A Certainity beyond Emotion
-- Can a Modern Bible Translation Be Biblical?
-- By Les Dennis
The King James Version of the Bible has been used for many years. It has made a definite impact upon our culture, as well as our religious life. The King James Version has helped shape our language. Since it has been the Bible of English Protestant Christianity for many generations, the faith of many Christians is tightly bound up with the King James Version.
The King James Version has served us well; however, it is a translation of the Scriptures, not the original manuscripts as God "breathed" them. Being a translation, it must be evaluated on the basis of being a translation, just as other versions are evaluated.
While God's Word never changes, translations of God's Word can, and often do, change. The King James Version has been no exception. Most who use the King James Version today are unaware that there have been many changes to the King James Version since 1611. Few English speakers today can read the current King James Version with the same degree of fluency with which they can read a good modern version. Fewer still can read the 1611 edition with any fluency at all.
It is never wrong to update and correct errors of translation, even if it is a translation of God's Word. One reason that the King James Version has been so relevant over so many generations has been the willingness to change it as the English language has changed. "The King James Version with which most are likely to be familiar is the 1769 edition. This was the fourth major revision-- there were many other minor revisions.
Just before the King James Version was translated, the Geneva Bible was the most commonly used version. Some of the translators of the King James Version used the Geneva Bible even after the King James Version was completed. When the King James Version was presented to the public, it was greeted with distrust. It took time to gain wide public acceptance.
Some were upset, believing that the translators had tampered with the Word of God. Why was a new version needed? After all, did they not have the Geneva Bible? Some complained about the notes in the margins. It would shake the confidence of the people, some insisted, as if hiding the facts would foster true faith. The translators answered, "Some peradventure would haue no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuersies by that shew of vncertainitie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point." (Translator's Notes)
The King James Version translators were among the first to admit that God allowed some room for variation. Refusal to face the truth is never a good policy. It was not acceptable in 1611, and it is not acceptable today. "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV 1769 edition).
In the original King James Version translator's note to the readers, the translators said, "... it hath pleased God in his diuine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that conceme saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme vs then confidence..." (Translator's Notes)
The King James Version translators understood the difficulties of their task and realized that they were not perfect men. They believed in the inspiration of the original manuscripts, but did not make claims of inerrancy for their own translation. Indeed, later they were accused of making too many changes. The translators wrote, "Yet before we end we must answere a third cauill and obiection of theirs against vs, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truely they deal hardly, and strangely with vs. For to whom euer was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe ouer that which hee had done, and to amend it where hee saw cause? " (Translator's Notes)
The original spellings of 1611 are retained in all use of the quotations from the King James translator's note to the readers. The usual "sic" notation is not used since the spelling variations are not errors, but rather, they are correct spellings of English as it once was.
To deny alternate renderings, whether they are caused by differences of translation or by variety in the original language texts available, may on the surface alleviate insecurities of the fearful, but those fears will not remain buried forever. True confidence comes from facing the truth about God and his method of preserving His Word.
Knowing the truth brings freedom from the bondage of fear. When all of the facts have been evaluated and the hand of God is clearly seen in His work of preservation, the gnawing insecurities that come from pushing aside the facts will be gone.
God has never been dependent upon any group of men, even translators, to keep His Word pure. He is watching over it Himself. His sovereign will determines the degree of variation allowed. He has protected doctrines and duties from any uncertainties due to questions of textual variations. He is in control. We can trust Him.
Variations in Translations
Some variation is inevitable in translating documents. English Canadians who have struggled to learn French as a second language will usually understand that two or more translators who translate a document into a second language may have differences their translations, even if all of the translations are correct.
The Standard for Evaluating Translations of Scripture
It is neither fair nor scholarly to take one English translation and declare it to be the superior one, and then use it to test the other English translations for accuracy. Rather, all translations should be compared to the original language documents. Many of those who oppose the use of any modem version use the King James Version as the standard, rather than the original language manuscripts. The standard of comparison must be the document in the original language.
Original Languages
As much as we might prefer to make our evaluations using only the English language, it cannot be accurately done without access to the original languages as the proper standard. This requires most English speakers to depend upon the evaluations of those who are able to understand the original languages.
