BIBLE TRANSLATIONS IN ENGLISH Extra Biblical Foundations

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS IN ENGLISH

We’ve paused to consider how Jesus and the New Testament authors handled the “Scripture” they held in their hands. 

We’ve paused to make note of Jesus and the apostles quoting, and speaking from a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament when they referred to “Scripture”.

They were not referring to a Hebrew Bible, or anything resembling “original manuscripts” when they spoke of the “Scriptures”.

If we want to be like our Savior in the way we treat the Bible in our hands, then we should be looking among English translations, for one to treat like He and those He chose to carry on His ministry treated theirs.

 If we’re going to be more like Jesus on this issue, we to need to compare and contrast the history, translators, translation technique, and fruit of English translations.

  I am looking for a translation that best fits Bible promises.

I’m looking for a translation that best seems to produce what we would expect the words of God to produce. 

I am looking for a translation that came into existence in a manner, and whose existence today best bear the marks of divine providence. 

The Bible is NOT like any other ancient or modern book. 

The Bible has a unique Author.

The Bible has unique spiritual and human adversaries.

Only the words of the Bible can withstand constant criticism, and continue to produce its’ fruit.

The Bible’s fruit is of a sort that no man or woman can imitate.

  There have been, and are some very gifted human authors, who can communicate in writing in a way that cause us all to marvel. 

But the fruit of human authors cannot match the fruit of the written words of God, because the Holy Spirit is the true Author of Scripture rather than the man holding the pen.

“…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Is there a Bible in the English language that bears the marks of being God’s words, in a way the others do not?

God’s words and His Spirit are always somehow involved, when a person is convicted for their sins and desires Christ and salvation (Rom. 3:20).

God’s words and His Spirit are always somehow involved when a person trusts Christ, and is transformed into a new creature (1 Peter 1:23)(2 Cor. 5:17). 

In this general sense all “good” English translations are the “word of God” and people have trusted Christ because of them (thank God). 

But those “good” translations differ in some places.

Which translation has the words of God where they differ? 

Two things that are different cannot both be true. 

What kinds of differences are there in English translations? 

Why are there differences in “good” English translations? 

Are any of the differences in English translations important?

Those who say the differences between “good” English translations don’t matter much, are not thinking that statement through. 

Jesus and the apostles treated the letters that make up the words, the tenses of verbs, and the words themselves as important. 

That means we need to be looking to treat our translation the same way (if we want to be like Jesus on this issue). 

That makes it IMPOSSIBLE to just say that the differences in English translations don’t matter (and be consistent with Jesus).

While I do believe it to be true that no major doctrine is affected by the English Bible version we choose (assuming we choose a “reputable one” unlike the NWT of the Jehovah’s Witnesses).

The meaning of individual verses is GREATLY affected by which Bible we choose. 

Jesus said that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).  

Please stop trying to tell me, and other people that “every word” doesn’t matter in the Bible we hold.

The doctrines individual verses teach is GREATLY affected by which English Bible we choose.

Some verses that clearly teach key doctrines are even affected (even though those key doctrines are also taught elsewhere). 

The clearest verse that teaches the triune nature of our Creator is different in the KJV and NASB, NIV, and ESV and that difference matters.

I John 5:7

KJV – “…there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”

NASB – “For there are three that testify” (“these three are one” is completely removed)

NIV – “For there are three that testify:” (“these three are one” is completely removed)

ESV – “for there are three that testify” (“these three are one” is completely removed)

The clearest verse that teaches baptism to be by immersion AFTER a person believes and confesses Jesus to be the Son of God, is different in the KJV and NASB, NIV, and ESV and that difference matters.

Acts 8:36b-37

KJV – “…what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

NASB – verse 37, “…I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

NIV – verse 37 is completely removed

ESV – verse 37 is completely removed

The clearest verse that teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was God manifested in flesh, is different in the KJV and NASB, NIV, and ESV and that difference matters.

I Tim 3:16

KJV – “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…”

NASB – “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh…”

NIV – “Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh…”

ESV –   “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh…”

I agree that each of those key doctrines are still taught in other places in Scripture. 

