In Defense of the King James Bible

 

In this day when many Christians have started using one of the many modern English translations of the Bible and abandoning the King James Version, I believe it is needful to review a few of the reasons why I prefer to use only the King James Version.

 

The King James Translators

One reason is that all the fifty or more translators who developed the King James Bible were godly men who believed in the inerrancy and full authority of scripture. This has not been true of many who have worked on the modern versions.

 

Further, the King James translators (54 men altogether) were great scholars, as proficient in the Biblical languages as any who have come after them. They were familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous translations. The professional qualifications of the translators were all extremely high.

 

For example, Dr. John Bois, who was extremely skilled in both Hebrew and Greek. In fact, it is reported by his biographer that he was reading through the Hebrew Old Testament when he was only five years old. Dr. Bois became Dean of Canterbury in 1619. Dr. William Bedwell was an expert in Latin, Arabic, and Persian, preparing lexicons in these languages. Dr. Andrew Downes spent 40 years as Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford University. Dr. John Harding was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Lancelot Andrews, a leader of the Old Testament translators, had been chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages, as well as Hebrew and Greek. It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team.

 

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament in England with over six barrels of gunpowder, which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, reestablish England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. The King James Version would have been one of its victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.

 

Which New Translation could replace it?

There have been over 120 translations since the King James. If one feels he really needs to switch from the King James to a new translation, how can he decide which, if any is really the inspired word of God? Which of the new versions best preserved the inspired, authoritative Word of God? After all, God did give strong warning to any who would presume to supplement, delete, or distort any of the words of Scripture. (Rev. 22:18,19; II Peter 3:16)

 

Let's take a look at one popular modern translation, the NIV, and see how it stands up to the test of preserving and not deleting God’s Word.

 

Verses Omitted:

Matt. 17:21 - (prayers /fasting; casting out devils) no verse at all.

Matt. 18:11- (Son of man came to save that which is lost) no verse at all.

Matt 23:14 - (rebuke of Pharisees) no verse at all.

I John 5:7 - (three that bear record in heaven) is out.

Luke 4:8 - (get behind me Satan) is out.

John 5:4 - (pool of Bethesda) verse is omitted.

I Tim. 3:16- (God was manifested in the flesh) is out.

Luke 9:55- (ye know not what manner of spirit) is out.

Matt 20:16- (many are called but few are chosen) is out.

Mark 10:21- (take up the cross) is out.

Romans 8:1- (last 10 words are out-  who walk not after the flesh . . . )

 

In the NIV’s New Testament alone there are actually 195 verses that are deleted or tampered with. All new translations are similar. Is God the author of confusion?

 

For a long time, the KJV was the official version used by all bible-believing churches. Now, however, confusion reigns. Congregational reading is no longer possible and Scripture memorization is almost a lost art these days in churches that use the modern versions.

 

And what about our belief in verbal inspiration? If only the thought that counts, then the words are flexible, and we can adjust them to make them convey any thought we prefer. Exact thoughts require precise words.

 

Which version best renders the original manuscripts?

Almost all the new versions of the new testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text, whereas the King James is based largely on what is know as the Textus-Receptus; the received text. This is the text that millions died for during the dark ages because the Roman Catholic Church did not want the common man to have a Bible, thus it is called the received text since the people received it. Westcott and Hort both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism, and were theological liberals. The two old Greek manuscripts used by Hort and Westcott (the Textus-Receptus has over 5,000 manuscripts supporting it!), the Sinaitus and Vaticanus, leave out most of Genesis as well as part of Revelation, in addition to the pastoral epistles of Paul, 33 psalms, and over a third of Hebrews. This is all very well documented.

The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove they are better. It actually indicated that they were set aside and not used because of their numerous gross errors. They would naturally last longer then the good manuscripts, which were used regularly and thus worn out sooner. When the scrolls were worn out in times of old, they would either bury them or burn them after a scribe had carefully copied them. Older does not mean better.

 

People say, shouldn’t we be loyal to the original autographs and not a translation. First of all, there are no originals, all we have are copies. Second, we should put as much value on the originals as God does. Let's look at Jeremiah 36 and the roll he had written. In verse 21 the roll is brought to the King and read to him. In verse 23, the King cuts it up and put it in the fire. Thus ends the original #1. In verse 45 and 51 it is reproduced for our benefit. Jeremiah tells Seraiah to read it when he came to Babylon (Jer.51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructs Seraiah, after he reads it, to cast it into the Euphrates River. Thus ends original #2. But wait, we have a copy of the text in chapters 45-51. Where did it come from? It came from a copy of the original #2, which we can only call original #3. God did not have the least bit interest in preserving the original once it had been copied. So why should we put more emphasis on the original then God does? An emphasis, which is plainly unscriptural. I believe God allowed the original to vanish long ago because people would have honored the paper more then the words.

 

What about Archaic Language in the King James?

The beautifully poetic prose of the King James is a great treasure, which should not be lost or forgotten. It has been acclaimed as the greatest example of English literature ever written. Apart from a few archaic words, which can be clarified with a concordance, it is as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago. A formal study called the Flesh-Kinkaid, was done on the King James Version. The Flesh-Kinkaid is test or caliber that is used by secular publishers to determine the level of reading of a particular publication. The King James Version was determined to be at a 5th grade reading level.

 

The King James was produced during the period when the English language and literature had reached their zenith of power and expressiveness. That was the age of Shakespeare. Modern English, on the other hand, has become merely a remnant of its former beauty and clarity.

 

Conclusion: Is the King James inspired or preserved?

The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved. Why did God inspire a perfect original if he didn’t plan on preserving it? Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus, etc..) and uses men to write His words. Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them today. Both of these actions are divine and assured by God as recorded in Psalm 12:6,7. It is somewhat confusing that a person could claim that God could not use mortal man to preserve His words when he used mortal man to write His inspired words.

 

I believe, after 20 years of study that Christians need to hang on to their King James Bible. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great revivals, in the world wide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers, more then He has with all the rest of the versions put together. By their fruits ye shall know them (Matt. 7:20).

 

Rev. Jimmy Collins Bro. Jimmy is a board member at the Highway of Holiness Church in Hamilton, OH. He is also a missionary to India