Why I Use and Defend the King James Version
As the Best English Translation of God’s Word

Introduction

Has the Bible been accurately preserved? Has the word of God been reliably translated into English? Are there spiritually fatal errors in modern translations of the Bible? Which Bible is the most accurate and reliable translation in English today? The following series of articles will attempt to deal with these vital questions.

The Bible has been miraculously delivered and providentially preserved.

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God (II Pet. 1:20-21; II Tim. 3:16-17). Repeatedly Bible writers claim to be speaking and writing the very words of God (II Sam. 23:2; I Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:10-11; I Cor. 2:13). The Bible not only makes this claim but possesses attributes and characteristics that prove it to be the inspired word of God (supernatural unity, clear prophecies and their detailed fulfillment, remarkable scientific foreknowledge, etc.).

The Bible not only establishes itself conclusively to be the inspired word of God, it also affirms its own preservation:

1. “Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89).
2. “The words of the Lord are pure words...thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever” (Psa. 12:6-7).
3. “My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).
4. “The word of the Lord endureth forever” (I Pet. 1:23-25).

The above Bible affirmations teach verbal inspiration (the very words are inspired) and Biblical preservation.

The Three Basic Reasons

I use and defend the King James Version of the Bible as the best English translation basically for the following three reasons:

Reason #1: The King James Version is based upon the best original language texts:

a. The Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text
b. The Traditional Text or Textus Receptus (Received Text) of the New Testament.

Reason #2: The King James Version translators have never been surpassed in their linguistic qualifications and scholarship as translators. (John Bois for example could write in Hebrew at the age of six!)

Reason #3: The King James Version is a verbal (word) and formal (nouns translated as nouns, verbs as verbs, etc.) translation of God’s word.

All three of these will be dealt with in more detail in this material.

What I am not Affirming

As is true with any issue, one should be specific and define precisely what is under consideration. I want to be very clear that I am not affirming the following points:

1. I am not saying that the King James Version of the Bible is a perfect translation.
2. I am not objecting to any present-day attempt to translate the Bible.
3. I am not saying that the King James translators were perfect men.
4. I am not saying it is wrong to have or refer in study to other translations of the Bible.
5. I am not saying that 17th Century English has some special divine sanction.

What I am Affirming

I am affirming that the King James Version of the Bible is the best translation of God’s word in English today.

The Two Basic Issues

There are really two issues which need to be addressed in any discussion of Bible translation:

1. Are the translators using the best original language texts?
2. Are the translators using a Verbal Equivalence and Formal Equivalence technique of translating? (Are they rendering the very words of the Hebrew and Greek as closely as possible into the English?)

To have the best English translation the answer to both of these questions must be yes.

Modern translations use a faulty text base (we will show this to be the case in a later article) in the translating process. Modern translations use what is called the Dynamic Equivalence technique (Dynamic meaning change or movement, thus not verbal and formal).

The King James Version Old Testament Text Base
The Old Testament of the K.J.V. is translated from what is called the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text. The word “Masoretic” means “to hand down.” The Masoretes were Hebrew scholars whose job in life was to safeguard the Old Testament text. The Jews followed strict rules in copying and preserving the Old Testament text, (even to the point of counting all the words and letters on every page). The A.S.V., N.A.S.V., N.K.J.V., and the N.I.V. have all departed from the Old Testament text used by the K.J.V. These modern versions justify these changes and departures from the traditional Masoretic text by using faulty and spurious criteria such as the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (you can read about this in the preface of each translation). Note here that in Luke 24:44 Jesus endorsed the entire Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament by referring to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. This was not the Septuagint version of the Old Testament which has a completely different book order. Also in Matthew 5:17-18 the Lord’s reference to the “jot” and “tittle” indicates he was endorsing only the Hebrew Text and not the Septuagint or any other version.

The King James Version New Testament Text Base

The New Testament of the K.J.V. is translated from the Traditional Text or Textus Receptus (or Received Text). There are four kinds of Greek manuscripts: A] Papyrus Fragment Manuscripts (small pieces of papyrus - 88 in number) B] Uncial Manuscripts (manuscripts written in capital letters which run together - 267 in number) C] Cursive Manuscripts (manuscripts written in long hand which flow together like our long hand today - 2,764 in number) D] Lectionary Manuscripts (portions of scripture in the Greek and Latin Bibles which were read in churches on certain days - 2,143 in number). It is simply false to say the newer versions are better because they are based on better Greek manuscripts.
Of these four kinds of Greek manuscripts 99% plus have the Received Text base. Here is the evidence:
A. Papyrus Fragment Manuscripts (85% agree with the Received Text)
B. Uncial Manuscripts (97% agree with the Received Text)
C. Cursive Manuscripts (99% agree with the Received Text)
D. Lectionary Manuscripts (100% agree with the Received Text)
Since 5,210 of the 5,255 (99% plus) extant New Testament manuscripts all use the Received Text, why would anyone knowingly criticize the King James Version for its Greek textual base?