I agree that just because those “good” versions differ from the KJV, does not make the KJV correct (though being different from something greatly used of God ought to be some kind of “red flag”).  I agree that one could debate whether or not those are the clearest verse teaching those key doctrines. But which Bible is right where they differ in those and other places?  Jesus and Paul both used individual words, tenses of verbs, and singular versus plural words to make key doctrinal points. If we are to be like them, we ought to care about the words in every verse of the Bible we hold as well.  “Every word” in our Bible important.  It is just inconsistent and wrong to pretend that these differences don’t matter. To treat those differences as if they don’t matter, is to handle our Bible differently than Jesus and the other New Testament authors treated the words of “Scripture”.

The Textus Receptus (Greek text underlying the KJV New Testament) differs from the Westcott-Hort text (behind the Nestle-Aland text of the ESV, NASV, NIV) by about 7% (“Defending the KJV” by Dr. Donald Waite, page 41, par. 2).  It’s comforting to know that all of these “good” English Bibles teach the same doctrines.  But I want a Bible I can hold, read, quote, and trust “every word”, like the New Testament teaches us by example when handling “Scripture”.  Thoughtful Bible preachers should care which text is right in those 7% of places where they differ.  Do I have to find some expert in Hebrew and Greek to know which is right where these English versions differ?  Should I just check all “good” English translations, and pretend that I am the final authority to recognize which one is right by picking the one that makes sense to me?  If being an expert in the original languages of Scripture mattered so much (like many tell us today), then why were the first eleven true apostles just “regular guys” who loved Jesus (who were criticized for their lack of education in Acts 4:13)?  I’m not promoting ignorance. I believe Christian leaders should be serious students of the Bible and have sound Biblical education.  But Jesus was obviously NOT looking for experts in original languages of the Old Testament, when He picked His apostles (though there were some around then).  Knowing there are that many differences in the different Greek texts brings up other questions.    Why are the underlying texts different by 7%?  Why do English translation differ?

There are different underlying Greek texts of the New Testament for different English Bibles. The Greek texts differ, because those who produced the different texts had differing views on which Greek manuscripts were better.  The English translations from different underlying texts vary not only because they have a different text behind them, but also because they were translated using different translation techniques.  Greek texts, translation techniques, and the translators which produced them are serious and complicated issues. Each of those issues require whole books to reasonably explore each issue.  A brief summary of those issues is all that’s possible in a few pages like this article.  There is no major English translation that has both Testaments produced from the same underlying original language texts as the KJV.

· The NKJV claims to follow the Textus Receptus (TR) in the New Testament (which is arguable in places). The KJV Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text is changed to a modified form of Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica Hebrew text

· The ESV and NASV use a different Greek text for the New Testament than a KJV does

· The NIV uses a different translation technique AND a different Greek text than the KJV.

It would be easy to just read all five of those “good” English Bibles, and make ourselves the “final authority” to select which one is the Word of God, based on that version making the most sense to us. It would be easy (but worse yet), to pick the version that best makes the point we’re trying to make in a sermon or book.  But neither of those methods for picking the best translation are wise.  These five “good” English translations are from different texts. They are produced by different translation techniques. They were made by men with differing abilities in translation, knowledge of ancient languages, theological backgrounds, and motives.  Each of those major differences in Bible versions are enough to make it unwise to “look at them all” and “pick the one you like”.  Reading them all and deciding which one is “right” is unwise for everyone. But doing that, or recommending that is ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS and unwise for those with no Biblical training or spiritual maturity.  There are a LOT of Bible promises about the preservations of the Bible’s words, as well as the fruit the Bible produces.  We should be evaluating the sources of these differences in English versions.  We should be looking for divine providence and intervention, rather than pretending “the one that makes the most sense to me” makes any translation more accurate. It is unwise and dangerous to read several translations and decide which one is the word of God because we “like it” or “understand it better”.  Making ourselves the “final authority” instead of making the Bible itself the final authority is NEVER good.

