Q&A: Is the KJV the Best Bible Translation?

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=168 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF" background="129a11c3.png"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Welcome to the Heart4God Website!"><U><B><IMG SRC="4b55a500.png" border=0 width="90" height="80" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Writings of Joseph Herrin"><U><B>Writings by Date</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id212.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Writings of Joseph Herrin Organized "><U><B>Writings by Topic</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.heart4god.ws/Audio/index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heart4god.ws/Audio/index.htm"><U><B>Audio Files</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id690.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Videos"><U><B>Videos</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id323.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Writings of Others"><U><B>Other Authors</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id324.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Links"><U><B>Links</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id339.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Questions and Answers"><U><B>Q&A</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id328.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Heart4God Email List"><U><B>Heart4God E-mail List</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.parablesblog.blogspot.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.parablesblog.blogspot.com"><U><B>Parables Blog</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id306.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="File Downloads"><U><B><IMG SRC="2b264140.png" border=0 width="100" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <bR> <div> <B>Q&A: Is the KJV the Best Bible Translation?</B></div> <div> <IMG SRC="c2827160.png" border=0 width="807" height="22" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> I think most saints are aware that there are many today that believe the King James Version of the Bible is the best and most authoritative Bible translation. Some go so far as to state that it is the only Bible that a true Christian should use. Most who make these comments know very little about the actual history of this Bible translation, or having heard they have closed their minds due to their own prejudices. Christ, however, has called us to "study to show ourselves approved a workman that need not be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth", and this study reaches as far as understanding the history of the Bibles we have received, and understanding the prejudices of the translators and the errors that they have sometimes intentionally placed into the Scriptures that they were working on.</div> <bR> <div> The following letter is part of a correspondence I had with a brother who wrote to tell me that he believed the KJV was the most accurate translation available.</div> <bR> <div> Dear Brother,</div> <bR> <div> I would agree with you that there are some serious problems with many of the translations today, but I haven't found the KJV to be a better translation, but in most cases to be a much more flawed translation. Please don't think this is just some prejudice of mine, this comes from my own research into translations and I will share with you the reasons why I believe this to be true. I currently have the KJV, the New KJV, the American Standard, the New American Standard, the NAS Updated version, the NIV, the Interlinear, The Concordant Literal Translation, and Young's Literal Translation on my computer. I also have the Jerusalem Bible, The Scriptures put out by The Institute for Scripture Research, and other translations in hardcopy. I frequently compare the translations and I constantly go back to the original words to see what they meant when I am studying. </div> <bR> <div> Regarding the usage of Bible translations, I have also written some on this, particularly in the articles "God's Plan of the Ages" and "The Usage of Divine Names". I have written that all of the popular English translations are full of translation errors, but until the time that I can find a suitable computer based substitute for them, or I can develop one myself, I will continue to use them, but in many instances I will susbtitute a word that gives a better rendering. Following is an excerpt from Gary Amirault that reveals some of the information he found on the KJV Bible in doing his own research. </div> <div> ----------------------------</div> <div> It was extremely painful for me (Gary Amirault) when researching Bible translations to come across the fact that in 1851 the American Bible Society compared six different editions of the King James Bible and discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions of the same Bible translation! How could there be an inerrant King James Bible when even the different editions of the King James Bible had ten's of thousands of variant readings!? I was told by tradition not to question the inerrant King James Bible. No one ever told me that even in the very first year of the King James Bible, two different printings of the very same King James were not the same. No one ever told me that the editions of the KJV up until the 19th century contained 14 additional books not in today's editions. We have an exact reprint of one of the 1611 printings that contains books such as: The Idole Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, The prayer of Manasseh, Tobit, Judith, the Song of the Three Children, Baruch, etc.. Can you find these books in a present edition of the King James Bible? If the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is a true doctrine, which of the many editions of the KJV is the inerrant one? The original one contained books no longer in the present