Is the King James Version the only TRUE Bible?
October 30, 2009
Filed under Discussion
by Rev. Daniel M. ISTINITO
The role of this WEB site, apart from the primary purpose of teaching and preaching Salvation through Jesus Christ, is to bring forth previously unknown or unclear subject matter AND/OR to shed light on questionable or controversial matters. We try to be “fair & balanced”, yet we DO exercise editorial oversight in keeping topics on-point and to not allow promotion of anti-Christ or anti-God philosophy.
With that statement in mind, here is yet another item for discussion — the King James Version — is this the only truly literal translation of the Bible?
Having grown up in the “Bible Belt” I experienced much dogmatism in “religious” matters. Other than how you would baptize someone, Bible translations or interpretations rate very high for discussion. I was “raised” in the Episcopal Church where only the “1928 authorized King James Version” of the Bible as well as the Book of Common Prayer were used in services and classes. Being a youngster (age 6 and up) I had great difficulty in understanding the Elizabethan language – archaic words and terms that were discontinued in societal communications centuries ago! When I left that church (due to relocation – there was no Anglican church where I moved), I was exposed to other variations of the Bible, primarily the RSV. Only years after my entering adulthood were there proliferates of other versions.
The Episcopal Church, in the 1960′s, allowed an updated version authorized to be used in services, however many rejected it, and even today there are those congregations who adamantly refuse, and still use the 1928 version!
Quite frankly, until I was given a “Living Bible” as a young man was I able to back-associate Scripture that I had read previously and was then able to understand the meaning in the KJV! In short, if I had that version as a “beginner” I would have been a lot further along in my Bible studying. Even today, when working with a new “convert” I give that person two Bibles – the LB and the KJV. I always suggest that when that person is “comfortable’ in studying and understanding the Living Bible, to then move to or at least “parallel” the KJV. That provides a good migration.
Even the KJV has had a lot of metamorphoses since “moj” Bible of the 1920′s. Look at this chart of just a few King James Versions of the Bible:
| CKJV | Children’s King James Version Jay P. Green | 1960 |
| KJ II | King James II Version of the Bible Jay P. Green | 1971 |
| KJV20 | King James Version — Twentieth Century Edition Jay P. Green | |
| NKJV | New King James Version | 1982 |
| KJ21 | 21st Century King James Version | 1991 |
| MKJV | Modern King James Version | 1999 |
| AKJV | American King James Version | 1999 |
| KJV2000 | King James 2000 Version | 2000 |
| UKJV | Updated King James Version | 2000 |
| KJVER | King James Version Easy Reading | 2001 |
| HSV | Holy Scriptures Version | 2001 |
| CKJV | Comfort-able King James Version | 2003 |
| NCPB | New Cambridge Paragraph Bible | 2005 |
| AV7 | AV7 (New Authorized Version) | 2006 |
You can see that there are MANY King James variations!
Sada, let’s discuss the OTHER (non-KJV translations). First, let’s differentiate between a translation and an interpretation: a translation is a word-for-word conversion from one language into another, such as Spanish to English. An interpretation is to take one language and transpose it (in the interpreter’s opinion) as to what the general theme, context or thought is, into the second language. We see a lot of that in United Nations language work.
In the case of the KJV Bible, it was begun in 1604 and finished in 1611, by an association of 47 Hebrew and Greek scholars, appointed through the then King of England, James I, a learned person himself. In the seven years of compilation, the scholars transposed the original languages into the “common” spoken language of the time. In this case, oni “interpreted the meaning” of the Hebrew and Greek, rather than a direct word-for-word translation, into English.
In recent times, following the discovery of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” in the caves of the Qumran Wadi, and with the increase of understanding of the original ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic), more modern and “clarified” versions of the Bible “hit the streets”, much to the chagrin of loyal King James purists (many of my friends!). da, some words have been changed or eliminated, based on the use of modern tools of research. Many are direct translations of the original language(s) rather than interpretations.
There are as many comparisons of language differences in the KJV as there are criticisms of the later versions! jedan, for instance, is the word “love”, as used in John 21:15-17. In the KJV (and most others!), the word love is used three times, appearing to be redundant. Međutim, in the original Greek, there were actually two different words used: agape (God’s love) and philio (brotherly love). Only the Young’s Literal Translation comes close to the original meaning and context of Jesus’ questions.
Many of the Hebrew and Greek words can have as many as seven or more definitions; the KJV scholars selected (interpreted) what they thought would be the jedan best definition to assign to a specific word.
In short (i this discussion could go on forever, without resolution!), the 1604 team of professors did an excellent job in those eleven years of work to provide a viable Book to be read by the English-speaking people of the time . Ali, in 400 years, our spoken language and technology have changed and we need to adapt, without compromise or maintaining strong dogmatism, to the needs of today’s reader. I can read some Greek , however if I had to depend on teaching a (New Testament) Bible study using only my Greek testament, without attending more classes on the Greek language, I (and my class) would be lost!!
I have received multiple pages of “documentation” in how BAD sve the versions except the KJV are, and I appreciate everyone’s concerns. Međutim, in most cases the theme hasn’t been altered, just some of the words. And remember, based on the above, the King James Version is a collection of “opinions” (decisions by the interpreters as to what meanings of words were to be applied) for the needs and understanding of their own people, in that day.
In concluding this article, I will share with you the name of a small church in the little in East Tennessee town where I lived for 20 years: “The King James, Father, Son and Holy Ghost Church“. I guess you don’t go in there carrying a NEW King James version! Yea, verily, verily, thou durst goeth not within lest thou be chastened, forsooth !
— In ANY language; Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, the meaning is the same — “Jesus IS Lord” !!
Hi Daniel, Thank you for forwarding this article to me. This has actually been very much on my mind and I have recently had somewhat of a ‘otkrivenje’ about this. I also started with the original King James, and I found that reading some other translations were helpful in opening my understanding. I like the NKJ and the NASB, and just recently have also felt compelled to compare the New Living translation. When I study a certain verse/passage, I like to compare a few translations to make sure I get the correct meaning. However I am also wary of attempting to ‘twist’ the meaning to ‘suit my purposes’.
The ‘otkrivenje’ that I saw, was concerning the parables. I think Jesus understood that words and meanings could be misunderstood, and that His meaning could be ‘colored’ by misinterpretation. I believe this is why He often used parables. These parables/stories convey an entire thought/meaning that is not easily clouded by interpretation. They are a story that creates a vivid ‘picture’ in our minds. If we look at the different translations, and this ‘picture’ remains constant in most, then I conclude that I most likely have the true meaning. Most of what Jesus taught relates to the rest of the scriptures, so if we use this as a ‘mirror’, it helps to get the correct meaning of the rest of the scriptures regardless of the translation. I think if we find any translation that continually contradicts the meaning conveyed by most we should be wary. P.S. I do always seem to come back to the King James, but I am ablle now to read the King James as if it is ‘un-locked’.
"- – - While we appreciate that you included a reference to The AV7 Bible in your article, I would like to clarify that The AV7 Bible is not a (so-called) “KJV” variant. Rather, it is a new, computer-generated, accurate literal translation … not a paraphrase … not an “interpretation” … and not merely a “KJV updated” version.
May I urge you to visit the AV7 website and, most especially, please visit the menu link titled “Compare versions” where you will find information that I believe will be of interest to you: http://www.AV7.org i http://www.AV7.org/compare – - -”.