Since my recent post on the pro’s of the King James Version, I’ve been thinking a lot about the difference between the KJV and its successors. One of the greatest strengths of the King James Version was not in its translation from Greek but the work of molding the English language to conform to the Greek as the translators understood it.

When you read most modern translations – like the New International Version or the New Living Translation – you are reading good attempts at translation. What you are not reading is good attempts at writing. The word usage and flow of these translations could be so much better. The same is true for literal translations like NASB, which frankly I find unreadable.

What the King James translators did know was their own language, which was was possibly just as important as their knowledge of the original language. They knew the nuances and philology of words.

What do I mean by this? Consider the use of the word subtil (sic) in Genesis 3:1 describing  the nature of the serpent who tempted Eve. Why choose that word when other words existed in their vocabulary? And why spell it the way they did, since in Middle English it was most commonly spelled sotil?

The Latin word that underlies subtil is subtilis – a textile term. It literally means “woven into the fabric.” In other words, the translators wanted to convey something much bigger than just craftiness, which is the translation in most modern translations. To their readers, subtil meant a type of temptation that was woven in among the fabric of truth. While the Hebrew word ‘ayrum could mean shrewdness or cleverness, in the context the translators felt a more sinister word was needed. And English had that sinister word in subtil.

These later translators were following Tyndale’s lead in his use of sotyller but they adapted his spelling significantly. They connected it much more with the Latin spelling, breaking the tie with the French spelling that was in use. Who knows what was going through their minds, but perhaps they had in mind the crafty political deceits of the age they were only just emerging from.

This kind of thing is all over the King James Version. For better or for worse, they were particular not just in capturing the meaning of the original words but also the mood. They did this through their knowledge of their own language.

I think this kind of knowledge and use of English is absent in many modern translations. It is certainly absent in the New King James Version where the editors attempted to patch the King James Version but did so without consideration of the flow of the English text. (Are there any English versions which flow more poorly than the NKJV and NASB? Well, maybe Young’s.)

Now, since I don’t espouse the KJVO arguments, I don’t believe the KJV is the only inspired Word of God for the English-speaking people. In fact, I have no problem referring to most English translations as the Word of God. Currently, we use the NIV in our congregation (which is one of my least favorite English Bibles, but it was there when we got there) and I use the ESV in personal study (which I love).

But I find myself longing for a modern translation with the same respect for the English language that I see in the King James.

When you read the works of the people who translate the Bible in our era, do they impress you as being masters of the English language? I find the works of most of these people to be tolerably well written but not masterful. Even the greats of modern translation like Bruce Metzger (RSV, NRSV) and J.I. Packer (ESV) are good writers but not great ones. They wrote great content but their English is nothing special. There’s not a literary master in the bunch (and I don’t mean just someone who sells a lot of Christian books).

No, instead of literary mastery we get Eugene Petersen’s The Message and The Contemporary English Version which attempt to capture the original in a sort of street English.

It is probably just my perception, but I feel as if modern translators do not revere the English language. I feel as if it is just a technical medium to them rather than a complex array of beauty, pregnant with expressive potential. English is one of the most expressive and beautifully, chaotically elegant languages of the modern world. I would love to see the kinetic potential of English truly unleashed.

What do you think?

Just so everyone is clear, by KJV I mean the entire product – from Tyndale’s first work in the mid 16th century down to the Standard Edition of 1769. I am not referring to one particular edition of the KJV or even just to the KJV itself but rather the larger effort which culminated in the Standard Edition.

Erik posted over on Fundamentally Changed about Imperialism and King James Onlyism. It created somewhat of a furor, to say the least.  I believe we were all shocked at the response to the post.

Bob followed up on the post here.

These guys, in bringing this issue up, caused me to think about something of which I had never before considered.  While the subject was under discussion I was reading and was surprised to find a possible connection to it all that goes back to the days of King James, himself.

I found the following in the book “God’s Secretaries: The Making of The King James Bible” by Adam Nicholson.

Note that there is an underlying current of English supermacy in the pageantry and play acting of King Jame’s wife.   In fact, one can take away a fairly strong sense of racism after having read this.

Then consider this drawing that represents one who had a part in the pageantry which the queen presented for the pleasure of her husband.

If imperialism does have anything to do with the King James Only movement it is no surprise.  After all, look at the context in which the King James Version came into being.

What do you think?

