A Question About The King James Version
Transcription
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 ffiā¬, 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. CospelDefenderMinistriā¬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.