Bible Versions: The King James Only Debate, by David Malcolm Bennett
For example, in Rom. 9:5 the NIV says, “Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised!” The KJV has “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever”. And again Titus 2:13 says “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” in the NIV, but “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” in the KJV. In each of these readings the NIV clearly calls Jesus God, but this is much less clear in the KJV. It is simply not true that such translations of the Bible as the NIV are trying to remove the deity of Christ from the pages of Scripture.
Riplinger’s handling of these things is confused and confusing. She jumps from one thing to another, with little sign of logical thought. Her accusations are also untrue, unfair and they defame some honorable people.
The Original KJV
It is also worth pointing out that the KJV of today is not exactly the same as the KJV of 1611. There were a number of mistakes in the original KJV, which were corrected in later editions. Mistakes can slip in however careful translators are.
Perhaps the most significant was the second part of Mk 10:18, which in the 1611 rendering read “There is no man good, but one, that is God.” According to that, God is a man. In 1645 this was corrected to “There is none good but one, that is, God”, which is how it appears in today’s KJV. This in itself disproves the King James-Only claim that the original KJV was directly inspired by God.
In addition, the KJV originally included the Apocrypha.30 Protestants have generally been against including the Apocrypha in with the OT and the NT, believing that, though it may be helpful, it is not the Word of God. Ironically, the KJV-Only advocates also strongly reject the Apocrypha. For example, Jack T. Chick, another in the KJV-Only camp, admits that the Apocrypha was included in the KJV “on a temporary basis”. But this was the work of Satan, for “Satan has tried desperately to put the ‘Apocrypha’ in the Old Testament.” He also says, “The Apocrypha is a blasphemy against the Word of God”.31
Other King James Defenders
Not all defenders of the King James Version advocate a KJV-Only stance. There are some, for example, who prefer the KJV, but do not forbid the use of other translations. Some of these do so because they believe the Greek Text behind the KJV is better than the one behind the modern translations. These include Wilbur N. Pickering, Harry Sturz and Zane Hodges.32 Others, it seems, do so simply because it is the translation that they are used to.
Summary
We have seen, then, that there is, in one sense, no difference between the KJV and modern translations, in that they all are translations from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV was not directly inspired by God, as some claim. But, on the other hand, there are two major differences betweens the KJV and recent versions. The first is that the KJV is hard to read and difficult to understand, while the modern translations are much easier to read and comprehend. Secondly, the Greek text behind the modern translations is better than that behind the KJV.
This means that Christians should not be prisoners to the KJV-Only position. There are a number of very good modern translations of the Bible, including the NIV and the English Standard Version. These are much easier to read and understand and can be a great blessing to your soul.
To further aid your thinking on this issue another article will follow in a later edition of Pneuma Review called “What is the Best Bible Translation?”
PR
Category: Biblical Studies, Pneuma Review, Winter 2013
Followers
Fans