My apologies for the poor scans.  I did my best

It seems that one question that keeps cropping up over and over again is this:

..tell us where we can get a copy of this complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible you seem to want us to think you believe in. Tell us what it is called, or was called and if any copy of it exists in print.Do you have such a Book? Or is it just that you like the philosophical and hypothetical concept of an inspired and infallible Bible but don’t really have one?  (See here.)

One of my first posts on the King James Only issue was a commentary on the King James “Translators to The Reader”.  Here is what the translators said:

..we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God…

I expect to find the Word of God in every faithful translation of the Scriptures.  So, too, did the translators of our beloved Authorized Version.

These men also said:

..No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

Do you understand what they’re saying?  They ask why a translation should be denied to be the Word of God simply because there are some errors in translation.  In fact, they ask the question, “What perfect Bible is to be found except the one that was given under inspiration?”  These men believed in the inerrancy of the originals, yet recognized that every translation that would be made would have human errors in it due to the fact that God was not renewing the process of inspiration.

It would serve us well to understand, too, that these men didn’t embrace the KJVO concept of preservation.  They accepted that they/we have the Word of God, but they did not present a belief that God would preserve it without printing errors (such as the Wicked Bible) or translation errors.  They knew that God would preserve His  Word in spite of those things, and they expected God’s people to be reasonable enough to understand that.  In fact, should one read the whole of the “Translators to The Reader”, they would find that the ones from whom these men expected to receive opposition were the Roman Catholics.

Why, then, do these KJVO believers accept the translation work of these men, but reject their words concerning translations?  Why, then do they insist on tearing up churches, schools, fellowships, friendships, and spewing vitriolic words and ad hominem arguments?

Methinks the KJVO believers don’t truly embrace the work of the King James Version translators as much as they profess.

Where  is this perfect Bible, then?  Look at the one in your hand, or on your desk.  Is it a translation made by those who seek to be true to God’s Word?  It is the Word of God.

A few weeks ago we posted about a North Carolina church that planned to burn Bibles and other Christian materials on Halloween.

I had hoped that the media coverage would have made them slink back into their cave like a member of  the Taliban, but it seems to truly have taken place.

The Wall Street Journal has an article about this event and has titled it Burnt Offerings.

What irony!

You see, it was on October 31, 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg.  This act is marked as the official beginning of the Protestant  Reformation.  One of the hallmarks of the Reformation is the fact that the Scriptures were translated into the vulgar, or common, language.  No longer was it locked up in Latin and inaccessible to the common man.

While we respect and love the King James Version we must say that the burning of Bibles is more in tune with Halloween than it is with Reformation Day and Reformation faith.  There is more satanic movement behind the burning of Bibles than there is true, Biblical faith and principle.

As a Burnt Offering the burning of Bibles is more in line with the wicked act of king Jehoiakim instead of the spirit of righteous Jeremiah.

Let it thus be stated, then, that the Burnt Offering of Amazing Grace Baptist Church is unacceptable to God, and is probably akin to the strange/foreign fire of Nadab and Abihu.

Based upon a twisted view of Scripture, a NC church intends to burn Bibles and other literature on Halloween.  (See story here and here.)

It seems that Amazing Grace Baptist Church (Where is the grace in the sort of activity that they are carrying on?) is a King James Only church and considers all other English translations of God’s Word to be satanic.  They also consider Southern Gospel Music, Contemporary Christian Music, and the books of Billy Graham to be satanic, it seems.

The list of authors whose books will be burned is as follows:

“Westcott & Hort , Bruce Metzger, , Rick Warren , Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll , John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn , Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa , The Pope , Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, etc.”

Let it be known that this is not right.  It is not gracious.  It is not charitable.  It does not show the Spirit of Christ.  It is not Biblical.  It is not the behavior of a Biblical Fundamentalist.  Historically, Biblical Fundamentalists have respected God’s Word wherever it was found.  This burning of Bibles is simply a new form of modernism that sets up man as the authority over God’s Word so that he can judge right and wrong by his own standards.  It seems that Scripture is not sufficient for this sort of “fundamentalist”.  He must go beyond Scripture, but in so doing, he condemns Scripture, thus making himself the final judge and arbiter of what is right.

It is my prayer that Bible believers all over our nation will lift up their voices and cry out against the graceless wickedness of Pastor Marc Grizzard and Amazing Grace Baptist Church.

(Originally published on Fundamentally Changed.)

