Got Questions? - Week 13

Why Do We Use the King James Bible and How Does it Compare to Other Versions?

The Bible is the foundational and fundamental book for all of Christianity. It is where we get the basis for all of our most fundamental beliefs and doctrines. It is safe to say that the Bible is an important book for us to have. But there are so many options to choose from how do we know which one to go with?

According to rough estimates, there are over 900 different English versions of the Bible. With so many options and choices, how do we know which one we should be using?

Our church and most Independent Baptist Churches use the King James Version of the Bible. But why do we use that particular version? What makes it different than other versions? Do those differences make it better than the other versions?

I. The History of the English Bible

1000 years ago, the Bible was only available in Latin, and the only people that could read Latin were those who were trained clergymen. However, since most people were NOT trained clergymen, they had to rely on the Priest/Preacher/etc to translate it for them and they had to trust what was being said to them was true. This was problematic because Catholic Priests often took advantage of their congregations by claiming things were in Scripture when they actually werent

John Wycliffe (1330-1384)

Along came John Wycliffe, who in 1382, completed the “Wycliffe Bible” (which was completely hand written)

Translated the Bible from Latin to English, because that was all he had available at the time

After the Wycliffe Bible was completed, translating the Scriptures into English was considered a crime

The Roman Church hated Wycliffe and eventually martyred him

Johannes Gutenberg (mid 1400s)

Invented the Printing Press

First thing printed was the Latin Bible

For the first time, the Bible could be widely distributed to the masses

William Tyndale (1494-1536)

Tyndale was a godly man who had a great understanding of Greek and Hebrew

Had access to the OT Hebrew and NT Greek texts (something Wycliffe did not have access to)

He was also masterful in the English Language, and wanted to translate the Bible into English

He was persecuted by the Catholic church because they were not teaching the scriptures

Worked in cold cellars and dusty attics moving from place to place to avoid capture

Eventually, completed the translation of the New Testament

Tyndale’s New Testament had to be smuggled into England

Tyndale was betrayed and eventually killed. But others continued his work, and England was never the same

English Bibles that Followed Tyndale

1535 - the Coverdale Bible

1537 - The Matthew’s Bible

1539 - The Great Bible

1560 - The Geneva Bible (widely popular)

1568 - The Bishop’s Bible

The King James Version

1604 - the Hampton Court Conference

King James of England agreed to meet with a group of ministers. He made a royal decision that there would be one authentic English Bible produced

1604 - The project begins

54 of the most learned men in the ancient languages were selected to make this Bible

They all believed in the infallibility of the Scriptures

They didnt have to start from scratch. They benefited from all the work that had already been done for the previous 100 years.

1611 - the First Edition of the KJV

Subsequent revisions of the KJV

the KJV has never been re-translated

updated and corrected spelling mistakes, etc

II. The Textual Issue

Alot of the arguments around Bible versions come back to the doctrine of preservation. Preservation is that act of God by which He is faithful to extend His inspired, written Word to every generation

In every generation, God used His people to identify and safeguard His inspired Word. It was preserved through copies that are faithful to the original text.

The Old Testament Text

There is essentially no controversy over the OT text’s validity

The OT text is called the “Massoretic Text” because the Massorites, a Jewish sect, did so much to preserve this text from the 5th-10th century

The New Testament Text

at the present, there are 2 Greek New Testament Texts that are widely known

These 2 NT texts were compiled in a manner that reveals 2 different views of preservation

A. The Received Text (Textus Receptus, Traditional Text, Byzantine Text)

The Received Text is a term that refers to a family of texts that are regarded as essentially the same text

Key printings:

Desiderius Erasmus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535)

Robert Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550, 1551)

Theodore Beza (1556, 1582, 1588-89, 1598)

Elziver family (1624, 1633)

F.H.A. Scrivener (1894)

The Received Text was derived through diligent comparison of manuscript evidence, identifying the text that God’s people had “received” throughout the centuries as the Word of God. The manuscripts that were consulted originated in the Byzantine Empire, the location into which first-century churches spread and where the true seat of Christianity started

The King James Version is comprised of the Massoritic Text (OT) and the Received Text (NT)

Therefore, the reason we use the KJV is not because of the language choice, it is because of the texts that it was derived from. Other Bible Versions may have excellent translations, but they didnt start with the right source.

The “Critical” Text

This is the 2nd Greek NT text which is widely known (it is also known as the Wescott and Hort Text)

The history of the Critical Text revolves around several people

Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874)

A German textual critic; his avowed desire was to restore the “true” biblical text; he did not support the Received Text

He discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St. Catherine’s monastery in Mt Sinai

What is the Codex Sinaiticus?

A very old manuscript containing the Septuagint and most of the NT, dating to AD 325

Some examiners claim it had many corrections on it made by at least 10 different scribes

parts of it were found with items that had been set aside to be thrown away

Is the Codex Sinaiticus a reliable text?

It is much older than hundreds of other manuscripts, but does “older” mean “better”?

Did it owe its existence to the fact that it was unreliable and therefore had not been copied and worn out?

It is stated after the book of Esther, that it was derived from Pamphilus, who derived his copy from Origen’s manuscript which contained Origen’s corrections

Heres the problem: Origen believed in allegorical interpretation (not literal) and that Christ was not equal to the Father!

Tischendorf also gave credence to another text called the Codex Vaticanus, which also was thought to be valid simply because of its age

Brooke Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort

Regarded as textual leaders in textual criticism in the 19th century and created the Critical Text in 1881

they became known as the forerunners of all modern English versions of the Bible

The Critical Text became the NT text used as the basis for essentially all modern versions including the ASV, NASV, NIV, and the ESV.

What are the differences between the Critical Text and the Received Text?

Most of all the changes in the Critical Text is based on the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, because it is “older” and therefore supposedly “better”

These men believed they had rediscovered the Word of God

The Wrong Assumptions Made by Westcott and Hort

They assumed an Old Manuscript outweighed the hundreds of others

They assumed an old manuscript with questionable origins were more valid than the ones with purer lineage

They assumed God’s Word had not been truly preserved in every generation (it was incorrect for 1500 years)

PROBLEM: the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with eachother!

These 2 manuscripts disagree with each other at least 3,000 times in the Gospel Records alone, so how can this produce a more certain, more authentic text?!

The Critical Text also differs from the Received Text over 5,000 times

The Critical Text omits thousands of words, phrases, and sentences etc

III. Conclusion

The use of the KJV is not about the “thee”s and “thou”s, its about the SOURCE of the Text.

The Bible is what is inspired, not a particular VERSION of the Bible, meaning God did not inspire His Word twice. While the KJV is what we believe to be the best translation for the English speaking world, that does not necessarily mean that it is the only acceptable version of the Scriptures.

What I mean by that is, if someone is using another version of the Bible, that is NOT mean they arent truly a Christian, or that they are WRONG.

When it comes to a Bible version, do your research. What sources were used to create this version? What was the publishers intent in creating this version (was it for money? to be less offensive? or was it an attempt to truly translate God’s Word in an effective and efficient way?)