- [Narrator] We'll be giving away free books this week,
so make sure to watch to the end for details.
- I love the King James Version.
I love the King James Version
because it's beautiful,
because it's been a translation of the Bible
that has edified millions
of English-speaking Christians around the world.
My children go to a school
where they're required to memorize
verses in the King James Version.
When I think of Psalm 23
I can't think of it with a modern translation.
I have to say the Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
Now having said all that,
that the King James is a great translation
to read, to use, to enjoy.
Is it the best translation?
And maybe even more than that,
can we say that other translations
are bad and misleading?
We cannot say that,
and we should not say that.
Now, it's one thing to say
I prefer the King James Version,
it's another thing to insist that it's the best
or to denigrate other translations.
I'm going to talk a little bit about
some of the arguments people make
in arguing the King James
is the best translation.
This is a very short video,
so I'm going to recommend a book to you
if you want to look at this in more detail.
There's a really good book on this by James White,
called "The King James Only Controversy".
So you can buy that on Amazon or somewhere else.
"The King James Only Controversy" by James White.
It's a great book to look at this in more detail.
Okay, one of the arguments that King James only-ists
will make is they'll say hey look, look,
the NIV or the ESV, look they remove verses from the Bible.
And they'll, for someone who's not familiar with this,
someone will look down and be like,
yeah there's a number 11 and then there's a number 13.
They've removed a verse.
The modern translation has removed a verse from the Bible.
Well, first we need to remember that
the versification system we have
was not present until 1551,
when a Parisian printer named Robert Estienne
added those versus
to a diglot version he had.
The first English Bible to have versification
was the Geneva version in 1560.
But a more important question
is what is the basis for comparison, right?
If the King James only
is the basis for comparison,
yes then this translation
has removed a verse from the Bible.
But really the basis for comparison
I think we can all agree
are the words of the inspired apostles.
So, did Matthew write those words,
or did Mark write those,
or did Paul write those words?
And then whatever translation we have,
we want it to reflect the wording
of the inspired apostles, not,
necessarily a 1611 version
unless it accurately represents that wording.
And someone may say,
well how is it that those words got in there
if Matthew didn't write them?
But people who study the transmission
of the early texts,
there are certain scribal tendencies.
And one of them is if it's a parallel passage
in the Gospels and the scribes are very familiar with it,
and it has some wording in Luke
maybe that Matthew didn't originally have,
there's a tendency to provide that,
to provide exact harmonization between them.
And so we have these tendencies showing up
in some manuscripts which made its way
into the King James Version.
But really, the ultimate question for us
is did Matthew write, did Paul write it,
and then we want it in our Bibles.
Let's talk about a specific example
to help illustrate some of this.
So in 1 John 5
it describes Jesus as the one
who came through the water and the blood,
which I think is a reference to His baptism
and His death and resurrection.
People debate this.
But then it goes on to say there are three that testify,
the Spirit, the water, and the blood.
Now, in some later manuscripts,
in Latin, and then even much later in Greek,
there are additional words that are in there.
I'm reading here from a footnote
in a modern translation.
It says, in the Vulgate,
it also adds, this is the Latin translation,
testify in Heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
And there are three that testify on Earth.
And it has a note here.
These words are not found in any Greek manuscript
before the 14th century.
So,
I mean we have
a huge amount of time
where these words are not found in any Greek manuscript
and then they're written in the margin
because they're known from a Latin translation.
I think there's only one Greek manuscript,
handwritten manuscript its found in.
And some people think it was produced
for the purpose of pressuring Erasmus
to include these words in his Greek New Testament.
Because he said, if you show me one Greek manuscript,
I will include them.
And someone came up with a Greek manuscript,
so he added them in, I think to the third edition, 1522,
of his Greek New Testament.
So, these are words that were translated
and are now found in the King James Version.
But,
there's no doubt the manuscript tradition
is overwhelming and vast,
that John did not write these words.
So, what should we do?
You say well, you know, I memorized that verse
when I was a kid, or I,
I know that from...
Again, what's our standard?
Is it the Bible that we grew up with,
or is it again, is it the words that the apostle wrote?
And we have to admit, though it might at points,
you say, well, I'm familiar with that text,
I don't like them "cutting" that text out.
The question is, is that,
is it cutting that text out
to not have it in the modern translation,
or is it returning to a more reliable basis
for that text?
A second argument
that some KJV only-ists will make
is that they'll attack the character
of the translators of modern versions.
They'll say well, this guy worked
on this modern translation
and here's something he said later in life
or here's something he did later in life,
and so this translation is corrupt.
Certainly the Scripture is the judge
of our lives and character.
But, someone can be a very good translator
and also have a moral failure later in their lives.
And if you apply that same principle
to the translators of the King James Version,
it also, I believe, would fail,
especially if you look at King James himself,
who was involved in the translation.
Or let's take it back even to the apostles.
You know, we take certain snapshots of Peter's life,
and say should this guy be allowed
to write a book of the Bible because of this moral failure
or this inconsistency?
So I don't think that,
that standard can consistently stand up.