The Sword of The Lord on The 2011 NIV Update

The October 2, 2009 edition of The Sword of The Lord has an article entitled “NIV Revision Coming in 2011”. In this article written by the editor (Dr. Shelton Smith) one finds the typical resistance to any English translation of the Bible other than the King James Version. A few things in particular bothered me about the article, and they are as follows:

1. “…it is a bad ‘Bible’. Perhaps it would be more precise to say that it is a bad version. I honestly hate to use the word Bible in connection with a product that does not deserve the title.”

What can one say about such a statement? It is so obviously incorrect that it is shameful. One would think that the NIV had changed the text of God’s Word to such an extent that there would be nothing holy found in it. After all, so long as it is God’s Word, it is God’s Word; is it not? For it to not be classified “Bible” it would have to have been so changed as to no longer contain the truth concerning God, salvation, and holiness. While many of us may prefer to use a translation other than the NIV, we cannot find support for such a baseless charge as the Bible no longer being classified as the Bible.

1. “Am I so naive as to assume all the updates will be language? Look at their track record!”

What is the track record of the NIV translators? Smith does not say. My experience leads me to believe that this is an argument that goes back to those handy-dandy little Bible comparison charts. Said argument is fundamentally flawed.

1. “Keith Danby said, ‘And we’ll make sure we get it right this time.’ Is that an admission that the thirty-one-year-old NIV has been right any of the time that they’ve hawked it and sold it like hotcakes?”

Honestly, I have not seen such a quote from Danby and Dr. Smith does not cite his reference. At the same time, it is indeed possible that he made that statement. If he did, allow me to give an imaginative context. Danby was involved in the TNIV. That was a flop. It was divisive and seemed to do little good for most evangelicals. In my imagination I see Danby making such a statement regarding the TNIV. Why? Because of the following:

“’In 1997, IBS announced that it was forgoing all plans to publish an updated NIV following criticism of the NIV inclusive language edition (NIVi) published in the United Kingdom. Quite frankly, some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made,’ Danby said. ‘We fell short of the trust that was placed in us. We failed to make the case for revisions and we made some important errors in the way we brought the translation to publication. We also underestimated the scale of the public affection for the NIV and failed to communicate the rationale for change in a manner that reflected that affection.’

Danby said it was also a mistake to stop revisions on the NIV. ‘We shackled the NIV to the language and scholarship of a quarter century ago, thus limiting its value as a tool for ongoing outreach throughout the world,’ he said.

‘Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. “So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV.’

Girkins expects the TNIV and the existing edition of the NIV to phase out over two years or so as products are replaced. ‘It will be several years before you won’t be able to buy the TNIV off a bookshelf,’ she said.

‘We are correcting the mistakes in the past,’ Girkins said. ‘Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days.’ She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV ‘in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism.’

‘The first mistake was the NIVi,’ Danby said. ‘The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV.’” (Christianity Today)

Let us not forget that the NIV of 1978 is different from the NIVi and TNIV. If we do not recall the difference we may find ourselves making a mistake similar to that of Dr. Smith’s and lose credibility in so doing.

It is sad that we have to contend with Christian brothers over an issue such as this. Though I honestly have found nothing that endears the NIV to me above other modern translations, I cannot deny its being God’s Word, the Bible. It is truly a lack of careful thinking that leads one to so lightly dismiss God’s Word when the KJV translators stated, “we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. ” (See Jesus Is Lord) (See also PastoralMusings’ “The KJVO Translators’ Preface to The Reader”) The worst translation, the KJVO translators declared, still contains and is the Word of God. We must not forget that truth.

It is also sad that one who is a Christian newspaper editor would seemingly take a quote of context and apply it to something other than that of which the person quoted was speaking. Even if it were an honest mistake, we would expect Dr. Smith to have done better than he did.

While I am not KJVO, I am KJV preferred. I use it exclusively in preaching and primarily in studying. I cannot, however, sit idly by when others abuse and twist the truth. If one wishes to be KJVO, in charity we allow them that privilege. We shall not seek to impose our views upon their consciences, but shall only present the truth concerning the issue. We expect the same honest discourse from them. Denying the presence of the Word of God in the NIV and quoting someone out of context will do nothing to further the cause of Christ.

While the Scriptures do not demand our using a certain English translation, they do demand that we be honest and charitable. Let us seek to do so, especially since we have a common enemy: sin. God is glorified when we disagree amiably. May the glory of God be our goal.

First posted on Fundamentally Changed.

