NEW: Please subscribe to my Substack/newsletter at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
Some of the Reasons I do not Trust
The King James Translation
|
In This Article: |
A Source of Doctrinal Error
I believe that much of
the error being taught by the Church is due in large part to the popular
use of the KJV. Understand that this is just my personal opinion;
please feel free to disagree.
Of all the English translations in popular use today, I personally rank it as probably the third least reliable, narrowly beaten out of first place by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s New World Translation and Zondervan’s New International Version (or, as I call it, the Non-Inspired Version). For this reason, I do not trust the accuracy of the KJV.[1]
Translation Bias and Sinister Motive
The King James Version, or so-called Authorized Version (because it was authorized to be used by the Church of England) was created primarily as a tool against the theology of the Puritans, and was required by King James to be carefully worded to support the doctrine and organization of the Church of England, not to create an accurate translation of the Scriptures.
“James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.” [Wikipedia, accessed 11 April 2016.][3]
From a teaching by Keith Johnson “Where did ‘Jesus’ come from? | Shabbat Night Live A Rood Awakening! YouTube Channel https://youtu.be/bKHnaPkcdXQ?t=1586 |
King James' Own Linguist Wrote Down Why He Erased Every Hebrew Name in 1611
History Morsels
This history documentary presents historical scenes related to the dissemination of religious texts and the systemic transportation of people across oceans. It highlights the profound impact of Christianity and slavery, showcasing figures studying ancient texts, the distribution of Bibles, and the forced movement of individuals in chains. This video offers insights into the intertwined narratives of African history and world history, emphasizing the role of ships in the historical trade of both goods and people.
Limited Scholarship
“The most highly regarded English scholar on the Hebrew language, Hugh Broughton, was not included among the clergy who translated the books of the Hebrew Bible using Tyndale as their guide. When the KJV appeared, Broughton condemned both the method of translation (the translators had rejected a word-for-word approach) and the resulting text. Broughton called the translation ‘abominable’ and protested that the work should not be ‘foisted upon the English people’.
Broughton argued that the KJV was not a translation from the original languages as much as it was an adaptation of the portions of previous translations, focused on contextual changes rather than a faithful reproduction in the English language.” [historycollection.co, accessed 30 March 2020, my emphasis]
“Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled ‘Why So Many Versions?’ Wallace makes the following statement - ‘...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!’”[2] [“Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration” bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration, accessed 30 March 2020, my emphasis]
Inaccurate Source Text
Another significant problem that I have with the KJV is that is it based on the Textus Receptus (frequently referred to simply as the “TR”), which is the work of a single individual, Erasmus, who used only three manuscripts for his work.
The problem with Erasmus was that he only used really three manuscripts. In fact, the manuscript Erasmus used for the book of Revelation lacked the last leaf. He was in a rush to get his Greek New Testament published, because he knew there were others trying to get their editions out. Consequently, he back translated from his defective copy of the Latin Vulgate into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation. In the process, he created twenty new textual variants that have not been found in any other manuscripts — except a few that were based on what he did several years later.
Textus Receptus is the Greek text that stands behind the King James Bible. Contrary to what its name suggests, it is not the text received by all. Even Erasmus wasn’t pleased with the production. He never liked it. He admitted it was rushed, that it was precipitated rather than produced. He put in eight years of work. By the end, he was tired.
In the late 1800s, Frederick Scrivener said there was no book he had ever seen with as many errors as the first edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. (zondervanacademic.com/blog/textus-receptus, accessed 11 June 2023, emphasis added)
I find it rather curious that many who criticize The Complete Jewish Bible because it was the work of a single individual, and not a committee of scholars, robustly defend the reliability of the KJV and other TR translations which are ultimately based on the work of a single individual. Again, this is my personal opinion and you are certainly under no obligation to agree.
Archaic Vocabulary
According to the Preface of the Revised Standard Version,
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. … A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. … The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. Thus, the King James Version uses the word ‘let’ in the sense of ‘hinder,’ ‘prevent’ to mean ‘precede,’ ‘allow’ in the sense of ‘approve,’ ‘communicate’ for ‘share,’ ‘conversation’ for ‘conduct,’ ‘comprehend’ for ‘overcome,’ ‘ghost’ for ‘spirit,’ ‘wealth’ for ‘well-being,’ ‘allege’ for ‘prove,’ ‘demand’ for ‘ask,’ ‘take no thought’ for ‘be not anxious,’ etc.”
According to amazingbibletimeline.com, the King James Bible has 8,674 different Hebrew words, 5,624 different Greek words, and 12,143 different English words, which should produce an English vocabulary of approximately 26,441 unique words. Of that total vocabulary, approximately 300 words can be considered archaic or obscure in meaning, and some 750 words are not commonly used in modern English. So about 4% of the total vocabulary of the modern KJV does not mean what it meant in 1611. That’s a lot of error if the KJV text is being preached literally.
The youth pastor of a church I once served delivered an entire message based on the archaic meaning of one word in the KJV. His entire sermon was in error because the meaning of that single word was significantly different now than it had been in 1611.
See HERE for a short list of some of the words of the King James that are archaic and/or obsolete, and therefore confusing for modern English speakers.
1. To be fair, I have been told by a few people whose opinions I trust that recent revisions to the KJV have addressed many — though certainly not all — of the issues that I take with the older KJV versions. [BACK]
2. Yet with all these myriads of changes, many of those in the “King James only” camp insist that the “only true Bible is the 1611 KJV.” Am I being terribly unfair when I say that I think most of those in this camp are “ignorant”? [BACK]
3. Please don’t write me off for citing an article from Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because anyone with a UserID can create or edit the articles. I have my own Wikipedia UserID and have posted a few articles of my own and edited a few others. [BACK]
|
 |
Subscribe to my Substack/newsletter |
ANXIOUSLY WATCHING FOR MASHIACH’S RETURN,
SPEEDILY AND IN OUR DAY. MARANA, TA!
