Why I use the King James Bible

Some thoughts on the King James Only Controversy

Introduction

In the American evangelical churches of today, there is almost no controversy at all when it comes to the acceptance of different Bible translations. It is assumed that all of the new versions are valid (including most paraphrases). It is accepted that all of them contain the same basic message, and that all of them can be, and are being used of God.

Moreover, it is also generally agreed that the new Bibles are superior to the King James Version, because of (1) the use of better and older manuscripts; (2) the application of more advanced principles of textual criticism; (3) greater scholarly knowledge of the languages and cultures behind the biblical writings; and (4) the use of more contemporary English.

These ideas are so widespread that I could say there is no controversy at all, except that on occasion some Evangelical books or articles are written to refute the claims of what is called the “KJV Only” position.

One example of this is James White’s The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? This book not only asserts the above-mentioned positions. It goes further, and argues that people are of course free to personally prefer the KJV and use it as much as they like, but to argue against the new versions is harmful, divisive, and damaging to the Church.

Moreover, White also argues that the logic used to critique the new versions and assert the superiority of the KJV – also known as the Authorized Version (AV) - is illogical and unreasonable. He states that the translators of the KJV themselves also used critical methods to choose between variant readings in the different manuscripts (MSS) available at that time – just like today! Unfortunately, White neglects to point out some significant differences between 17th-century and modern textual scholarship, including: (1) greater reverence for and fidelity to the original text in the 17th century, and (2) freedom from the confusion caused by corrupt and inferior manuscripts like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and others. But hopefully I can look more closely into that in the next week or two.

At any rate, within the Evangelical churches the question is settled (I omit the liberal churches, as they have abandoned New Testament Christianity completely, deny the essential truths of Scripture, and represent only the philosophy of the world dressed up in religious language).

Some of the fundamentalist churches use only the King James Version but do not make an issue of it. I have attended a couple of such churches in the past. The Authorized version is used for preaching and is the preferred version of the members, but that was just assumed as a given and not elaborated on or explained (except maybe when applying for membership, which I did not experience).

In the independent, fundamental, separated Baptist church which I am now attending, the importance of using the KJV is emphasized more, but not as a drum to beat or a flag to wave. The principle of Christian liberty is recognized and people in other churches are free to use whatever Bibles they want. Bibles are not inspected at the door, and as a visitor for the past few months no one has ever asked me which Bible I use, though I have been asked informally by a few members about my salvation experience (a welcome question).

Yet, the importance of keeping to the King James Version is recognized as important  to the church as a whole, and the new bibles are considered to be inadequate, unreliable, and detrimental to the cause of Scriptural Christianity.

Those are views that I share. I believe that one of the many causes of the weakness of the nominally Bible-believing churches in the Western world today is the introduction of the new Bible versions beginning in the late 19th century.

Please notice that I said “one of the many causes.” This is not a simple subject, and there are other causes for the decline of modern Christianity. Some of them are:

• Doctrinal compromise. This includes not only the failure to separate from, and to speak out strongly enough against, the ungodly and unbiblical and unchristian nature of theological liberalism. It also includes watered-down concepts of faith, salvation, repentance and holiness within Bible-believing churches.

• Deep and subtle conformity to the world, and denial of plain biblical teachings, on the question of feminism, role reversal and unisex

• Hidden and not-so-hidden influences of the world when it comes to entertainments and lifestyles

• Financial conformity to the world

• Intimidation and insecurity (meaning lack of faith) in the face of the claims of science and naturalistic philosophy, even to the abandonment of the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis.

These and yet other factors have led to a Christianity without the cross, without the straight and narrow way, without holiness, and without conviction and power.

So, the question of Bible versions does not by itself get to the heart of the problem. Neither is it a litmus test of salvation. A lifeless orthodoxy can co-exist with any version of the Bible, and there have been problems of various sorts in churches that use only the KJV.

The importance of this question

All of that being said, I still maintain that the new Bible versions, all of them, including the NKJV, are symptoms of spiritual problems of unbelief and conformity to the world [1].

One could write a book about this subject. At one time I tried to write a lengthy refutation of James White’s aforementioned book, as I found it to be full of mistakes and errors, but I gave it up. I had other things to do, and was also trying to figure out other more essential aspects of basic Christianity that were more important than getting into some probably not very edifying debate.

