Continuing on with general principles of Bible translations, we turn attention to an interesting group within Christendom: those who hold to the “KJV-Only” position. Disclaimer: I am, by no means, a linguistic scholar. However, many (not all) who put forth the KJV only position put forth such weak arguments based faulty understandings that pointing out simple clarifying considerations can and hopefully will prove beneficial to some. *Please use Christian charity when reading this blog; I’ve tried to be thoughtful and charitable in presenting this basic information to attempt to help my fellow brethren!*
Firstly, not all KJVO’s are created equal. One group simply prefer the KJV to others because they have been raised using it and like it. This blog is not an attack against those people. The KJV is an excellent translation. It’s a wonderful translation to use for devotion and/or deeper study. Another group prefers the underlying texts used to produce the KJV and the NKJV, the Textus Receptus. These are usually the scholars from that perspective. They make great arguments for the supremacy of the “Received Text” and simply seek to provide better and more consistent translations of their preferred text. The last group is the ones to whom this post addresses: those who believe the KJV is the only true, pure, divinely inspired Word of God and that all other translations are corrupt and seeking to lead people away from God.
There seems to be 2 common objections made by KJV Onlyists against modern translations which lead to a wrong (in my opinion) conclusion. 1. The other translations change the Word of God,
2. That other translations add or remove verses from the Word of God.
The conclusion that they draw from these 2 objections is that modern translations corrupt God’s Word. Their solution: the KJV is perfect, so: “DO NOT use these translations that distort God’s Word.“
Both of these can be answered by first understanding the history of the transmission of the Biblical Text. See other post linked in the comments for more details, but in short — the Bible wasn’t written in 1611 King James English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and some Aramaic, the New Testament in Greek. The KJV is an fine translation of manuscript copies penned in those languages. *NOTE: They did not translate from the original autographs (pages that the Biblical writers wrote on). We do not have any original autographs, only copies of copies. The fact is modern translations use significantly earlier copies in their translation work. Whether this is a good thing or a problem is a point of debate.*
The reason some KJV Onlyists insist modern translations “change” words is because they are already accepting the KJV as the standard of God’s Word. But remember, God didn’t inspire the KJV translators, He inspired the original texts. The work of the translators was to transfer those words into whatever language they were trying to produce a version for, in this case, English. That is the exact same method utilized in the modern versions. Yet, for whatever reason, KJV Onlyists have a problem with the Modern translators and do not with the 1611 translators. There are many ways to translate certain words and phrases from one language to another, hence the “differences” between versions.
Some of the “changes” in the Modern texts is simply updating the language as the English language has changed in the last 400 years. An example of this would be:
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The NASB translates:
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
— 2 Timothy 2:15
Some KJV Onlyists will say, “See, the NASB translators were changing the Scripture that teaches us to ‘Study’ so that we will be approved”. However, a simple search of the meaning behind the Greek Word in a Strong’s Concordance reveals that it actually means to “Be diligent”. We no longer use the word “study” to mean “to be careful to”, yet in 1611, it did mean that. So those who want to use the verse to teach that we are to study (as in study God’s Word) in order to be an approved workman, though it is valuable advice, are wrongly drawing it from a verse that was not written to teach that. Which translation is right? Both! One was perfectly correct in the 17th century, one is more appropriately accurate for us today.
“Changes” should not be judged on the basis of how it compares to the KJV. They should be examined in light of the original languages. A very high percentage of the issues KJV Onlyists have can be resolved just by recognizing this improper lens by which they are viewing the controversy.
As to things “added or removed”, again the problem arises from setting the KJV as the standard — seeing where other translations differ, and then calling those differences adding or taking away from God’s Word. Hopefully I’ve already shown how that’s a wrong way to look at the various translations. But, just for good measure, consider the fact that the Vulgate had been the “standard” for over 1000 years when the KJV was produced. Would it have been right to call the differences the KJV had from the Vulgate “adding, removing, or changing” the Word of God? No, yet that same argument was made by many.
The reason we see verses “removed” from modern translations is fully explained in most of the Bibles made today. In the footnotes they will say something like “This verse was not found in the earliest manuscripts.” That level of transparency is not only informative, but also very helpful to know. The KJV utilized copies/manuscripts from the 10th-12th centuries. The modern translators, thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, are able to use copies/manuscripts from as early as the 2nd Century! It’s incredible that we have those now! Does that mean they were all without any textual issues? Not necessarily. But these documents should certainly not be disregarded entirely. So instead of saying the Modern versions “remove” verses, in some cases it’s more likely that the KJV “added” them (unintentionally of course, they were just using the manuscripts they had at the time).
So which one is right? Can we have confidence that the Bible we use today, whether KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, or many other wonderful translations? Can they each be truly considered the “Word of God” even though they have some differences amongst each other? Short answer: ABSOLUTELY. But that’s another huge topic for another day! Read your Bible folks. I pray this is helpful to you.
Kommentare