King James Version
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
[edit] History
The first edition of the KJV was published in 1611. Like many Protestant Bibles of that period, for example Luther's German translation of the Bible, it contained the Old Testament Apocrypha between the New and Old Testaments.
The KJV was originally unpopular, as people preferred the earlier Bishops' Bible and Geneva Bible, but it increased in popularity after the English Civil War, and became the most popular Bible, not just among Anglicans, but generally among English-speaking Protestant denominations.
Over the last century or so the KJV has lost some ground to modern translations of the Bible offering better translations of better texts into modern English.
[edit] Discussion
The King James Version would hardly merit mention in a skeptics' encyclopedia were it not for the fact that like other translations before it, such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate, it has taken on the status of a holy and inspired text in the eyes of some believers --- a movement known as King James Onlyism. This movement includes a range from moderates who merely claim that the KJV is the best extant English translation, to extremists who insist that a foreigner who wishes to read the authentic word of God must first learn English so that he can read the KJV. As the main fault of the KJV is in the reliance on the Textus Receptus as a source for the New Testament, such a position entails a defence of the TR.
We cannot find that anyone supported the inerrancy of the KJV before other English Bibles became popular: the movement seems to be entirely reactionary in nature, and not really popular until the 1970s.
By an amusing irony, the mainspring of feeling against the new translations of the Bible is exactly the same feeling that opposed both the production of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version itself. To quote from the translators' Preface to the KJV:
- "Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment.
- Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?" (Preface 11:1-2)
It is not hard to find similar sentiments on the lips of a KJV Onlyist:
- ""I know that God has the power to preserve His word and that he wouldn't leave us out in the dark with an "imperfect" translation." [1]
"He that meddleth with men's religion in any part meddleth with their custom," write the translators (Preface 4:2) : the history of the KJV is a fine example of how an unpopular innovation can become a popular practice, then a custom, then a superstition, and finally a dogma which it is heretical and anti-Christian to oppose.
[edit] Quotations from King James Onlyists
The debate over the King James Version is marked by a ferocity on the part of the King James Only advocates which has parallels only with the worst excesses of creationists. As the phrase "rabid bunch of nutters" might be thought unsuitable in a reference work, we shall illustrate this point with quotation.
- "Many of the men trying to destroy our faith in the King James translation of the Bible have college degrees from liberal (heathen) institutions or else studied under professors who did. These men long ago made education their god instead of Christ, and they accepted whatever their college professors taught them without reservation and without checking out the facts for themselves. These men did not actually receive an education but rather an illusion. They are to be pitied, not copied, as they stand behind their worthless diplomas declaring their own word to be of more authority than that of Almighty God. Instead, they have become unbelievers. Phonies. Heretics. they are enemies of all that God’s Word stands for, and we had better never forget it. They hinder people from getting saved by destroying their faith in the Bible. Such men are not qualified to preach and should never be allowed behind our pulpits." [2]
- "To try and dismiss the authority of the KJB, Mr. White calls it an ‘Anglican translation’. I would rather have an early seventeenth century Anglican translation than a twentieth century modernist/new-age/sodomite translation." [3]
- "This particular edition of the Cambridge Bible that calls itself a King James Bible is not genuine. IT'S A COUNTERFEIT! It's not the Bible of my forefathers!
- Here are some of the changes I located: Asswaged has been changed to assuaged. Basons has been changed to basins. Chesnut has been changed to chestnut. Cloke has been changed to cloak. Enquire has been changed to inquire. Further has been changed to farther. Jubile has been changed to jubilee. Intreat has been changed to entreat. Morter has been changed to mortar. Ought has been changed to aught, and rereward has been changed to rearward.
- Brother Nic, why get so upset? These are just minor changes in spelling. Well maybe they are, but have you never read "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" You see I believe God wrote the Bible through sinful men. I believe God copied the Bible through sinful men. I believe God translated the Bible through sinful men, and I believe God edited (purified) the Bible through sinful men. So therefore I believe God gave us the exact words in the exact order He wanted us to have them in. If that's the case then He spelled the words exactly the way He wanted to spell them." [4]
- "For the record, the King James Bible was good enough for the apostle Paul and it is good enough for this writer as well. The reason? -we have a copy of what Paul wrote that we can hold in our hands and believe today. If Paul did not write the same readings as the King James Bible then we do not have a copy of the Bible. Common sense, Mr. White! Where do you think the Bible came from if not from the inspired writings of Paul?" [5]
- "The issue about the original Greek is really irrelevant! Do you know why? Simply because you and I were not there! I cannot prove anything to you from history, and you cannot prove anything to me. There are so many theories and "so-called proofs" that it is ridiculous. Prove to me that Julius Caesar ever existed! You cannot. Prove to me that Alexander the Great existed! You cannot. Can I prove to you that Jesus ever existed? No I cannot. I can show you the Bible (which alone is enough proof for me), but you may not believe me. Now I believe that Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great really existed. Why? Because of the historical evidence available. Howbeit, you cannot PROVE to me that these men ever existed--I must accept it by faith, based on things I see and hear today. Likewise, a person believes the Bible "by faith." You see, everything we believe about history is "by faith." [6]
[edit] Quotations from the translators' preface to the KJV
- "[W]hosoever attempteth anything for the public (specially if it pertain to religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue.
- For he that meddleth with men's religion in any part meddleth with their custom..." (4:1-2)
- "Therefore as S.Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." (16: 10)
- "For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?
- Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free?" (17:5-6)
- "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." (17:14)
- "We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession [i.e. Protestantism], (for we have seen none of theirs [i.e. Catholicism] of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
- As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere...
- For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" (13:1-5)