The biggest reason most who’ve abandoned the KJV and the Textus Receptus (TR) have done so, is they claim to now have “better” Greek manuscripts.  Most new English versions favor “older Greek manuscripts that were discovered after the King James Version was released” (“The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible” Dr. Mark Ward, page 116, par 1).  Dr. Ward is not alone in that view. That view is by far the majority view behind the Nestle-Aland (NA) Greek text. The NA text is used for all major modern English translations other than the NKJV.  In the thinking of those who’ve left the KJV, the text behind the ESV, NIV, and NASV is a better text. The OLDER manuscripts were given prominence in the NA Greek text behind the ESV, NIV, and NASV.  But just because a Greek manuscript is older, does NOT always make it better or more accurate.  An older manuscript is NOT always more accurate than a newer one.  A newer manuscript that reflects a text that is older than the Greek manuscript itself, could easily be more accurate than an older manuscript with a different text.  It is not only possible but likely, that Greek manuscripts we have today that are older and in good condition, only survived because they were rejected centuries ago because they were inferior.  Those older “good” manuscripts only remain today because they were unused and uncopied.  When it comes to the word of God, we should challenge the basic assumption that a manuscript is better because it is older.  When it comes to the Scriptures, there are special forces at work.  There are promises of God in play, so older is NOT necessarily better.  God intended His written words to be in the hands of His people (not just His thoughts and ideas).  God made numerous promises to preserve His WORDS. As has already been pointed out, Jesus and the New Testament authors treated the Scripture they used, like they held the preserved WORDS of God (even though they held a Greek translation of copies of copies of “the original” Hebrew manuscripts.

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG UNTO US AND TO OUR CHILDREN FOR EVER, that we may do all the WORDS of this law.” (Deut. 29:29)

“The words of the LORD are pure WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE THEM FROM THIS GENERATION FOR EVER.” (Psalm 12:6-7)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.” (Matthew 24:35)

The Nestle-Aland (NA) text is NOT an older text than the Textus Receptus (TR).  The “best” individual manuscripts behind the NA text are older manuscripts, BUT THE TEXT ITSELF IS NOT OLDER.  Both the TR and NA texts are EQUALLY ANCIENT. Anyone who promotes “older manuscripts” as a reason for the TR to be inferior, because it reflects a “newer” text is in error on that issue.  There are men from the early centuries of Christianity, who quoted the Bible when they wrote.  These men lived and wrote PRIOR to the “oldest and best manuscripts”.  At times they quoted exclusively TR verses. This shows that the TR is older than the oldest existing NA Greek manuscripts, and equally ancient with the NA text.  It is interesting to note that the TR readings are not only equally as old as NA readings, but the TR readings OUTNUMBER the NA readings where the two texts differ.

“Taking the Greek and Latin (not the Syriac) Fathers who died before A.D. 400 their quotations are found to support the TR in 2,630 instances (that is the distinctive TR readings), the WH text in 1,753.  Nor is this majority due solely to the writers who belong to the end of this period.  On the contrary, if only the earliest writers be taken, from Clement of Rome to Irenaeus and Hippolytus (A.D. 97-236), the majority in favor of the TR is proportionately even greater, 151 to 84” (“Forever Settled” by Dr. Jack Moorman quoting Kenyon, page 94, par. 4)

Not only are the TR and NA texts “equally ancient”, the “best examples” of the older NA Greek manuscripts behind modern Bibles, survived in the Vatican Library and a monastery on Mount Sinai. Bible-believing Christians did NOT “hang out” studying their Bibles in either of those places.  Because of the promises of word-for-word preservation, and God’s intention for the Scriptures to belong to His people, I choose to trust the TR Greek manuscripts that were being used by God’s people.  I choose to trust the TR instead of the NA Greek manuscripts that were rejected for centuries, and preserved in the organization that was killing people for having copies of the Bible in their language.  Older manuscripts are obviously NOT necessarily better.   Some people (at the prompting of Satan) began messing with the Bible while it was still being written in the first century (2 Cor. 2:17)(2 Peter 3:16). God warning us of that early corruption, actually makes it “unbiblical” to consider a Bible manuscript to be better just because it is older.  There were false letters to churches claiming to be from Paul then (2 Thess. 2:1-2).  There were sincere (but uninspired) accounts of Christ’s life and words then too (Luke 1:1-3).  I choose to trust the TR Greek text and reject the NA Greek text wherever those texts differ. They are equally old texts. I choose the TR text that was being used by God’s people, instead of the one “preserved” under the roof of the Roman Catholic Church.

