A Question About The King James Version

The GospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
A Ouestion About The Kins James Version
Dear Rick:
Pleasecomment on why you still use the
King James Version. (Pleasedon't be
offended.)
Dear Brother in Christ:
Your question is a fair, legitimate
question and therefore I have no reason
to be offended. Even if it were a
question of insincerity or one expressive
of divisivenessI would still be willing to
answer it since others in the past have
askedme the samequestion. There have
even been times when I have told others
the answer to this question when they
have not asked.
Actually, the answer is neither profoirnd
nor "scholarly".
When I began my
spiritual joumey several years ago I
began with the King James Version.
And the reason I began with this version
was quite frankly becauseI didn't know
any others existed. (And, at that time
there was not
the tremendous
proliferation of translations, versions,
and paraphrasesnow available.) Almost
all of the preaching and teaching done
by others in the church was with the use
of the King James Version. All the
Bible college work done by me was with
the King James Version. Any Bible
correspondencecoursesI did were based
upon the King JamesVersion text. As a
result, the translation with which I am
most familiar and with which I have
done most of my Bible study is the King
James Version. All of my scripture
memorization is that found in the Kins
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe,
Ohio 4560I -0575
www.gospel-defender.org
James Version text. So after all these
years of using the King JamesVersion I
am most comfortable with
that
translation.l
There are those who tell us that the more
recent translations are more accurate
having been produced from older and
more reliable primary sources of
documents. I do not profess to be either
a leamed textual scholar or a skilled
textual critic but I do not necessarily
agree with those who would have us
believe this.
One reason for my
disagreement is that as soon as a new
translation or version comes on the scene
we are told that it is far more reliable or
trustworthy
than
the
that
one
immediately precededit which statedthe
same claim of superiority as did its
newest successor! There are "plusses"
and "minuses" with each and every
translation. It is my own personal
opinion that the King James Version is
as reliable as any other translation.
Having said that, I am quick to admit
that frequently I must tell the audience
that I am teaching or to whom I am
preaching that a certain word or phrase
in the King James Version actually
means or would be better translated as
"such-and-such" or "a better translation
of this word (or sentence)would be...."
What I am admitting is that the King
James Version is not perfect or without
its shortcomings as is no other
translation. Just as a case in point,
ProfessorDonald A. Nash has written A
t lt shouldbe notedthat sincethe writing of this
"Question and Answer," this writer has
"switched over" from the Old King James
Versionto theNew King JamesVersion.
TheGospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
Critique of the New International
Version of the New Testament in which
he states "The New Intemational
Version, it seems to ffi€, sometimes,
when it is not really necessaryfor clarity
of meaning or readability, makes faulty
changes:..."'
He then in the next
seventy-four pages of his critique cites
numerous versesor passagesin the New
International Version that are according
to him improperly or inconsistently
translated and which in some casesdoes
serious damage to the meaning of the
text!'
Other reputable writers have
critiqued other translations as well and
have noted in like fashion the
weaknessesof those translations. But,
after saying all of this, let me make one
additional point: I do not believe the
King James Version is the only
translation that is reliable; nor do I
believe to use anothertranslation reflects
one's "weakness" or indicates that that
person is "liberal." It is the height of
ignorance to think that all the other
translations
are
unreliable
or
untrustworthy and that one will be lost
and go to hell if these other translations
are consulted and used. (I have actually
heard this doctrine of ignorance
preached and taught!) The purpose of
this responseis to answer your question
why I use the KJV - not a defenseor an
exaltation of it over the other
translations.
There is a related but far greater concern
that I have regarding translations
available today. Actually, it is not the
translations themselves but
what
accompanies the translations: "study"
notes. There is a mvriad of these "Studv
2 Introduction, p.
i
'
Those interestedin examining this critique are
encouragedto write ProfessorNash.
Defender
Gospel
Ministries
PostOffrceBox575
-0575
Chillicothe.
Ohio45601
www. gospel-defender.org
Bibles" available today.a To mention
only a very few, consider these:s
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The NIV Study Bible
ZondervanNAS Study Bible
The NIV Quest Study Bible
The NKJV Nelson Study Bible
The (C. I.) Scofield Study Bible
(KJV and NIV)
The KJV Study Bible
NRSV HarperCollins Study Bible
The NRSV New Oxford Annotated
Study Bible
NLT Living Faith Study Bible
Life Application Study Bible (KJV,
NASB, NIV, NASB, NKJV)
Then there are several what I call
specialtv "Study Bibles":
o
o
o
o
The NCV Inspirational Bible with
Max Lucado's "insights" and "Life
Lessons" notes from
Oswald
Chambers, Billy Graham, Catherine
Marshall and others
The (Charles) Ryrie Study Bible
(KJV, NASB, NIV)
The Dake Annotated Reference
Bible (KJV) (promoted as being
"fundamentalist and dispensational
in its theological perspective")
The John MacArthur Study Bible
(NKJV) (promoted as being "highly
recommendedby Max Lucado, Josh
McDowell, Franklin Graham...")
" During the course ofpreparing this responseto
your question I received from Christian Book
Distributors a sktv-pase catalog which lists
literally dozens upon dozens of various Bibles
available in the market place today.
t
I will abbreviate: KJV : King iames Version;
NAS : New American Standard;NIV - New
International Verson; NKJV = New King James
Version; NLT: New Living Translation;NRSV
: New Revised StandardVersion
TheGospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Tim LaHaye's (co-author of the
"Left Behind" series) Prophecy
Study Bible (KJV)
The Full Life Study Bible (promoted
as "a study Bible specially designed
for Pentecostals and charismatic
believers) (KJV, NIV)
The
Spirit-filled
Life
Bible
(promoted as being for charismatics)
CNKJV)
The NKJV Women's Study Bible
(promoted as being "designed by
women
from
a
variety
of
denominationalbackgrounds")
The NAS New Inductive Study Bible
(promoted as "endorsed by Kay
Arthur")
The NKJV Woman. Thou Art
Loosed!Bible
The NIV Women of Faith Study
Bible
The NKJV Open Bible
The KJV Cornerstone Reference
Bible
Most of these "Study Bibles" are
satwated
with
denominational,
Calvinistic, faith-only, premillennial
theology that frequently in the minds of
those who possessthem supercedesthe
authority of the eternal, inspired writ.