Another criticism,
maybe really the fundamental one
that a King James only person will have
of modern translations,
is if they understand the issues, they'll say,
these modern translations are not based
on the most reliable Greek manuscripts.
There's different families
of Greek language manuscript traditions.
And one of them is the Byzantine text tradition.
And the King James is based more
on this family of Greek manuscripts.
So one question some people may have,
is well why this commitment
to the Byzantine text tradition,
or why did the King James translators
in 1611, why did they rely upon this?
When the Greek and Hebrew Bible
were sort of rediscovered,
we could say, during the time of the Reformation,
where people went back and said hey,
you know, we've been reading the Latin translation
for a thousand years, what is the,
what does the Greek and Hebrew really say?
When they went back to that there was a demand for
well, we need copies of the Greek New Testament
so we can see for ourselves.
And the copies that begin to circulate
were based upon the Byzantine text tradition,
because that's what was available
at that geographic place and time
for those early workers in the Greek New Testament.
One of the most influential of these,
what's considered the first published printed
Greek New Testament was Erasmus' Greek New Testament.
And I don't remember the exact number
of manuscripts he relied on,
but it was around 10 or 11.
It was a small number.
It was based on what he had available to him
at that time and place.
And it ended up
through that and through subsequent
publications of the Greek New Testament,
the Byzantine text tradition became
sort of accepted as,
as the standard.
But later, as more and more Geek manuscripts
began to be discovered and compared,
and as we now have,
nearly 6,000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts,
it causes us to rejoice in the wealth
of manuscripts we have.
To not say, oh these are, get these away.
Let's just, let's burn all these
and let's stick with the ones that are similar
to our early translations.
Now, the majority of Biblical scholars say hey,
this is a beautiful wealth of manuscripts.
We have these manuscripts that are Byzantine,
Alexandrian, Caesarian,
we have over
5,000, nearly 6,000 ancient Greek manuscripts
or portions of manuscripts.
And so we have every word of God
that was given to the apostles preserved.
It's preserved through this symphony of manuscripts.
Not in any one, you know it'd be like
if someone came up in court
and you said well, I've got a witness in court,
here's my one witness.
You'll be like, well that's good.
Or if I say I've got a witness in court,
I've got 6,000 witnesses.
I think I would say I'm going to listen to the 6,000 witnesses
and listen to them and realize their minor differences
that we can compare and understand
then what Matthew, Mark, Paul originally wrote.
So, the belief that the Byzantine text tradition
is the most reliable,
is, I would argue, something based on
someone's faith assertion rather than
on the actual historical evidence
of what manuscripts are early
and how they were transmitted
and the actual scribal variations between them.
And looking at that, we should say
God has left us a wealth of manuscript evidence
that vastly agrees, but has minor differences.
And we should lay all those manuscripts out,
side-by-side, and look at the evidence.
Another argument, I would say,
against arguing the King James is the best
or the most reliable, or every one should use it,
is the fact that the English language
has changed radically over 400 years.
If you just give the King James Version to
somebody you meet on the street,
they're going to have a hard time understanding it.
And I once had someone argue with me,
well they could buy a dictionary.
(scoffs) Okay, you can buy a dictionary
from the 1600s, but is that really
the vision we have for Bible translation?
Here's a Bible, here's a dictionary
of the English language in the 1600s,
I hope you'll read it,
and look up every fifth word.
I think we realize that language
changes over time, that's normal.
And we want a Bible that's in the readable,
understandable language of the day,
just like the Greek of the New Testament
is written in the readable, understandable
Greek of the first century.
When they translated the Hebrew Testament
and quoted it in the New Testament,
they did so in readable, understandable Koine Greek.
And so they've given us their sort of
implicit apostolic permission
to translate the Word of God
into understandable language of our day.
Final statement about the King James Version.
One thing I would challenge people to do,
especially those maybe who are committed to the King James,
is to read the preface,
the translator's preface,
which you can find online
to the original King James version,
and you'll see that these guys
didn't think they were presenting a once for all,
this is the English translation for all time.
They saw themselves as building on the work
of others who had preceded them.
Many people don't know there were,
there's a spade of English translations
coming out in the 1500s and 1600s.
The Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible,
the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible.
The King James translators saw themselves
building upon this tradition
and also providing a work that was not final.
That they realized that new insights would come
into the Greek and Hebrew language,
and greater precision in expression.
So that's important to realize.
Again, I like to read it.
I've memorized portions of it.
My kids have memorized portions of it.
But do I think it's the most reliable?
No.
Do I think that other translations are bad?
No, we have excellent modern translations of the Bible.
And they're along a spectrum
of more word for word, and more thought for thought.
And along that spectrum I would recommend the ESV.
I'd recommend the Christian Standard Bible,
the NIV, the NLT.
These are all great modern translations
that accurately convey
the meaning of the apostles.
- [Narrator] Thanks for watching Honest Answers.
Don't forget to subscribe.
We'll be giving away three copies of the book
that was mentioned in this episode.
Go to the link in the description below
to find out how you can enter.
(gentle music)