Because Jesus and the New Testament authors treated “every word” of the “Scripture” as if the words mattered, every word of my English Bible matters to me.  They used singular versus plural to make points, and tenses of verbs to settle religious disagreements.  In light of that, I am looking for a “word-for-word” translation technique (KJV, ESV, NASV, NKJV) rather than a “thought-for-thought” translation (NIV), or worse yet a paraphrase “Bible” (GNB, ERV, TLB).  Everyone involved in translating any Greek text needs to be an “expert” in Greek, whether they are translating “word-for-word” or “thought-for-thought”.  But NO ONE needs to be an expert in Greek, to recognize an inferior method of translation.  It is simply a bad translation technique to disregard words to value the “thoughts” behind the words more highly.  We are clearly taught that the WORDS matter, and not just the thoughts the words convey.  I reject the NIV and all paraphrased versions as being the Bible, because the technique by which they were produced doesn’t match what the Scriptures lead me to be looking for in a “word-for-word” Bible.

The second biggest complaint about the KJV (following the older manuscript argument), is that the English language has changed significantly since 1611.  In order to criticize and cast doubt about the quality of the KJV, it is said that the KJV in 1611 was “updated seven times over the next two centuries [so that] what we have today is the 1769 edition of the King James Version” (“Are We Ready” by Josh Teis 10/31/19 blog, page 2, par 7).  That statement is misleading.  It implies that the “revisions” to the KJV are no different than the big changes from the KJV to the NKJV, ESV, NASV, and NIV (which is ignorant at best and deceptive at worst). Dr. Mark Ward and Josh Teis even roughly compare the readability of the KJV, to the foreign languages (tongues) being spoken in the Corinthian Church in 1 Corinthians 14.  I’ve been on a couple of mission trips where the preacher (without an interpreter) spoke in the native language of the people in the congregation.  I not only couldn’t even get the gist of what he was talking about, I could only understand a word here and there (though I did enjoy the enthusiasm with which he spoke).  Comparing KJV English to a foreign language is actually ridiculous. Comparing the “revisions” of the KJV over the last 400 years to changes in modern English Bibles is almost equally ridiculous. It is also misleading, to anyone who hasn’t taken the time to study how the KJV and TR have changed in the last 400 years. It is a great blot on Christian leaders among us who claim to believe and love the Bible, but remain poorly informed about the Bible version issue. No one should be apologizing for three “VERY LONG articles” of brief blog posts on the most important issue Bible-believing Christians face.  The MOST important issue we face is the quality of our final authority.  Which Bible is right in the 7% of places where they differ?  Everything we emphasize as a follower of Jesus should come directly from the Scriptures.  Every minor doctrine, method, and way we look at life as a follower of Jesus should have some basis in the Scriptures.  NOTHING we do or believe should contradict the Scriptures. Every preacher of God’s word who hasn’t invested time understanding “both sides” of the Bible version issue, should be ashamed of themselves and get reading and praying.

It is obvious that some aspects of our English language have changed since 1611 (or 1769 when the KJV spelling and punctuation were updated).  But the KJV hasn’t changed as much as those “with an ax to grind” against it would have us believe (as if it were a foreign language).  There are about 618 of 791,328 words in the KJV that have changed meaning (“Defending the King James Bible” by Dr. Donald Waite, page 1, par. 3).  Even the 31 “false friends” (English words we think we understand but do not) pointed out by Dr. Mark Ward, are used only 725 times in the KJV (if I counted right) of over 791,000 words. Of those 725 instances of a “false friend”, 294 of those are “judgment” really meaning “justice”, and 298 of them are “meat” really meaning “food”. That leaves only 133 “false friends” in 791,000 words. That is NOT comparable in ANY WAY to a foreign language. In Dr. Ward’s list of 31 “false friends”, MANY of them were obvious in their context, a moot point, or it was obvious that something was amiss and further investigation needed to be done.  A few like “meat” (298 uses) and “conversation” (20 uses) are words that WOULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD, leaving most Bible readers not realizing anything was wrong with their understanding (but that does NOT mean I think we need another new English translation).  It does mean that we have to study the Scriptures rather than just read daily devotionals. It does mean that there are Biblical words we need to learn how to define for ourselves. It does mean that we need to teach Biblical terminology to those who listen to us preach and teach the Bible.  Most hobbies and jobs have their own unique vocabulary that is specific to that field.  It should be no surprise for the Bible to have some unique vocabulary words also.  Few outside of architects and engineers would know that a “scale” is a ruler that has various markings to measure drawings, instead of a covering for some kinds of fish, or a way to measure our weight.  Few, other than bass fisherman know that a “fluke” is a soft plastic lure, rather than an unexpected outcome of an event.  To pretend like any English translation can just be handed to, and understood by someone without a 7-9th grade reading proficiency is silliness.  To pretend that every serious-minded Christian isn’t going to need to learn some vocabulary words is ignorant. I realize some claim the KJV to be easier to read than other modern Bibles, based on the number of syllables in the words.  But to me, adding “est” or “eth” on the end of verbs, several thousand “thees” and “thous”, and longer sentences than we’re used to, balances out the KJV having less syllables.  When the KJV translators translated the Bible in 1611 (when far fewer people could read than can today), it was NOT written to be understood by every “plow-boy”.  It was written to present the words God preserved in the Hebrew and Greek texts, in the simplest possible manner that was accurate (even though that is NOT always easy).  I do not personally recommend anyone read a KJV because it is easier to read.  Being easier to read is not even a good motive for picking a Bible.  I always recommend every English-speaking person read, believe, and trust a KJV because it is more accurate.  I recommend it because it has a superior history, and superior fruitfulness.  I recommend it because it gives us more information in the English about the original languages, than any other major English translation.