The King James Version of the Bible is a wonderful translation.  It is my preferred translation.  It is my favorite translation.  I love it, study from it, enjoy it, preach from it, and believe what it says.  It is God’s Word.  What is said below is by no means intended to denigrate the KJV.  It is intended to show that the King James Version Only arguments are invalidated by the translators of the King James Version.

Though I shall retain the King James Version as my favorite and preferred Bible, I must say that it is not a defensible position to maintain that all other translations are Satanic in nature.  Neither is it defensible to call them “perversions” of the Bible.  There are, no doubt, poor translations available.  The King James is not a poor translation.  It is excellent.  It is not, however, a perfect translation.  The Word of God is perfect.  Scripture is perfect.  We must understand, however, that if the King James Version or any other translation were perfect we would not have to consult dictionaries to understand various words.  We would not have trouble with obscure passages.  Perfection is the nature of Scripture.  The transmission of Scripture in translation is not perfect.  Thus we have to strive hard for clarity of translation and we must strive hard for understanding of God’s Word.

It is to be noted that one website which posts the entire preface (www.jesus-is-lord.com) says the following about the translator’s preface to the reader:

The complete translator’s notes of the Authorized King James scholars are not included in today’s publishings. This is unfortunate because these notes say a lot about these men– they were humble, loved the word of God, loved the King, were berated by the Catholic religion, and they desired a translation for the common man who was kept in darkness. Some of the translators where killed for their faith. This book was forged in blood, sweat, and tears.”

While attempting to use the preface to the reader as a KJVO support, the one who established this website has actually posted something that speaks IN FAVOR of continual effort to improve the translation of the Scriptures into the language of the common man. Thus it is that this preface to the reader from the KJV1611 has been left intact as it was taken from the website of those in favor of the King James Version only stance.

In the Preface to The Reader below my comments are in red. ««Jump to the Preface with comments»». Originally posted at Pastoral Musings.

King James Only Believers And The LXX

In their desire to repudiate the modern versions of the Scriptures, certain KJVO believers have taken it upon themselves to deny the existence of the Septuagint (LXX).¹ The reason for their doing so is given in their own words:

“Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.

Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.”²

“Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. From this point on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of “the second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135″ A.D. by the personal letters of Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C. Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.”³

In other words, these KJVO believers reject the existence of the LXX because it will support Codex B, the Vaticanus Manuscript, which includes the LXX. The existence of the LXX would mean that Codex B is much older than KJVO and TRO (Textus Receptus Only) believers declare it to be. It would also mean that New Testament quotations of the LXX lend support to Codex B. That would then destroy the idea that the Byzantine family of texts is the best and purest family of texts.

We must answer the question, then, concerning the existence of the LXX. We shall do that with two proofs:

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran has yielded to us copies of the LXX in Greek.⁴

2. The words of Irenaus: “Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord?’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared – for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted; – [since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies chp 21, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Note what Irenaeus is saying. He is telling us that the LXX existed in his day, which was many years before Origen. In other words, the story of Origen writing/manufacturing the LXX is simply a fabrication itself.

The question that we must now ask ourselves is this: which group is actually being more faithful to the original text? Is it the KJVO/TRO believers, or is it those who are using Codex B in their translation efforts? Suddenly, the textual issue shines more clearly. In fact, it becomes quite obvious that texts which are supported by Codex B are indeed texts that should be considered most valid. After all, Codex B and the LXX are of the same family: the Alexandrian family. Suddenly, we find that the Alexandrian texts are indeed reliable. After all, the apostles considered them to be such, and used them. My reply to the KJVO believers, then is, “If the Alexandrian texts were good enough for Paul, they’re good enough for me.”

We may indeed have great confidence in many of the modern versions which we have today! They are truly based upon older, more reliable manuscripts.

¹ http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1763356/posts Accessed 08/02/2009

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/miscellaneous/what_is_the_lxx.htm Accessed 08/02/2009

² http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/miscellaneous/what_is_the_lxx.htm Accessed 08/02/2009

³ http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1763356/posts Accessed 08/02/2009

⁴ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html Accessed 08/02/2009

Just a thought about KJVO and TRO believers and apologetics. If the Alexandrian family of texts is no good, or is of Satanic origin, the John Rylands Papyrus (P52) cannot be used in apologetics arguments in favor of an early date of the New Testament Gospels. * To use the JRP, one must then acknowledge the practical worth of the Alexandrian text family. * See also Wiki 1 , 2 , and KCH.

OP here.