The KJV (also called the Authorised Version) - Some Thoughts

The King James Version debate is one of those HIGHLY contentious issues that has often given a very NEGATIVE impression of those of us who strongly believe in this translation. Some of the defenders have made some very BAD statements when defending the KJV or have become cult-like. There are some of us normal KJV-only folk who are a little more balanced when defending the KJV.

Firstly, let me point out two people one should AVOID when discussing this issue:

1) Gail Riplinger (and her book New Age Bible Versions) :She has many MISQUOTES, FACTUAL ERRORS, and UNPROVEN STATEMENTS in her book. Avoid her writings and rather visit a more balanced KJV supporter. (There are some truths in the book, but I still would NOT recommend her writings). For a critique of her book by a KJV-ONLY supporter (!) see:http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

2) Peter Ruckman: He is an extremely fanatical when it comes to this issue.While there are once again some very true and correct statements about the KJV, Ruckman has some strange doctrines that border on the cultic- some would say they are cultic; see http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm . One or two things that all balanced KJV people reject:

- the KJV is advanced revelation : It is superior to the Hebrew or Greek text. (???) (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

-the KJV was given by inspiration :The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272
WRONG - Only the ORIGINAL documents were given by inspiration!!!

SO, who would I recommend when it comes to the KJV debate?

Dean Burgon Society (Good question and answer section regarding the KJV)

Trinitarian Bible Society (Quarterly articles in pdf form plus some other articles)

Way of Life

Why do I use the King James Version?   

I do so because it is the only Bible in English that was faithfully translated from the Textus Receptus. All modern versions mainly use the corrupt the Vatican or Sinai manuscripts in addition to a few others. These two texts are so mangled that it is easier to find two consecutive verses that disagree than two that agree!!

Bibles in other languages that were also translated from the Textus Receptus include the French Olivetan (1537), the Spanish Valera (1569) and the Italian Diodati (1607). These would be the true and faithful of equivalents of the KJV 1611.

The above is a hopelessly short version of the KJV history. I have checked numerous sources (other than those I have listed), some who have even SEEN the Sinai Manuscript for instance. The mistakes, changes etc could be clearly seen. Suffice to say that the text line that the King James Bible comes from has NOT been tampered with.

**Note: I do NOT hold the view that you can only be saved by reading the KJV. You can be saved by reading the NIV- but that does not mean that it is a very accurate translation. What I am saying, is that a FAITHFUL translation into English or any other language, must be done from the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus (translated accurately - as opposed to the "commentary" type "translations" which use methods such as "dynamic equivalence". For example, I would not consider the "Message Bible" or "Good News Bible" as translations, but merely (BAD) commentaries - what man thinks, not God). So, in English today, the MOST accurate Bible translation we have is the KJV.

**Note also: There is no denying that there are some difficult passages in the KJV.  There is nothing wrong with going back to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text or Greek Textus Receptus from which the passage in the KJV was translated. (The E-Sword computer program has "Strong's Numbers" plus some explanations of many of the words; it also has a King James Dictionary. Beware some of the "Add-ons" though. They (some of the commentaries )sometimes cast doubt on the validity of the text, even if there is enough evidence for its existence.) If you come across an "old" word in the KJV, USE A DICTIONARY, or the King James Dictionary in E-Sword!  (Do you normally throw out a novel if there is a word you do not understand in the text? I normally get a dictionary.)

Further note regarding E-Sword : The "Red Letter KJV" text in this programme has one or two of the words changed : eg Prov 27:16 "bewray" changed to "betray". This I AGREE WITH, since this is the actual meaning of the word.  However, when clarity or correction of archaic words is not the true intent of the translator, I DO have a problem. The NIV leaves the word out! I have also noticed that once or twice the word "wot" has been changed from its archaic form to "know". I also agree with this! No meanings are changed.

NOTE, however, SOME of the words have CHANGED THEIR MEANINGS!! (Eg: replenish, peculiar, prevent - see my word list).

I do however wish that the many great minds that translated the KJV were here today to do a "modern English" version of the KJV - as long as it remained FAITHFUL to the above-mentioned Hebrew and Greek texts.This would assist the new believer in understanding certain texts far quicker. However, I also believe that a person who sincerely wants to learn the Word of God, will be lead by the Holy Spirit in his understanding, even if he has the KJV!

(The New King James translators say that it is the Bible I am talking about - BUT IT IS NOT! Many of the same passages that are questioned by the other modern versions are also doubted in the NKJV.)

Remember also to compare your "difficult" passage with other similar passages in Scripture. Always compare Scripture with Scripture when difficulties arise. Also, there is nothing wrong with reading some GOOD commentaries on a difficult passage - as long as they do not contradict other passages in Scripture. Remember also that you sometimes find a commentary on a verse or passage elsewhere in the Bible. The Biblical interpretation is always correct!

One or two Q/A from the Dean Burgon Site: (Questions submitted to the site)

1. When was the KJV "given by inspiration of God"? – 1611 … or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?

The KJV was first published in 1611. However, there were revisions that followed soon after; all of which were completed by 1629. The revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1638 were due to printing errors. The KJV translators themselves, namely, Samuel Ward and John Bois, corrected these errors. In the course of typesetting, the printers had inadvertently left out words or phrases; all such manifest typographical errors had been corrected. For example, Ps 69:32 of the 1611 edition read "good" instead of "God." This was clearly a printer’s error, and was corrected in 1617.

Apart from a slight revision in 1638, there followed several facetious attempts to revise the KJV between 1638-1762 but none were successful.

The final revision of the KJV was done between 1762 and 1769. The 1762 revision had to do with spelling. For example, old forms that had an "e" after verbs, and "u" instead of "v," and "f" for "s" were all standardised to conform to modern spelling. For example, "feare" is "fear," "mooued" is "moved," and "euill" is "evil," and "alfo," is "also." All these Gothic and German spelling peculiarities have been Romanised. 1769 saw an updating of weights, measures, and coins. This 1769 edition of the KJV is the one popularly in print today. It is important to note that the 1769 edition is essentially the same as the 1611.

1850? Is this Hudson’s typo? There was an 1805 (not 50) edition which accidentally printed a proofreader’s note "to remain" in the text of Gal 4:29 that made the verse to read "him that was born after the Spirit to remain …." The only significant revision in the 1800s was in 1873 when Scrivener worked on the KJV’s marginal notes, orthography, and cross references.

There are not two or more KJVs but only one, and the one that is used today is basically the 1769 edition.

2. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

Of course not! The Protestant Reformation arose because of the Bible. Sola Scriptura (Scriptures Alone) was one of the Reformation pillars. What were the pre-1611 Bibles that were "the Word of God"? They were the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568), all of which facilitated the Reformation cause, and were faithful precursors to the King James Bible.

3. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Rom 8:16, 26; and 1 Pet 1:11 in the KJV?

The word "it" here, with reference to the Holy Spirit, is the direct result of the literal translation of the neuter gender of the pronouns and participles in the Greek text that stand in agreement with the neuter gender for the Greek word for "spirit" (pneu'ma, pneuma). This does not mean that the KJV teaches that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. The cited verses themselves show that this is not the case, as a force cannot bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God (Rom 8:16), make intercession for us (Rom 8:26) or testify beforehand of the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet 1:11). Only a person can do such things, and the Holy Spirit is a person—the 3^rd person of the Holy Trinity.