Places that are called “revisions” of the KJV English, are really not at all like the large changes made in every other English translation. The revisions made to the Greek TR are also nothing like the revisions to the NA Greek text. The Westcott-Hort Greek text underlying the NA Greek text has 5,604 changes from the TR (according to Dr. Donald Waite).  The NA Greek text certainly has even more, since it is now in its 28th edition since Eberhard Nestle issued the first version of it in 1898.  Thousands of changes to the NA Greek text, and English Bibles produced from them are a BIG contrast to “changes” to the KJV and TR.  All of the “revisions” of the KJV and its underlying Greek text were made to return to the original intention of the translators, rather than to change their work.  Those who support the NA text and modern English versions would tell you, there are still changes that need to be made to their work to both the Greek and English.  They do NOT believe there exists a completely accurate “word-for-word” Bible in Greek or in English.  If Jesus or Paul believed that about the Bible of their day, they failed to mention it or act like that was so.  Only someone with an agenda would consider standardizing spelling, changing the style or size of the typeset, or correcting printing errors as “revisions” to the KJV. When it comes to “revisions” to the English of the KJV:

“There are only 421 changes affecting the sound throughout the entire Old and New Testaments…There are 791,328 words.  Out of that total, there are only 421 words in the 1611 King James Bible which have a different sound from the words of the King James we have today.  Of these 421 changes, 285 are minor changes of “form” only. There are only 136 changes of “substance”, such as an added “of” or “and”.” (“Defending the King James Bible” Dr. Donald Waite, page 4, par. 3)

Many of these corrections were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition (only 27 years after the original printing). Those early changes were supervised by two men who were on the original translating committee (Samuel Ward and John Bois).  136 changes in KJV English words in over 400 years (many of which were made in the earliest years after 1611), are NOT the same as thousands of changes in both the underlying NA Greek text and English words of modern translations.  All English translations (since Wycliffe) are changes from a translation that existed before it.  Believing the KJV to be a better candidate for an “every word” Bible, is a much smaller leap of faith, than accepting ANY modern translation to be an “every word” Bible for English-speaking people.  When looking for a Bible in my language to treat like the NT teaches me to treat every word of the Bible, the KJV is the best candidate. Though there is not sufficient space in a short article like this to discuss the following issues in detail, I believe each of these issues further set apart the KJV as a better candidate for the preserved words of God in English, rather than other modern English Bibles.

1. It was either divine providence or an accident of history that Gutenburg invented the printing press around 1450, just before the early editions of the TR Greek text were put together and printed. It was either divine providence or an accident of history that the TR Greek text was translated in several languages shortly after it was put together, and printed on the printing press. It was either divine providence or an accident of history that the TR Greek text, and early translations from it spawned great revivals in several countries we often call the Reformation. In contrast, the introduction of the Westcott-Hort text in the late 1800’s, and the NA Greek text in the last century has produced no great revival or spiritual awakening. The first 140 years of the TR produced MUCH more fruit than the first 140 years of the Westcott-Hort/NA text.  If this “improved” Greek text was truly “better”, and God’s people had been using such an inferior text for 300 years, why was there no clear sign of approval or confirmation from heaven? Instead of providential blessing, the new Greek text was mostly rejected by God’s people for the first 90 years of its public existence (1880-1970).