Nevertheless, I felt then, and feel even more strongly now, that in this evil day and age we need a divinely inspired word of God which is not subject to the judgments of corrupt and fallen human reason. This is undermined by the new and up-to-date textual critics who think that they can improve people’s faith in the Word of God by identifying and removing “mistakes” which are really not mistakes at all.

Surely it does not take a lot of deep insight to see the problem with saying “You can have more confidence in your bibles now that we have removed some mistaken verses that did not belong there, thanks to the principles of modern scientific textual criticism. And we will make some more changes later.”

My Bible does not have any so-called mistakes that need to be removed. It is inerrant and complete as it stands. It does not need any cutting and pasting according to the corrupt wisdom of fallen man, especially when the textual-critical process is not really scientific at all. It is, at bottom, sheer guesswork, often involving contradictory principles and leading to uncertain results.

Yes, all of the new translations do contain the basic essentials of the faith. They all speak of the Trinity . . .  the virgin birth of Christ . . .  salvation by faith alone . . .  a day of judgment followed by heaven or hell . . .  the stories of the patriarchs, of David and Solomon and the Exodus. Yet, there is nevertheless something missing in these new Bibles – something vital and real – and that absence robs the Word of its authority and of its power.

Before looking at a couple of passages of Scripture, let’s take an obvious example from secular literature – the first sentence of Lincoln’s celebrated Gettysburg Address.

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now, what if someone were to write the following?

Eighty-seven years ago, our great-grandparents started a new country here in North America. They based this new country on the idea of freedom and on the belief that we all should have the same basic rights and opportunities.

Now, we can say that this is an adequate paraphrase. It gets the main ideas across, in a way that any ordinary person might speak. Yet, something is missing – something so important that no serious student of Lincoln would have the slightest interest in such a drab and dull piece of writing.

What is missing is the personality and character of Lincoln. He was not an ordinary man, the speech was not given on an ordinary occasion, and the words of the average man of today are not sufficient.

Lincoln’s words have dignity, authority and power because Lincoln the man had those qualities within himself, and they show forth in his writing. And what is the benefit of such a paraphrase? Do we assume that people are too stupid and too dull to deal with anything out of the ordinary? But by making things easier for them we do not help them. We deprive them of an intellectual challenge, and of exposure to a different time and culture.

Two examples

I. A passage from Luke

I did exaggerate the Lincoln paraphrase somewhat by way of illustration, but now let us look at a couple of Bible verses: first, Luke 9:44 (“Let these sayings sink down into your ears”), and then Isaiah 9:3 (“Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy”).

. . . while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,

Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. (Luke)

The phrase “into your ears” is stated thus in the Greek: εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν. It means exactly εἰς (into) τὰ ὦτα (the ears) ὑμῶν (of you, of yours).

This phrase “into your ears” or “down into your ears” is used not only in the KJV, but also in the NKJV, ESV, Berean Standard Bible, NASB, ASV, New RSV, and other versions.

Other renderings such as “Listen carefully,” “Listen to me,” or “Don’t forget what I am about to tell you,” are used in the NIV, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, Good News Translation and others.

Now, someone defending the newer versions might say “Who cares? This is just nitpicking. What’s the difference? (1) The meaning is accurately conveyed, and anyway, (2) people do not talk like that today. What father would say to his child, ‘Let these sayings sink down into your ears’? Furthermore, (3) no significant doctrinal issues are at stake.”  

But, there are four problems with this approach and with the resulting text.

(1) The meaning is not accurately conveyed. “Let these sayings sink down into your ears” is not the same as “Listen carefully.”

(a) It is possible to listen carefully to something, yet still misunderstand it (like a student listening carefully while the teacher explains a difficult math problem).

(b) It is possible to listen carefully to something, yet reject it (like someone who listens carefully to an insurance salesman but then decides not to buy a policy).

(c) It is possible to listen carefully, come to a decision, and then change one’s mind later.

What Christ is saying is not merely that we must listen carefully, but rather that we must assimilate his teachings so thoroughly as to make them a part of ourselves. That is a great difference.

(2) People do not talk like that today? In the biblical writings we are exposed to different cultures from many centuries ago. People did not talk and think exactly the same way we do, and this exposure to different worldviews and historical periods is a part of education. Moreover, Christ spoke with an authority such as no one else ever spoke with. And, as to a father speaking to his child, what father would ever say to his child “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit?”

