Scholars Crossing SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations 1982 The King James Version Today Edward Hindson Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Recommended Citation Hindson, Edward, "The King James Version Today" (1982). SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations. 145. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/145 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The King JOInes Version Today I I by Ed Hindson o other book has had so wide an impact on the Designed as a "compromise" translation for use by both and Puritans had English-speaking world as the King James Version parties of the Anglican Church it was eventually accepted by Lould be accepted of the Bible. Over the years of its popularity it High Church Episcopalians and Evangelical Puritans alike. It rere partial to the went through four major revisions, the last one being in 1769. was certainly not the first English translation, but it was the fer, the common Most people who prefer the King James Version believe they first to be widely accepted by both factions of the English reconcile this dif­ are reading the 1611 original, but they are in fact using the Church. However, we should remember that in 1611 it was a rch conference at 1769 fourth revision. A simple comparision will show the dif­ new translation and some of the old guard of conservative tans were invited ference: Puritans opposed it violently as a dangerous compromise with with a group of KJV (1611 edition): Episcopacy. Some branded the KJ. V. translators as "dam­ :Reynolds), Pres i­ "Our Father which are in heauen, Halowed be thy nable corruptors of God's Word." Even the great scholar Dr. lS the spokesman Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done as in Hugh Broughton rejected it, saying: "I require it to be ir formal church heauen, so in earth. Giue vs day by day our daily bread. burnt!" preferring his "trusted" Geneva Bible. in fabric gowns, And forgive vs our sinnes: for we also forgiue everyone Translating the Bible Bancroft, Bishop that is indebted to vs. And lead us not into temptation, ans, accused the but deliver vs from euill" (Luke 11:2-4). It has been stated by some that "God only wrote one four laws," while KJV (1769 edition): Bible." While that is true, it was not the King James Version, and called for a "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy for it is only one of many English translations. The Bible God le people. name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in "wrote" (through inspiration) was in Hebrew and Greek (with 37-year-old king heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. a dash of Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra). The inspiration and [enry, near him. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive everyone inerrancy of the Scriptures applies first and foremost to those =diately captured that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; original manuscripts. They were later hand-copied to preserve :ranslation of the but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-4). the text and none of the originals remain today. We do not val of the entire have the original documents of the Bible. What we do have Anglicans and Popularity of KVJ are thousands of copied manuscripts (and these contain many 5 responded that variations). God did not see fit to give the original Scriptures lniuersities, after Since the seventeenth century the King James Version has in a time when they could be photocopied for perfect fle chiefe learned been the most popular English translation of the Bible. It is reproduction. He also apparently did not allow the originals =d to the Priuie- often called the "Authorized Version" because it was to survive. ell Authoritie, and presented to King James of England by the translation com- The task of translating the Bible into any language must md none other." mittee for his authorization in 1611. It should be noted that begin with settling the issue of the text. Which Greek and ,ved for this neW the king was not totally pleased with the translation and Hebrew manuscripts should be translated? The original King i.ally begin until ~eve~ d~d ~fficially ,authorize it, though the designation has James Version followed the Masoretic Text of the Old Testa- ~mued on page ~k WIth It ever SInce. continued on page 49 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ITALIST JOURNPl NOVEMBER 1982 35 continued from page 35 "The King James English is so inspired tain the Majority Text. Thus, the new it corrects the Greek and Hebrew translation follows the exact same text Vise, [11ent and the Received Text (Textus originals!" Others clung to their 1769 as the 1611 edition. It retains the RecepWs) of the New Testament (which edition thinking it was the 1611 literary beauty and quality of the old follows the basic fourth century A.D. original. One sincere preacher told me King James Version. ssful Byzantine Text type). Since over 80 that all translations were wrong The New King James Bible was total­ Jy J.O. Grooms percent of the Greek manuscripts are of because "we can't change one word of ly translated by Bible-believing, born­ [he Byzantine type it is often called the the Bible." He went on to point out again Christians who deeply revere the Majority Text. Other text types include that modernizing "ye" into "you" Word of God. Every translator has a the Alexandrian, Western, and would add a letter to the Bible and clear-cut testimony of faith in Christ. Caesarean manuscripts. Some argue throw off its numerical accuracy. I In no way whatever have they attemp­ that since these are generally "older" reminded him that when people use the ted to destroy or pervert the Word of than the Byzantine texts they are prob­ so-called King James Version (1769) they God. As a member of the translation ably closer to the original text. They have a "modernized" and "corrupted" team I can testify to the seriousness also note that the older text-types agree text which changes "yee" to "ye"! I with which every word was translated :1, "Now ye are [11ore with Bible verses quoted by the urged him to return to the real 1611 so that this version would clearly reflect 1tO you" (John ancient church Fathers, and, therefore original with all of its archaic spellings. the intent of the original text. ways? By "tak- support the argument that these Then I showed hi m my 1611 replica An Admonition and Appeal 9:9). How can readings are to be preferred. Others edition and told him the book he had )Und in Psalm argue that the Byzantine Text is more was not the real Bible! Confronted with 1. We must understand the tat I might not I. uniform and homogenous and is the such inescapable proof, he simply turn­ legitimacy and importance of Bible preferred text which has been most ed and walked away! translation. Martin Luther and the ear­ I popularly accepted throughout the ly reformers insisted that the Bible be ', many centuries of church history. A Reliable Translation translated into the langU'llge of the peo­ the prayers of Bible translation is a very legitimate ple so that every man could understand ) to Him. Jesus ). Recent Translations enterprise. There would be no English the Bible in his own tongue. Nords abide in 2. We must not label as "apostate" lne unto you." Major revisions in modern Bible Bible of any kind if it were not for the translation began in 1901 with The art of translation. There are still nearly or "ignorant" those who disagree with . American Standard Version. These were 2,000 languages and dialects in this our view of the preferred text-types. g the soul: the l both well received by conservative world that need to have the Bible Good, saved scholars sincerely differ on ;e the simple" Christians of all types and caused little translated into their tongue. For hun­ this issue. That difference does not :I night in the or no controversy. However, the ob­ dreds of years the Bible was only keep them out of heaven! ?iving wisdom vious liberal bias of the Revised Standard available in Latin in the Vulgate edi­ 3. We need to be patient with light; it giveth Version (1946-52) and the New English tion. This one translation was treated sincere preachers and laymen who have Bible (1961) set off a violent reaction by many medieval scholars (as the King no idea that the Bible has passed to us among Fundamentalists who staunchly James Version is by some today) as if it from the original manuscripts to hand­ lur world, God rejected both. Later, loose paraphrases were the only inspired translation. written copies to various text-types and Some actually thought the apostles finally into English translation. J will meditate were also severely rejected and de­ phet Jeremiah nounced as corruptions of God's Word. wrote in Latin! Unfortunately there are 4. We dare not be so prejudiced as ~hem; and thy While conservative Christians were still some folk in the English-speaking to think that our English language is heart: for I am right in their opposition to these world who think that the Bible was superior to all other languages.