2. The great revivals among English speaking Christians, and revivals of missionary movements were the fruit of the KJV. Many new Bible translations in languages other than English were made by missionaries as a result of this great movement of God. These great revivals and missionary movements occurred after many of the 1611 English words had already changed meanings. Benjamin Franklin alleged the English of the KJV had a “style being obsolete, and thence less agreeable”.  All of the “Great Awakenings” in America were with a KJV, and most of those occurred after the style of English and English words had changed.  It seems almost shocking to our modern pride, that English-speaking people many today consider to be poorly educated, seemed to understand the KJV just fine. Where were all of the revivals and missionary fervor associated with the introduction of the ASV, RSV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, and ESV?  Where is “God’s stamp of approval” on these “improvements” by producing His unique fruit in people’s lives?  None of us read of multitudes of lives DRAMATICALLY changed by the gospel and growing churches using other versions today.  So much of church growth we see is today is simply “sheep swapping” rather than new teen and adult believers with lives clearly changed by Christ. Thank God for every life that is dramatically changed by Christ and His gospel today.  That still happens, but not on the scale that it did during those great historical revivals. I don’t know of anyone who would say that Biblical Christianity has more influence in America today, than it did prior to publishing companies introducing all the new versions and Bible copyrights in the 1970’s.

3. The KJV gives me more information than is available in modern English Bibles.  The italicized words of a KJV are there to show us something was added to help our understanding.  The pronouns of a KJV show us whether the pronoun is singular or plural.  Most people didn’t use “thee” and “thou” in 1611 any more than they do today.  Those pronouns are in the text for information.  Pronouns that begin with “T” (thee, thou, and thine) are singular.  Pronouns that begin with “Y” (ye, you, yours) are plural.  That matters at times (especially when we are reading, instead of standing there to see gestures or where the speaker is looking).  The pronoun mattered when Jesus told Peter that He was praying for him as an individual (Luke 22:32).  It matters when we are trying to understand if Jesus is criticizing the woman’s religion, or the religion of the Samaritans (John 4:22).  The pronoun matters when we’re trying to understand if Jesus was rebuking the man, instead of the crowd or His disciples (Matt. 17:17).  I am unwilling to give up thousands of pieces of information in the English, by giving up those distinctive pronouns. They sometimes help me better understand what is going on in the situation about which I am reading.

4.  The “Christian community” in general today does not have the same basic convictions about the inspiration or preservation of God’s words they had 400 years ago.  Those who do have convictions about inspiration and preservation, do NOT have the skills in ancient languages, that the 47 translators did in 1604-1611.  Just because we have more information today, does NOT mean we have better information, or better men to translate it.  Every person who is serious about this issue, should read about the men who translated the KJV.  Compare the theology and qualifications of those 47 men, to men who translate Bibles today. Men translating Bibles today are NOT dummies nor are they ignorant, but they do NOT have the same skills AND theology as the men who translated the KJV. For those who think we need a new translation here are a few questions to consider:

· Could we assembly 47 men today who were true experts in ancient languages who ALSO believed the TR Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts accurately preserved the words of God?

· Which group of Bible “scholars” today believe that their work should only minimally change the English of the KJV to update words that have changed their meaning in 400 years?

· Who would assemble and supervise such a group of translators, if they even exist?

· Who would set up the parameters of their work when “conservative” Christianity is too fragmented to agree on what should be changed?  Would this group of translators leave “thee” and “thou” and only change “corn” to “grain” and “meat” to “food”?  Should they change “hell” to “hades” like the NKJV for “clarity”?

Even if this group COULD BE assembled…they would now have to try to get around all of the other copyrighted versions of the English Bibles, and sacrifice accuracy or readability at times in doing so. Are we to believe that “scholars” from Notre Dame University who helped with the MEV translation actually believed the TR Greek text to be the inspired and preserved words of God in Greek?  THERE IS NO GROUP OF EQUALS TO THE KJV TRANSLATORS AVAILABLE TODAY TO MAKE A SUPERIOR TRANSLATION TO THE KJV.  All of us must choose whose scholarship we are going to trust.  I choose to trust the scholarship of the 1611 translators, and proven track record of their product.

