AFTER TRYING OUT A FEW DIFFERENT ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE, I DECIDED THAT THE GOOD OLD KING JAMES VERSION WASN'T SO BAD
AFTER ALL. WHY? READ FURTHER AND SEE.
WHY I STILL USE THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE Part One:
What's With the KJV?
You may think by reading my other articles on the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible that I am really down on it, and just
absolutely hate it. That couldn't be further from the truth. The other articles I wrote were with the intent of showing how
that the KJV has been , is being, and can be perverted to manipulate and control people without their even realizing it.
I am against leaders and pastors using the King James version to lord it over their flocks and hold God over their heads.
I am against leaders and pastors using the King James version of the Bible to intimidate their flocks, threaten their flocks
I did change to the ESV (English Standard Version), and the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version for a while, to be able to
read the Bible in different translations, and see if that can help me understand parts of the Bible that are not so clear
in the KJV.
It is good to compare translations and see for yourself what certain things mean in the other versions. How they translated
it, and it is also enjoyable to read the Words of God in an English version that is a skillful work of literature that keeps
the basic ideas of the Bible and God's plan for man accurately.
Such is the ESV and NRSV, at least that is what I felt, until recently, that is. As nice and pleasant and interesting as they
are to read and study, there were some concerns that came up about these translations that caused me to do some research about
them. I discovered that these translations were based on the Greek Westcott and Holt version, as opposed to the KJV being
based on the TR Or Textus Receptus (Received Version) of the Greek. So what is the difference in these two? After doing some
initial research on the internet I found that there is quite a world of difference in these two. By reading the ESV and NRSV
you can't notice so much because most of the text tried to keep a lot of the same wording of the KJV, especially the ESV.
However, if you are familiar with the KJV, as I am, having read and studied it for 35 years, and you have based your belief
system on it, and have received your salvation and Christian doctrines through it, you will begin to feel a little funny about
some of the things these other two translations say, as well as many other modern translations of the Bible. The KJV does
have some discrepancies in the translation and wording of things, and that is not because the translators were not inspired.
You can still be inspired and make mistakes did you know that?
Would you say that Peter was an Apostle who was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yet he argued with Paul and Paul with him. Peter
made several mistakes in the doctrine and Paul was trying to correct him. Paul also was inspired wouldn't you say? Yet he
also made some mistakes and was not perfect.
2Cr 10:10 For [his] letters, say they, [are] weighty and powerful; but [his] bodily presence [is] weak, and [his] speech contemptible.
And yet Paul's words were as inspired by the Holy Ghost as they come. So there are some errors in the King James version.
They may vary as to which ones people think are errors, depending upon your interpretation and your doctrines, and what your
definition of error is.
I am trying to address these in separate articles to get to the bottom of this "conspiracy" of either King James Only people
or Anti-King James people. Without trying to touch on all the literal reasons why the King James version translators worded
things a certain way, and inserted words in brackets to improve the flow of the English, what they were after was not just
a word for word direct translation.
They wanted, of course, first of all, the Bible to be accurately translated from the original tongues. They also wanted to
English Bible to be as readable as possible and understandable as possible by the common people. In order to achieve this,
the text of the English KJV Bible had to flow, and be legible to the average person.
Not a dictionary or concordance or index of some kind, only translating the words themselves. They dealt with difficult idioms,
figurative language, figures of speech, metaphors, similes, and hyperboles.
The KJV translators dealt with poetry, prophecy, stories, history, psalms, quote books, laments, and over 100 different minor
genres and had to consider each one.
What they were translating, who it was being written to, the time and period, and many factors that they had to take into
consideration in order to render an acceptable translation. So I will go over the so called mistakes in detail and take them
one by one, as much as I can, and correct the ones that need correcting. Some , such as E.W. Bullinger, reworded some of the
KJV text in an attempt to make it more understandable, or closer to the original Greek or Hebrew, but it is often not so understandable
and not easier to read, in fact , it is often even MORE complicated since what he put in there depended upon his own interpretations.
I did find that in the newer modern versions a lot of the Word of God has been tampered with.
I mean, most of it is ok and easy to understand and it is a blessing for many people to read something that is not so complicated.
But if you are looking for accuracy and unadulterated truth, the KJV is by far the most accurate English translation, except
for a few hang-ups the translators had , due to the pressure that was put on them by the religious system of their day.
Remember, King James himself was directly overseeing the project as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is like having
the Pope overseeing a translation of the Encyclicals, or the President overseeing a translation of the Constitution. There
is going to be a certain amount of pressure there to do it properly, and with their influence. So I will try to point out
what was translated with the strong influence of the AB and KJ.
King James wanted it to be politically correct and the AB wanted it to be doctrinally identical to the Church of England.
In conclusion, the KJV is a beautiful translation and accurate for those who are familiar with its language. For those who
have a hard time understanding it, I would suggest using a King James Bible dictionary, now at the back of many Bibles, or
try reading the ESV or NRSV next to the KJV Bible.
You can do this by having two Bibles, or getting a bible that has both. They call them parallel Bibles.I have learned to love
the King James version, but I am not above checking other versions and sometimes reading and studying them, as long as I know
that what I am reading is according to scripture, and is not a paraphrase or a totally perverted version.