As I write, I have in front of me one
such "Study Bible": The King James
Study Bible published by Thomas
Nelson with the accompanying "Study
Notes"
of
thirteen "Contributing
Editors". (The number thirteen should
be a "give away" as far as whether one
should rely upon its content.) These
thirteen "Contributing Editors" each
have a multiplicity of various degrees
(8.A., 8.S., Th. M., Th. D., M.Div.,
D.Min., M.A., D.D., Ed.D., D.Litt.,
LL.D., 8.D., S.T.M., Ph.D., M.R.E.)
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe.
Ohio 45601-0575
www.gospel-defender.org
from various "world renown" religious
(Dallas
institutions
Theological
Seminary, University of Virginia,
Tennessee
Temple
Theological
Seminary, Grace Theological Seminary,
Westminster Theological Seminary,
Wheaton College, University
of
(UCLA),
California
Los Angeles
University of Southern California
(USC), Southem Methodist University
(SMU), Fuller Theological Seminary,et.
al.). In its introduction the publishers
have written: o''Weare pleased that you
have chosen the King James Study
Bible. It has been developed to provide
conservative Christians with a reliable
study Bible that is both scholarly and
spiritually relevant. Four years in the
making, The King James Study Bible
has been a labor of love for its dedicated
team of scholars. The men involved
have strived (sic) to produce Biblerelated materials that combine technical
scholarship and practical application.
The result is an excellent study tool you
can depend on, one that will enrich your
spiritual development as you use it from
day to duy."u The publishers state that
the "contributing editors" have given the
public something that is (l) reliable, (2)
scholarlv, and (3) an excellent study tool
on which you can depend. But what one
finds is a "Study Bible" filled with
"Study Notes" that repudiate the New
Testament plan of salvation (immersion
in water for the forgiveness of sins, in
particular), defend and promote etemal
security, ignore the distinction between
the Old and the New dispensations,
strongly promote premillennialism with
all of its false tentacles,etc., etc., etc.!
Just to cite at this time one example of
this "Study Bible" being reliable.
opug",
unnumbered
TheGospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
scholarlv and an excellent study tool,
considerthe "Study Note" on Acts 2:38:
is the consistent pattem I
I fms
Acts (16:31- 34; I 8:8)."7 |
I throughout
"Repent means 'to change one's
mind.' Here, as throughout Scripture,
one aspect of
conversion is
commonly used to represent all
aspects:believing and calling as well
as repenting. The grammatical name
for allowing part of something to
represent the whole is called
Repentance is
synecdoche.
person
must do
something every
(17:30). [The Scripture referenceis
to Acts 17:30 - RB] For several
reasons be baptized should not be
joined with for the remission of sins
to teach baptismal regeneration.
First, the context of this passage
demonstratesthat only the repentance
is connected with the removal of sin
'Whosoever shall
at salvation:
call...shallbe saved'(v. 21). Peter's
next recorded seffnon states only:
'Repent...that your sins may be
blotted out' (3:19).
Second,
throughout Acts men demonstrate
their faith and salvation prior to
baptism (cf. 10:43 - 47). Third, the
soteriological passages throughout
the New Testament do not include
water baptism in the salvation
experience- John 3:16; Acts 16:31;
Romans4:10; Ephesians2:1 - 10; I
Peter 1:18, 19. Thus this versemore
clearly reads, 'Repent for the
remission of sins, and you will
receive the gift which is the Holy
Spirit; and let each of you be baptized
in the rurmeof Christ.' Though water
baptism does not save or wash away
our sins, it is a command that needs
to
be obeyed speedily after
conversion. Jesus commanded it
(Matt. 28:19,20), as does Peter here.
So much for having "degrees" in
Biblical scholarship! (Perhapsthe only
thing that degrees reflect is how many
"degrees" it will be in hell for some
people.") Examples could be multiplied
illustrating how the text of God's Word
has been mutilated by most "Study
Bibles" whether King James Version,
New King James Version, New
American StandardBible. etc.
CospelDefenderMinistri€s
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe,
Ohio 45601-0575
www.gospel-defender.org
In the process of studying the Bible and
preparing materials for preaching or
teaching, I use several translations. (I
have more than thirty at my disposal.) I
do not rely on only one. Ifyou read any
of my materials you will notice that I
cite from time to time altemate
translations to give a more complete
picture of whatever I am discussing.
One last final note I would like to state.
When recommending a Bible for
purchase I always advise the following:
(1) King JamesVersion with no "study
notes",(2)large print with large margins
and headers and footers in which to
make notations, and (3) no center or
other types of references (even these
references can be misleading if not
totally false). Use your Bible like a
workbook in school:
underline,
highlight, make notes, etc. (I still have
my Bible of Bible college days with all
t
There is just too much here to refute at this
time. The entire "study note" is so blatantly
false that it doesn't require comment for the
Christian who has even an elementary grasp of
the doctrine of salvation. Nevertheless. I note
here that the entire note is repudiated in detail in
my book Arsuments I Have Hea.rdAgainst The
Necessify To Be Immersed In Water For
Salvation.