World. People need the Lord. That is not a cliché...it is the truth. They may not know exactly what they need, or how to get it, but they feel the emptiness. We, the church, have been commissioned by our Lord to reach them with the gospel. We aren't to be preaching that gospel in Greek, or Hebrew, or even old English. The gospel is to come to people in their own language, just like it did at Pentecost through the apostles in Acts 2. Thus, while we must remain vigilant for the truth, we always should take care that it is understood correctly by those who need it most.
Conclusion of the Matter:
While we do appreciate the King James Bible (it is among the best and most used translations in the English language) and those who so tenaciously defend the authority of the Scriptures, it has been found that much of the KJO movement is based on zeal without knowledge. It is not appropriate, either historically or biblically, to tie the doctrines of inspiration and preservation to a particular translation, as good as the translation might be. This debate is one that is charged with emotion and pride, one that can affect segments of Christian churches for years to come.
To remedy this, we offer the words of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:14-15: "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (NKJV) It is unfortunate that this issue even need be brought up, and, like Jude, though I wish I could write about the salvation we share; but it seems necessary to deal with this confusing and divisive issue before it hurts even more people and hampers their spiritual growth.
God's Word is for every generation...all people...of every tribe, tongue, and nation. Let us stand upon that Word, preserved for us in reliable translations of the original languages, and share it with everyone for the glory of Christ!
This Publication is made available due to the exhaustive research, study and publications that have been prepared by Absolute Truth Ministries, and Author Daniel Jarvis.
Resources for Further Study
~The King James Only Controversy, by James White Bethany House, 1995
~Facts on the King James Only Debate, by John Ankerberg, Harvest House Publishers
~From God to Us, by Norman Geisler, Moody Press, 1974
~From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, by Emerald House Group, 1999
Endorsements:
“Today's New International Version is a powerful tool for evangelization in the 21st Century. God's Word was meant to be read and understood by everyone and the NIV has been prayerfully translated toward this God/glorifying goal. I give it my highest recommendation!”
- Pastor Jim Cymbala, Brooklyn Tabernacle
"The NIV has a special place in the affections of many people in Northern Ireland. I feel that the availability of the Today's NIV, particularly in this low-cost edition with its range of useful reading helps, will support many opportunities to bring God's Word to people you have not yet discovered and responded to the Gospel message." -John Doherty, Director, Bible Society in Northern Ireland (The)
"It has never been easy to distinguish between a 'translation' and a 'paraphrase'. Translations tend to go for contemporary scholarship at the expense of contemporary language, whereas paraphrases tend to sacrifice accuracy for relevance. Today's New International Version is highly successful in combining both scholarly accuracy and linguistic relevance." - Rev. John R. W. Stott ,Preacher, Evangelist, Author.
“As the editor of the Student Bible, I’ve spent thousands of hours trying to help readers understand the NIV Bible. I’m thrilled to hear about the TNIV and its ability to help add clarity and impact to the study of God’s Word.”- Philip Yancey , Author
Cincinnati, OH 45247 ~ (513) 661-7978