5. The real “end” or “summary” of books on the Bible version issue like those by James White, D.A. Carson, Mark Ward, and others like them, is that there is no Bible in the English language that is completely accurate. If that were not bad enough, they would also tell us that there is no Greek text or Hebrew text that is completely accurate either. All of that in light of the Scripture telling us that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). They summarize (in effect) that if you really want to know what the Bible says, you must sit at the feet of some Greek or Hebrew expert reading from the “best” Hebrew and Greek we have available today (though they don’t believe there is a “word for word” Hebrew or Greek Bible available).  Jesus and all of the New Testament authors BUILT THE FAITH OF THOSE WHO HEARD THEM IN THE BIBLE PEOPLE COULD HOLD FOR THEMSELVES.  I believe most modern theologians, and authors discussing this issue clearly do the opposite.  Proponents of modern texts and Bibles would NOT like to describe their philosophy, as taking the Bible away from all of the “common people”. But that is without question the end of their philosophy.  Spiritual leaders may exist who believe every word of their NIV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV, but I’ve never heard of them, or read anything they’ve written. LEADERS using modern Bibles have all become Bible “correctors” rather than “every word” Bible “believers”. Why aren’t there any spiritual LEADERS holding any English Bible other than a KJV, who actually believe EVERY WORD of the book they hold in their hands?  There is a special burning in the hearts of believers when Jesus speaks (Luke 24:32).  Why do all of the anti-KJV books basically conclude that there is no word-for-word Bible in English or completely accurate Greek?  Their words and books are NOT designed to build our faith. They instead take away our faith in a Book we can hold and read, to put our faith in what they tell us it REALLY says (until that changes with their next textual revision).  I believe it is no mere coincidence that if someone believes every word of the Bible they hold in their hands, they are a new Christian in a church who uses a modern Bible (who hasn’t been learned yet they don’t hold a completely accurate Bible), or someone holding a King James Bible (who in many cases have believed “every word” in that KJV for decades after reading it MANY times).

6.  I believe the KJV translators achieved the goal they set out to achieve with their translation. They discussed the goal of their work in what some call the oft-forgotten “The Translators to the Reader” introduction of the KJV which says:

“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, OR OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES, ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST; THAT HATH BEEN OUR ENDEAVOR, THAT OUR MARK.”

I believe that the KJV translators succeeded to produce a “principal good” translation in English “not justly to be excepted against”.  I’d say that part of their introduction is more oft forgotten than some other parts.

In summary, I do wish that the KJV I hold in my hands didn’t have any English words that had changed meaning over the centuries.  I also wish there were no “false friends” in my KJV.  I wish the KJV English Bible was easier to understand.  But God chose not to communicate His words to us in a simple manner in the original languages.  He also did not choose to preserve His words to us in a simple manner in English (or any language in which the Bible is translated word-for-word). God didn’t consult me, or anyone else when He decided how to reveal Himself to mankind through His words. I just believe and trust that even though I wish things were different in some ways, that He is doing all things well.  No one has ever been able to hand any “word-for-word” translation of the Bible in any language (including the original languages) to an uneducated “plow-boy”, and have them understand everything that is written without help from a spiritual leader.  God just didn’t choose to reveal Himself to mankind as simply as that.  I recommend and regularly reference the TR Greek, a Strong’s Concordance, and a Websters 1828 dictionary for help and further insight when studying the Bible. Though the KJV is more difficult to understand than modern English Bibles, I believe EVERY WORD of my KJV and the Greek TR behind it.

· The fruit of the TR Greek text is superior to that of any other Greek text

· The TR Greek text has a superior history to the NA Greek text, both in its greatly superior quantity of manuscripts, and in the resting place of the “best copies” of the NA text

· The KJV was produced by superior translators with superior theology about inspiration and preservation

· The KJV was produced at a superior time in English history using a superior technique for translation

· The fruit of the English from the KJV is superior by far to the fruit of other English Bibles

People have been predicting the demise of the KJV since the late 19th century, and yet it is going strong today in the hands of millions of God’s people.  One of the sets of hands in which it will remain will be my own.  I have yet to see or read anything that makes me attracted to any other Greek text, or to think that any other English Bible is superior to the KJV men taught to believe shortly after trusting Christ as Savior. The issues discussed in this article are difficult to summarize in such a short work.  I did the best I could.  I apologize for the brevity of this information on such an important subject.  My hope is that this information whets your appetite for further investigation. There are several great books on this subject written by men who believe the Bible, who are knowledgeable and reasonable about this issue, and who maintain the attitude Christ intended to accompany truth. In the third and final article, we will discuss what I think we should do with this information, and where I think we should go from here.