Author : Keith Sharp
There is a popular movement to reject all English translations except the King James Version.
Actually, the King James Version of today is the latest of several revisions, made in 1762. Very few people could understand the antiquated English of the 1611 version. Even since 1762 the English language has changed immensely. Therefore, most people find theKing James Version hard to read.
Many knowledgeable scholars defend the Textus Receptus upon which the King James Version(and New King James Version) is based. But it is unreasonable to claim special providence or inspiration for the scholars of the Church of England in 1611 that would not also be claimed for textual critics and translators today. The men who gave the world the King James Version of the Bible certainly didn’t claim inspiration!
Some people contend the “Thees” and “Thous”” of the King James Version are reverential rather than archaic. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) calls the word “thee” “archaic.” (p. 2369) When Jesus commanded, “Get thee hence, Satan” (Matthew 4:10), was he using reverential language? Was he showing reverence to Peter when He said, “Get thee behind me, Satan ….”? (Matthew 16:23)
Some argue for the beautiful Shakespearean language of the King James Version. If that is their personal preference, fine. I don’t try to steer anyone away from the KJV. But it is sinful to bind our personal preferences on others (Romans 14:1-3). I grant that scholars tell us that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is classical and that the Hebrew of Isaiah is some of the most elevated of all Hebrew literature. But it is very revealing that, when the New Testament was written, the inspired writers could have used the beautiful, classical Greek that learned authors used even in their day. Instead, with a few exceptions, they used “koine,” “common,” Greek, the language of the common people. If we follow the example of the apostles and prophets of the Lord, we will use a translation that is in the common language of ordinary people of our day.
Some lump all the modern translations together and charge that they deny the deity of Christ. First, it is blatantly unfair to lump the New American Standard Bible with Good News for Modern Man. Second, it is simply a slander to charge that all the modern translations undermine the deity of Jesus Christ. There are nine New Testament passages that in some or all Greek manuscripts expressly call Jesus “God.” (John 1:1,18; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1) The King James Version translates five of them (John 1:1; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:8) so that Jesus is denoted as God. Both the NASB and the NIV render seven of the passages in such a way that they specifically indicate that Jesus is a divine being.
Others, noting the liberalism of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort and tying all modern versions to the Westcott and Hort text, charge all newer translations with liberal bias. The only American translation that closely follows the Westcott & Hort text is the American Standard Version. The translators of the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the New King James Version believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the virgin birth of Christ (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:26-38).
The King James Version is by-and-large accurate. But it does have notable weaknesses. Ecclesiastical (church) words of the Church of England were sometimes used (e.g., “baptize” rather than “immerse”; “bishop” rather than “overseer” ). There are a few mistranslations (e.g., “Easter” in Acts 12:4). Some of these weaknesses have been carried over into the standard modern English translations (e.g., “baptize”).
The chief weakness of the King James Version is its age. Most people who did not grow up reading the Bible find the King James Version hard if not virtually impossible to read. The argument that, on average, the KJV uses shorter words than modern translations completely misses the point. The word “eschew” (1 Peter 3:11, KJV) is shorter than the phrase “turn away from” (NKJV), but how many modern readers know what “eschew” means? Should we require those we are teaching to learn Elizabethan English so they might know God’s will?
Many Christians are having opportunities in our day to study with people who grew up Catholic or nothing at all religiously. They are not at all familiar with Elizabethan English. We encounter more and more to whom English is a second language. To demand that they study from the King James Version is like asking a country boy to read and understand Shakespeare. The refusal to consider updated English versions of the Bible cripples efforts to reach the lost.
If you prefer to use the King James Version, I have no quarrel with you. I preached from it for thirty years. But I switched to the New King James Version to make it easier to preach to and teach those who cannot understand old English. I use and recommend the New American Standard Bible because of its accuracy. All I ask is that you grant me the liberty of using an accurate translation of the Bible in modern English. Is that asking too much?
