THE CASE FOR RETAINING THE KJV
As the Bible of English-Speaking Churches Today
Elder J T Joseph
That written body of divine revelation and instruction which we call the Bible, is the bedrock of the Christian religion. More than any other world religion, Christianity is the religion of the Book, and Christians the people of that Book. Thus it is that the forces of Hell have never ceased to rail against the Bible. Textual criticism of the Bible is of that stable because it dismisses alike the divine inspiration and the special providential preservation of the source-texts of Holy Writ.
Did the Traditional Text of the New Testament have its dominance thrust upon it by decree? On the contrary, the early dominance of the Traditional Text testifies to the unseen operations of the Holy Spirit within the mind and heart of the believing community at large, so that by common consent false readings were rejected, and by common usage, the pure Text was preserved from one generation to the next. We should note, in passing, that herein lies a powerful argument for the special providential preservation of Holy Scripture—that of common usage by the priesthood of true believers.
When we move from the source texts to the vernacular (English) Bible, a related—and no less thorny —issue arises: Which Bible? After all, believers in all ages are entitled to have the Scriptures in their native tongue. The present essay attempts to construct a case for retaining the Authorised Version (commonly known as the “KJV Bible”) as the Bible of English-speaking churches today.
I am not ashamed to declare my conviction that the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, together with the methodology of formal equivalence in translation, constitute the proper basis for a vernacular Bible which may be held up, for that people, as the only rule of faith and of life. Thus it is that I acknowledge no other English Bible—qua Bible—than the King James. The arguments that may be adduced can be subsumed under the following headings.
Special Providential Preservation
Dean Burgon observed in 1883, ‘… if [we] believe that the original … Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages’. The course of Church history reveals that ‘doctrine’ was more often than not developed or clarified in response to heretical attacks—consider, for example, the doctrines of Christ’s deity and of the Trinity, their ‘stimuli’ being the Arian & Gnostic heresies of the early days of Christianity. Thus it is with the Doctrine of Preservation, which has developed to counter the heresy that God’s people no longer have access to the very Word of God, in consequence whereof there can be, for them, no ‘final authority’ in faith and in practice.
The actual mechanics of Preservation remain inscrutable, as with Inspiration (Deut 29:29), but the clear testimony of Scripture does indeed call for the doctrine of preservation, statements on Preservation in the Old Testament being complemented by no less explicit statements in the New— compare, for example, Psalm 12:6-7 or Psalm 33:11, on the one hand, with II Timothy 3:16 or Romans 15:4 on the other. There is thus a ‘duet’ on Inspiration & Preservation by the two testaments of holy writ.
Believers in every age carry a twin responsibility: that of proclaiming the pure and perfect Word of God, and of transmitting it faithfully to the next generation. The choice of bible version is therefore a matter of the highest importance.
We end this section with an extract from the Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 1, Article VIII. ‘The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.’
Superior Doctrine
Doctrine being framed with words, and communicated through words, it must of necessity follow that the text of God’s inspired Word is fundamental to a discussion on ‘Which Bible?’. Those who opt for the Critical Text wilfully ignore the numerous errors, omissions and alterations that are native to it. Granted, these ‘anomalies’ are not all of the same weight: there is, in consequence, a modicum of sound doctrine in the modern versions. The fact remains, however, that adoption of the Critical Text invariably leads to a ‘bible with mistakes’. Two examples are offered by way of illustration.
Colossians 2:18: KJV: ‘Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.’ NIV: ‘Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.’
The ‘things which he [the false teacher or heretic] hath not seen’ [Received Text] refers to the spiritual realm of which false teachers discoursed freely (thereby drawing attention to themselves), but of which they were wholly ignorant. The rendition in the KJV is consonant with the overall context; that in the NIV (and ASV, et al) radically alters the meaning and interpretation of the verse!
I Timothy 3:16: KJV: ‘And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.’ ESV: ‘Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.’
The Received Text reads ‘God’ but when we come to the various iterations of the Critical Text we find ‘God’ replaced by ‘he’—a change which effectively denies the deity of Christ!
These are just two of numerous examples. Collectively, they present a disturbing picture of the hidden agenda motivating all versions based on the Critical Text.
Superior Translation Methodology
Broadly speaking, there are two translation methodologies available: Dynamic Equivalence, and Formal Equivalence. We have also to contend with bible versions which are the fruit of formal equivalence applied to a critical Greek text.
The bulk of bible versions in print today are crafted on the basis of dynamic, or ‘thought-for-thought’, equivalence. Dynamic Equivalence aims to convey the inspired writer’s thoughts in language that is “easily comprehensible” to as large a cross-section of the target population as possible, taking into account Christians and non-Christians alike. This approach is therefore conditioned by prevailing social, cultural and linguistic norms. Consider the following example relating to the United Bible Societies. In producing a translation of the Bible for a part of the world where the population had never experienced snow, Isaiah 1:18 is rendered: ‘… though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as the inside of a coconut …’. This is not a trivial change. Snow is an apt metaphor for God’s pardon not merely in that it is “white”, but more importantly, in that it represents a ‘covering over’ of ugly sins. Adopting the technique of Dynamic Equivalence invariably alters the original meaning, substituting in its place the perceptions of a translator far removed in time and in social/cultural milieu from the inspired writer. How, then, could one ever reconcile this methodology with the proscriptions of God’s Word as found, for example, in Deuteronomy 4:2 or Jeremiah 26:2, or Revelation 22:18-19?
On a deeper level, Dynamic Equivalency fails to appreciate that the root cause of the ‘natural’ man’s inability to grasp the message of God’s Word in its fullness, stems from the spiritual blindness attendant upon an unregenerate heart. That situation can never be addressed by linguistic tampering with God’s Word, which invariably results in a speculative bible.
It will not do to have ‘… a speculative Bible. We need a Bible based on certainty. What is certain is what the [inspired] writers did actually say and write.’ (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, emphasis mine). Formal Equivalence aims for this ‘certainty’ in translating the Scriptures. Within the limits of the receptor language, this methodology gives a word-for-word rendition of the source-text, words or phrases being inserted only to the extent of conforming to the grammar and syntax of the receptor language.
Liturgical Excellence
The language of worship is peculiarly its own, in respect of diction, cadence and rhythm. The object of worship, after all, is the one living and true God Almighty. In this regard, the language of the KJV is sublime without in any way being contrived. It is plain enough for the ploughboy; fully adequate, at the same time, for lifting the heart of a mature saint to the presence of God. It thus is marvellously fitted to bridge the gap from the heart of man to the mind of God. No other (English) translation comes anywhere near the standard of the KJV.
Those 54 men who translated the KJV, the ablest scholars of their generation, were divided into six companies, two each at Westminster, at Cambridge and at Oxford. Anglicans and Puritans laboured together in perfect harmony over a seven-year period. Each verse was meticulously gone over, and multiple times at that, to reach consensus. The finished product was then scrutinised by a review committee drawn from that august convocation, when readability, besides accuracy and fidelity, was assessed. Their deep sense of mission was heightened by the consciousness that they had been tasked with producing a standard that would enter into the life of English-speaking peoples.
The hand of Almighty God has blessed the KJV from the time of its publication: it has changed countless lives, sparked off revivals, and continues still to uplift sinners. Thus it is that I acknowledge no other English Bible—qua Bible—than the King James.