(3) No doctrinal issues are at stake? I would say respect for the literal words of Jesus Christ is a significant doctrinal issue. The Greek language allows someone to say “Listen carefully,” and if Christ had wanted to say that, he could have done so. He chose to say something else. By what right do we change it?

(4) Hundreds and thousands of such small changes throughout the whole book significantly alter the tone and the character of Scripture. Instead of bringing the Bible down to people by making it simpler, we need to bring people up to the Bible and respect them enough to think that they are capable of exercising their brains with some sentences that are a little out of the ordinary.

II. A passage from Isaiah

Concerning Isaiah 9:3, here is another example of a significant change in meaning due to faulty translation.

In the KJV, we read:

Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

This seems like an odd reading. How could God multiply their nation so that they joy before him, yet not increase the joy? Should it not read that God did increase the joy?

The Webster’s Bible Translation and the Douay-Rheims Bible are the only two versions I saw on biblehub.com that used the KJV’s wording “and not increased the joy.” Many other versions read “You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy,” or something very similar. Some versions changed the text so significantly as to lose that phrase entirely.

However, we read in Isaiah chapter 8 that God is against Israel because of their wickedness. We find the same condemnation in chapter 9 vv.14-17:

Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.

The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.

For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Now, if God gives the Israelites temporary material prosperity (and Sodom and Gomorrah may have been prospering before their destruction), but does not give them accompanying spiritual wisdom and reformation, then they can joy in their harvest as any carnal and wicked people might do, as even wicked men can do when they divide the spoil, but while their carnal joy is increased prior to their destruction, their spiritual joy is not increased. Thus, God blessed them materially but not spiritually – and has not America been blessed materially but not spiritually in recent decades?

Thus, in an attempt the make the Bible simpler and easier to understand, something has been lost – and who knows how many other such changes may have been made at the whim of editors who may or may not even believe in the Bible?

Again, this does not affect any main point of doctrine, but what sort of builder would justify shoddy workmanship by saying “It does not in any way imperil the solidity of the structure”?

Conclusion

Next week, I would like to look at the problem of some missing passages. This is greater than the problem of sloppy, irreverent and careless translating, because it involves the deliberate removal of texts from what people in the old days believed was the infallible and inspired word of God.

 Footnote

[1] There is a new version called the KJ2000. Here is a description from the publisher’s website:

The King James 2000 is not a new version. It is a King James Version brought forward 400 years. Several categories of words are brought up to 21st century language. Pronouns such as thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. are put into current language usage form. Verbal endings such as -eth, -est, -st, etc. are given equivalent forms of today’s language. Words so archaic as to be unknown, such as wist, wot, froward, etc. are rendered as their current synonyms. Some words considered entirely proper in 1611, but which may be considered “coarse” today, are changed to equivalent intentions (such as bowels to heart). The common Biblical beast of burden is rendered donkey.

The intent of King James 2000 is to keep every KJV word the same, unless a misunderstanding or a gross word order “error” (in today’s usage) must be averted. All punctuation is left the same, including omission of quotation marks, in order to keep the rhythm and pattern of KJV memorization intact. Even the interpolative KJV words (normally in italics) are kept the same if possible. No “corrections” or “textual considerations” are taken into account, since the King James 2000 intent is to preserve the KJV “as is,” except for truly necessary changes. Pronouns addressing Deity are not set apart by capitalization, but are kept just as found in the KJV, with lower case letters (neither is distinction made in the original languages). https://www.kingjames2000.com/

I have not used this version, but it must be admitted that thee, thou etc. are discouraging for people who are not native speakers of English. Also, native speakers can be put off by such things, and wonder why it is necessary to use a Bible in an archaic version of English. Personally, I do not think that is an obstacle for anyone who is seriously interested, as the vast majority of the KJV text is easily accessible.

Parenthetically, some people may not know that the King James Bibles we use today are not in the original 1611 format. The type font, as well as basic points of grammar and spelling were updated and modernized in the 1700s, and that causes no problem for anyone today. So, in theory another modernization should cause no objections, except for the unfortunate fact that the other modern versions are so riddled with errors, and the current state of the church is so weak, that any modern productions will be viewed with suspicion.