Bible Versions
Many people ask about and are confused about translations of the bible. Some argue that only the King James version can be used. Others argue that all versions are of equal value and accuracy. The following will help to clarify my thoughts on the subject.
Believing it to be . . .
- Translated by “formal equivalency.”
- Translated from the traditional text line (Traditional Received Text—“Textus Receptus”).
- The most tried and proven translation for the church for nearly 400 years.
- The translation most “unused” by liberals and new-evangelicals.
- The most preferred translation. To move to some other translation would be to move to that which is completely unnecessary and potentially confusing.
- The inspired and infallible Word of God through preservation.
- The translation used by most of the fundamental, soul-winning, separatist churches today.
I further believe that to take less than a strong stand on the King James Version will send a confusing message to those whom we have been given the responsibility to disciple, by sending a message of doubt and confusion concerning the accuracy and reliability of the Word of God.
Because there are only minimal differences in the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus as well as no doctrinal changes, no compelling reason exists to reject the King James Version. On that basis and for the purpose of consistency, I will use the King James Version in the pulpit as well as the classroom. Furthermore, to hold fast to the King James Version will in no way cause anyone to question my belief and confidence in the preserved Word of God. My adherence solely to the King James Version will leave no room for anyone to associate me with new-evangelicals, liberals, or any other group that might be viewed as soft on the Word of God, its inspiration, and subsequent preservation.
Therefore:
- I believe that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were “God-breathed,” that is, given by inspiration of God, resulting in a product that was inerrant and infallible in the original autographs.
- I believe that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings.
- I believe that inspiration applied only to the autographs, but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s divine preservation.
- I believe that God has preserved His Word through all the extant manuscripts, and that among them God has preserved His Word in the Masoretic-Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek Text of the New Testament.
- I believe that the King James Version is the best translation that reflects the Divine intent of the Hebrew and Greek texts mentioned above.
Regarding the usage of the King James Version, I believe that it was very well-translated, but that the English language has undergone some changes in the past, as is partially reflected in the fact that the edition of the King James Version in widespread use today is not, in fact, the 1611 edition. Since English is a living language, the modern-day connotations of words such as “conversation,” “charity,” and (sadly) “gay,” is much different from their 1611 meanings. Therefore, it is wisest to consult the original languages, where the Divine intent is unchanged. This will not refute the King James Version, but will keep us from changing the original meanings of Old English words, such as illustrated above, to conform to modern usages.
Regarding my attitude toward those who disagree with me, I believe that I should reflect the principles of II Timothy 2:24, Romans 14:1-6, Ephesians 4:3, and James 3:17. We recognize that as servants of the Lord, we “must not strive, but be gentle,” we must not “despise or judge,” we must “endeavor” to keep unity, and that heavenly wisdom is “first pure, then peaceable.” It is mydesire to defend a consistent tradition and stand on the King James Version of the Bible while also maintaining a spirit of unity and peace. My position as stated will help maintain the veracity of the Word of God before the congregation and students while at the same time being peaceable before those who might disagree.
For clarification, I do not teach that the King James Version was given by inspiration of God (I do not believe in “second-inspiration”). To believe this would involve us in a number of unscriptural conclusions:
- It would lead us to conclude that the italicized words constitute additional revelation; yet, I believe that revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament. I do not believe that God breathed again in 1611.
- It would lead us to conclude that the Apocryphal books were properly included in the King James Bible of 1611. I do not believe that they should have been included in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, and I applaud their subsequent removal.
- It would lead us to conclude that the way the King James Version was translated would be the only way it could have been translated. This in turn would lead us to conclude that the English translation of the Bible might be used to correct the Greek text. While I teach that the King James Version is accurately translated, I do not believe that it is necessarily the only way something might have been translated and still be accurate. Instead, I teach that it was accurately and correctly translated.
- It would lead us to conclude that it would never be in need of revision. However minor the revisions have been, there have been a number of revisions of the King James Version, and we are no longer using the 1611 edition. If the King James Version were given by inspiration of God as the New Testament manuscripts were, there should have been no need of revision, even in minor spelling variations.
Therefore, I say without reservation the King James Version of the Bible is the inspired Word of God! While it was not given by “second inspiration” of God, it is an accurate translation of what “was” given by “inspiration of God.” It is, therefore, the inspired Word Of God as a result of preservation!