Consider All the Evidence
The real battle for the purity of Scripture is taking place in the study of textual criticism. Determining which original language text to use is an important area of study. The Textus Receptus, upon which the King James Version New Testament is based, is in reality a family of manuscripts with variations between them.
While it may seem satisfying to reject all New Testament manuscripts except the Textus Receptus, it is mere self-deception. To blindly eliminate a major portion of the evidence available when making a translation seems to be an untenable position. If we are serious about the purity of the God's Word, we must compare all of the evidence. By comparing and classifying all families of manuscripts, rather than just the Textus Receptus, we are able to more accurately arrive at what was in the original manuscripts. We must follow the same approach with the Old Testament texts.
Variations in the Original Languages
The range of variations between the different original language manuscripts is not as large as it would seem at first. Many of the differences have no more consequence than the dotting of an "i" or the crossing of a "t" in English. Other differences are copying errors that have no more impact than using "an" instead of "a" in English. Other differences are caused by using synonyms, where the effect on the meaning is slight if it has an effect at all.
There is no denying that there are differences which go beyond those listed above. However, there is not a single doctrine ever mentioned in the passages in question which cannot be as well or better established from other verses of Scripture. Every doctrine established in the King James Version can be just as well established from the New American Standard or the New International Version.
It is clear that the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired of God in their totality. Scripture is "God breathed" so that the end result is exactly and word for word what God wanted written. The original manuscripts are inerrant. Although we do not have the original manuscripts, we do have enough copies of the Scriptures to determine with a high degree of certainty what the original manuscripts said.
Many years ago Westcott and Hort examined the possible variations in Scripture. Keep in mind that they were among the most liberal textual critics. It would have been in their best interest to find the largest amount of variation possible. They determined that, after setting aside differences of orthography and trivial variations, only 1/1000 of the Scripture text allows for any variation that could in any way be called substantial. That is a purity of 99.9%. Of the remaining 0.1 %, there is nothing that we are to do or to believe that is affected. Any doctrine or duty mention in the remaining 0.1 % can be just as easily established from other passages. The content of the original manuscripts is essentially settled.
That the Bible has such a high degree of purity after so many years is nothing short of phenomenal. This can only be a miracle of God in His work of preservation.
Our Debt to Generations of Scholars
The reason we have the degree of accuracy that we have today is that generations of scholars have spent their lives studying the field of textual criticism in order to get as close as possible to the original manuscripts. But why would God allow even the microscopic variations that exist? Could not the slight variations that exist be the motive that keeps these scholars studying for their entire lives? If there were no motivation to study these areas, it would be possible for uncertainty to creep in because changes would not be noticed as readily.
It Is the Word of God
Just as a Bible believer can honestly say the King James Version is the Word of God, the same Bible believer can honestly know that it is just as true to say the New International Version is the Word of God. The translator's of the King James Version wrote, "As the Kings speech which he utered in Parliament, being translated into 'French,' Dutch,' 'Italian' 'Latine,' is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense, every where.” (Translator's Notes) It is clear that the translators of the King James Version, if they were alive today, would have no problem holding up a New American Standard Version or a New International Version and declaring it to be God's Word.
Copyright
Some among the King James Only movement raise the issue of the copyright notation at the front of recent versions. The copyright at the front of such versions as the New American Standard and New International Version is not intended to maintain a monopoly on God's Word. My personal copy of the New International Version says, "The NIV text may be quoted/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission..." That is hardly a limitation for most legitimate purposes. Translators of the New International Version needed copyright protection in order to prevent anyone from changing the text and publishing it as if it were the real New International Version. This should be a comfort rather than grounds for an accusation.
A Plea for Reason
As I prepared this essay, my first thought was to choose one book written in opposition to all modem versions and evaluate the arguments presented. After being sorely disappointed because of the misuse and abuse of the facts; after being disappointed with the lack of scholarship, and, in some cases, a total disregard of the facts, the plan was abandoned. There is nothing to be gained from evaluating arguments without substance behind them. Time is better spent exposing the faulty approaches used, and then moving on to a plea for reason and common sense.