editions. Have these publishers "taken away from the Word?" Will the plagues of Revelation be on your head because you are using a KJV missing 14 books? </div> <bR> <div> The Bible Inerrancy Camp and the King James Only Camp teach that we have a perfect Greek text or imply it. It is called the "Textus Receptus" by the KJV camp which is Latin for "Received Text." They teach this text was available to the King James translators which allowed them to produce an inerrant English translation. Historical records regarding this "Textus Receptus" proves their view to be totally false. </div> <bR> <div> First of all, the term "Textus Receptus" first appears in a second edition of Stephanus Greek text produced by the Elzevire Brothers in 1633, twenty two years after the King James Bible was printed! It was an advertising pitch as false as most commercials are today. The so-called Textus Receptus began its debut in 1516. It started as a work which took a self-proclaimed "humanist" Roman Catholic monk only several months to, in his own words "throw together rather than edit." One critic in England called it the "least carefully printed book ever published." Erasmus in trying to be the first to get a Greek text in print, threw together in a few months what it took his competitors at Alcala de Henares University many years to assemble. The University's text came to be known as the Complutensian Polyglott. Erasmus only had a handful of very late manuscripts to work from, none of which contained the complete Greek New Testament, so he filled in the gaps from the Latin Vulgate. That is why the Textus Receptus has words that do not agree with any known Greek text. He corrected his text in 4 subsequent editions. </div> <bR> <div> In the mid 1500's a man named Stephanus took Erasmus' text, and combined it with the Complutensian Text. He produced several editions making changes along the way. The Stephanus text, which the King James translators used, differed from the self-proclaimed "Textus Receptus" in 287 places. There are no known Greek manuscripts that agree "inerrantly" with either the Textus Receptus or the Stephanus text. Erasmus, the originator of the so-called "inerrant" Greek text later to be called the "Textus Receptus" dedicated his work to Pope Leo X who later would condemn Luther and the Reformation. For a full account of this sad chapter of church deception, read "The Text of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger. Foundation Press in Anaheim, California also has some valuable information. </div> <bR> <div> The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "or, as some copies read, 'no more than eight or ten days.'" Unfortunately notes such as these as well as much other information contained in the Original KJV have been removed to support the "Inerrancy" fraud. Enough . . . of this sad chapter of Bible translating...</div> <bR> <div> There was a time when Bible writing was strictly in the hands of the church. The end result was the church put the Bible into a "Sacred" language called Latin which common people in latter times could not and were not allowed to read. It was called the Vulgate. The common people could not read the Scriptures in their native tongue of English, German, French, etc.. Getting caught with any portion of the Scriptures in your native language could get one killed by the church! Please believe us. This is true. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox churches did not want Christians or non-Christians reading the Scriptures. </div> <bR> <div> When the first Common Language Bibles began to appear in the languages of the world, the state and church still had much control over the wording, who could read it, and which translations one could read. An Anglican Protestant was not allowed to read a Lutheran Bible. King James did not want the people of England to read the English Geneva Bible produced by John Calvin and his associates. Church leaders used the notes in the Geneva Bible as Scriptural support to tell the King how to rule. Before James the first was king of England, he was King James the sixth of Scotland. The Presbyterians caused him much trouble and their favorite Bible was the Geneva Bible. King James commissioned the King James Bible because of political reasons, not because of a love of the Creator. The English were strongly being influenced by the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible which states that the people of a monarchy had the right to overthrow that monarchy if it did not line up with Scripture? King James believed in the "Divine Right of the King." He called the Geneva Bible "seditious." Therefore, he commissioned the King James Bible. </div> <bR> <div> He gave the committee 15 rules which they had to abide by while translating his Bible. Several of those selected for the committee resigned because of these stipulations. This list is printed in most well researched Bible translations reference books. We will mention just a couple to show you that this version was not going to be pure nor "inerrant." "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." (Doesn't sound like a "new" translation , does it?) "3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. The word church not be translated Congregation &c." (This was to insure the old Roman Catholic\Anglican rituals, ordinances, and doctrines be not altered. They couldn't change the word baptize into immerse, for example.) "4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith." (In others words, they must abide by the "traditions of the elders." Remember Jesus' words, "You have made the word of God of none effect by your traditions?) </div> <bR> <div> These examples should be enough to show one that the King James translators were not "anointed by God" to produce an authentically original translation free from political and denominational bias. They were "appointed by James" for political and monetary reasons. King James didn't put a penny into the