Proof by Insults
A number of books oppose certain modem versions by stringing insults together like the beads of a necklace. Sometimes the author has gone to great lengths to draw or obtain diagrams showing modem versions being consigned to perdition. Waxing eloquent with insults does not prove the case. Even showing differences, or in some cases, perceived differences between the King James Version and a modem version proves nothing. The case would be much stronger and more reasonable if differences were shown from the original language texts.
There is reason to be concerned about the attitudes shown by some authors. Since the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, "durst not bring against him a railing accusation" (Jude 9 KJV 1769 edition), surely it is wise to handle the Word of God, even if it is not our favorite version, with at least as much respect as Michael gave the devil himself.
Amazement
It has been cause for amazement to read some books in opposition to modem versions that show a total disregard for the facts. For example, at least one author attacks the new American Standard Version by showing where it uses a pronoun referring to God rather than the word "God" as in the King James Version. The only problem is that the yreek text from which the translation was made also uses used the pronoun instead of the Greek word for "God."
Another, and greater, source of concern and amazement is to find some authors who seem to be using the King James Version to correct the original language texts. Nothing is to be gained by trying to reason with those who have been captured by emotion and have closed their minds. It is much more productive to reason with those who still retain their senses. Hopefully, those who read these words will be able to evaluate the evidence using some of the guidelines given.
Translations
To obey God properly, we must be able to read His Word in our own language. Just as the French Bible is better understood by those whose native language is French, and the German Bible is better understood by those whose native language is German, in the same way the King James Version of 1611 was better understood by those whose native language was the King's English of 1611. Those whose native language is modem English will better understand a version written in modem English.
Not all translations should be accepted as being of equal value. The Revised Standard Version was, in my opinion, translated with a liberal theological bias. The Living Bible, being a paraphrase, should not be accepted on par with a translation. Paraphrases should be used with the knowledge that they contain the interpretations of man. At least one modem version is translated to be "politically correct".
Translations must be evaluated, not just chosen blindly. The work of translation should be done by scholars who have expertise in the original languages. It is important that the translators have the knowledge and ability to weigh all of the textual evidence. In addition, the translators should always keep in mind that they are translating God's inspired Word.
Can a modem version be biblical? The answer must be a resounding "yes". However, it is advisable to use a reasonable, common sense approach to find a good version. The New International Version is the version that shows the greatest promise of becoming the English Bible of common usage. It is certainly a top quality version. If the reader will evaluate the evidence provided by scholars who have done their research in the original languages and who respect the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, my purpose in writing this essay will have been achieved.
Staying with the King James Version is certainly a valid option, especially if you understand the English used. You should not be dissuaded just' because so many are changing. If you are satisfied with the King James Version and understand it well enough to know what God is saying to you, by all means stay with it. But as you decide which version you will use, seek the Lord's guidance. Ask His Spirit to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13 KJV 1769 edition), and do not let a sense of insecurity or a fear that facing all of the evidence will somehow shake your faith hinder you from reading a version that you will understand. "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power; and of love, and of a sound mind" (II Timothy 1:7 KJV 1769 edition). If you give in to fear and shrink back from facing all of the evidence, the spirit you follow is not the Spirit of God, since He is not the one who gives the spirit of fear.
Bibliography
Burton, Barry D. Let's Weigh the Evidence. Chino, California, Chick Publications: 1983.
Fuller, Otis David. Which Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Grand Rapids International Publications: 1975.
Greenlee, J. Harold. An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Erdmans Publishing Company: 1964.
Hodges, Zane C. and Aurthur L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament According to the Present Day. New York, Abingdon Press: 1968.
MacGregor, Geddes. A Literary History of the Bible from the Middle Ages to the Present Day. New York, Abingdon Press: 1968.
Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York, United Bible Societies: 1971.
Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville, Thomas nelson Publishers: 1997.
The Holy Bible 1611 King James Version.
This is a word-for-word reprint of the First Edition of the Authorized Version presented in Roman letters for easy reading and comparison with subsequent editions published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, New York.
The Holy Bible King James Version.
This is the version commonly accepted today as the King James Version, the final revision of which was completed in 1769.
The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House: 1958. .