project, but he could make money out of the project since it was his Bible. Not only were the translators not "anointed," but the King's printers weren't anointed either. The early printings had printers errors which were downright embarrassing for a so-called "inerrant" Bible. </div> <bR> <div> In one edition they forgot to put the word not in the 7th commandment! </div> <div> The translator's have this to their credit. They noted in the preface to the reader that they only took previous men's work and hoped to make a better one, knowing others would follow them and produce even a better one yet. This preface has been also removed from present day King James Bibles because it does not conform to the fundamentalist's "inerrancy" teachings. That is why the translators preface is no longer printed in current King James Bibles. We have made several tapes dealing with the many misconceptions and untruths proclaimed about the KJV. We mention here, only a few points to clearly show that the teaching of an "inerrant" KJV is a pure myth. </div> <bR> <div> In 1611 two separate editions of the KJV were printed. They came to be known as the "Great He Bible" and the "Great She Bible" because one printed Ruth 3:15 as "he went" and the other printed "she went." These two original King James Bibles, printed in the first year this Bible was issued, had several thousands differences. When asked to endorse the KJV, Hugh Broughton, foremost Hebrew scholar of England at that time said he would rather "be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had any part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people." </div> <bR> <div> It is vital to understand that when the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox church removed the Scriptures from the common people, these churches were then able to bring in hundreds of pagan doctrines, idols, and false religious rites. The mythologies of the Romans, Greeks, Teutons, Norse, Druids etc. were incorporated into church teaching which produced great darkness. Read about the dark ages of Europe which were brought about by Christian leaders, the popes, bishops, cardinals, and kings appointed by the pope. </div> <bR> <div> When the Reformation began, the minds of Christian leaders were so cluttered by superstition and false doctrines that the progress they made in breaking away from the total darkness of Romanism was really only a small step out of darkness. We forget that the Anglican Church began, not because of Godly reasons, but from political and personal ones. Also don't forget, King James was much more interested in a Bible to support his view of the "divine right of the king" than to produce an inerrant Bible. Church historians have glorified the Reformation far beyond what was really accomplished. Today, we still have a long way to go. </div> <bR> <div> Today, most Bibles are produced by merchants. The church proved it only perverted the "Word of God" when she was sole guardian of it. She hid it, then changed it. Now merchants produce most Bible translations which must be sold for a profit which usually means giving the market what they want. Over 350 English translations of the New Testament have been marketed to date. The most popular and accepted translations are, of course, those which can be used to support Christendom's doctrines. Pastors will push those translations which work for them the most. </div> <bR> <div> When a major Bible translation is undertaken by a publisher or some other institution, the directors are not only responsible for getting the text translated; they must also make sure that the resulting work will, over time, pay for the cost of translation and make a profit. In other words, they are under a directive to make sure that the completed Bible supports the majority view of Christendom's doctrines. The market first, accuracy to original texts second. The bottom line of present day Bible translating is: It must sell! </div> <div> ----------------------------------------</div> <bR> <div> D., this reveals just some of the things I have found about Bible translations as I researched them. It is also often overlooked by people who support the superiority of the KJV that this was the same king of England that persecuted those who disagreed in any way with the Anglican Church of England. He would even imprison men and confiscate their houses, leaving their women and children to struggle for survival. Is this the heart of someone who really loves God and who loves the children of God? It was this same King James that persecuted those we know as the Pilgrims and he tried to keep them from leaving England. Eventually they did flee to Holland to escape his tyranny, and later they sailed to America. </div> <bR> <div> Is it not a conflict that we venerate these early pilgrims for their desire to worship God in Spirit and in truth, and we feel pity for all the hardship they faced, yet we also venerate the King who caused the hardship and we declare that the translation of the scriptures that he authorized is a superior translation? Somehow the church's prejudices have disconnected them from the truth. King James was a tyrant and he was by no means a godly ruler. Yet many in the church staunchly defend the Bible that he ordered written for political and monetary reasons. </div> <bR> <div> Again, I don't share these things with you to antagonize you, and I hope you are not offended that I have shared them. These are things I have learned as I have done my own studies, and I believe it is the Spirit of Yahweh that has led me to these things. I want to walk in truth and to avoid error so I weigh carefully the things people speak to me. Paul praised the Berean believers for doing this very thing. </div> <bR> <div> May you be blessed with the wisdom and understanding that is in Yahshua our Lord, </div> <bR> <div> Joseph</div> <bR> <div> I would like to append some more information here to this page, as there are many more things that I have come cross in my study of Bible translations. Adlai Loudy, in support of the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible, made some of the following observations.</div> <bR> <div> In John 20:1, the King James reads: </div> <div>  </div> <div> “The first <I>day</I> of the week . . .” </div> <bR> <div> It is little known to Christendom that this is a “bogus” translation foisted upon the church by the translators, a “camel” that has been swallowed by scholars and students alike. The writer had a wellmeaning brother in the Lord, who became so concerned about me and my teaching that he traveled a long distance to go over the matter with a view to readjusting me in the truth. After patiently listening to all that he had to say, I suggested a few things to him, one of which was the fact that the Scriptures, correctly translated, knew nothing about “the first day of the week.” He threw up his hands in astonishment that I would make such an irreverent indictment of the “Bible!” After facing the facts. He apparently preferred “error” to the truth, as he made no attempt to reply and quit the subject without any explanation whatever. </div> <bR> <div> The original, in all three of the oldest manuscripts, reads: <I>mia ton sabbaton,</I> ONE OFTHE SABBATHS. Our translators presumed to know more than the great Author and <I>corrupted </I>the word of God. They altered “one” to read “first,” inserted the word “day,” for it is not in the original and is not needed in the translation, and changed “sabbaths” to the <I>singular “week.” </I>Can one imagine a more perfidious and deceptive act of man? It truly is repugnant to those who reverently regard the original as the very word of God, and want it to speak to them as He was pleased to give it...</div> <div> ----------------------------------</div> <bR> <div> The Authorized Version renders Romans 7:24 thus: </div> <div> O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. </div> <div> Since the King James “Bible” was made, this question has been read and reread by the saints of God, but the answer has been lacking. THE CONCORDANT VERSION, following the editor of Sinaiticus, restores the answer that has been lost all these years. It reads: </div> <div> A wretched man I am! What will rescue me out of this body of death? <I>Grace! </I>Now I am thanking God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord...</div> <div> -------------------------------------</div> <bR> <div> These examples could be multiplied many times, but this will suffice to show that we should be very careful about building divisive articles, dogmas and doctrines on such imperfections, as are manifest in these older versions. Since the King James “Bible” was issued in 1611, some forty new dictionaries have been issued to keep pace with the growth and changes in the English language. The English and American revision committees made 36,191 <I>changes —</I>rectifications<I> </I>— of the King James Version that more closely conform to the original, after which President Schaff said the work was still far from perfect! </div> <div> -------------------------------------</div> <bR> <div> The above comments are all by Mr. Loudy. I personally have not found any translation that would merit a stamp of approval as the single best and most accurate translation. Perhaps this has been God's will to keep His children ever seeking, and ever knocking, that they might find that truth is a person, and much more than mere words on a page. Yahshua said "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and He has sent us His Spirit to guide us into all Truth. If we had a single inerrant translation many would fall into the habit of spending far too little time seeking the mind of the Spirit, believing that they could comprehend Truth through mere mental ascension.</div> <bR> <div> The present state of Bible translations forces the seeker of the mind of Christ to come to the throne of God time after time, asking the Father to lead us to Truth through the working of His Spirit in us. Choosing a Bible translation is one of the thornier issues among Christians today, and many have exhibited a decided lack of grace and love toward their brothers who should disagree with some favorite translation. Nowhere is this more evident than those who have camped out around the KJV Bible, yet as we have seen, it was not divinely inspired in its translation, and has had thousands of revisions and changes, and is still full of so many errors and prejudices as to make it difficult to rely upon.</div> <bR> <div> The church today resembles very much the Corinthian church that Paul derided for their carnality. They had divisions among them based upon who their favorite teacher was, Paul, Apollos, Peter, and even Yahshua. The church today still has its divisions, and one source is found in arguments over which Bible translation is the best. I believe there is no "best" translation, and the serious student would do well to compare many translations and to do research of their own. A great help to me is in comparing how a word was used in other instances by the same author, or by other authors of the time. By comparing in this manner we can see what a word's actual meaning was, and we can see if the translators have altered it in certain places to fit their own views. Time after time this has led me to discover some alteration of the Scriptures that served to obscure truth from the readers.</div> <bR> <div> Let us not be saints that adopt some prejudiced view of which Bible translation is the best, but let us seek to urge one another to a pursuit of the truth and to expose error wherever we find it.</div> <bR> <div> Joseph Herrin</div> <bR> <div> E-mail: </div> <div> website: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Georgia" ><A HREF="http://heart4god.ws" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://heart4god.ws"><U><U>http://heart4god.ws</U></U></A></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>