Faulty Greek Text of Modern Versions

The modern versions (even including the American Standard Version) are based upon a faulty Greek text. The Nestle/Aland Greek Text (or one like it) is the basic text that underlies the modern versions. The Nestle/Aland Greek Text basically follows the Westcott and Hort Greek text of 1881. Westcott was a bishop of the Anglican church and Hort was a teacher at Cambridge University. These men did not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Westcott and Hort were determined to reject and eliminate the Received Text (the basis of the K.J.V.). According to textual scholar D. A. Waite the Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places involving some 9,970 Greek words (7% of the Greek words in the N.T. or 15.4 Greek words per page). This is why you see those distressing “marginal notes” in the modern versions which cast doubt upon the integrity of some passages.

A classic example of this would be the ending of the book of Mark (Mark 16:9-20). Dean John William Burgon wrote a book in 1871 defending the integrity of the ending of this passage in the book of Mark. Burgon conclusively demonstrates that this passage should be in the Bible. Burgon was a scholar who defended the Traditional Text. In his prolific writings he clearly exposed the false theories and heresies of Westcott and Hort. Burgon’s material stands as the unanswerable evidence in defense of the Received Text which underlies the King James Version. Anyone who discusses or writes about textual matters and does not take into consideration the work of Burgon is not scholarly.

It should be noted here that although the American Standard Version is a verbal and formal translation, it is based upon a faulty Greek text. A faulty Greek Text produces a faulty Bible translation.

The Incomparable Translators of the K.J.V.
The translators of the K.J.V. have never been surpassed in their linguistic qualifications and scholarship as Bible translators.
Those who advocate and defend modern translations presume that modern translators possess some kind of “superior scholarship” over the K.J.V. translators. This is a false assumption.

Consider the following examples:

1. Lancelot Andrews - This K.J.V. translator prepared himself daily private devotions. The remarkable thing is these devotions were prepared in the Greek language.
2. William Bedwell - This man was so well known for his Arabic learning that other scholars would come to him for assistance.
3. Miles Smith - There were the so-called “church Fathers” who wrote extensively from about 100 A.D. - 600 A.D As an example of his linguistic ability Smith read through these writings in Greek and Latin and then wrote his own comments on each. He was regarded as an expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic.
4. John Bois - At the age of five he had read the Bible in Hebrew. It is difficult to write Hebrew letters and yet at the age of six Bois could even write in Hebrew!
5. John Overall - He received his doctor’s degree from Cambridge University. He could actually speak in Latin as well as he could English.
6. Francis Dellingham - This man actually took part in debates carried on in the Greek language.

These examples touch only the “hem of the garment” when it comes to the linguistic qualifications of the KJV translators.
There were originally 54 chosen. Of these some died and some withdrew before the translation process started. In the end, the final list numbered 47 men.

The translation of the KJV was a team effort. Waite in his book, Defending the King James Bible, describes the process as follows:

It was a team effort. So there were the seven original individual translations, one time as a group, five more times by the other groups. Then, at the end of the work, two men from each of the six groups got together and made a final revision as to what wording should stand. No less than fourteen different times the translation for each book was gone over “from stem to stern” (as we say in the Navy). This is an unusual, and so far as we know, a never before and never afterward team technique that was used. (pg. 89)

People speak from ignorance who argue that modern translators are “more qualified” to produce a translation that the KJV translators.

In the material we have covered so far we have seen:

1] The KJV translators use the best original language texts, and
2] the KJV translators were and are unsurpassed in their linguistic qualifications as translators.

There is yet a third reason why the KJV is the best English translation of the Bible.

Verbal and Formal Translation Technique
The Bible claims verbal (words) inspiration:
“ The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, And His word was in my tongue.” II Sam. 23:2
“ Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” I Cor. 2:13
The issue before us is: Do modern translations respect the very words of the text in the translation process? The answer is - THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT!

Take the time to read the following passages that emphasize the importance of the very words of the Bible: Ex. 4:28; 19:6; Num. 11:24; Deut. 4:10; 4:36; 27:8; Josh. 3:9; 8:34; II Kings 22:13; II Chron. 34:30; Ezra 9:4; Neh. 8:13; Psa. 12:6; 119:130; Prov. 30:5-6; Jer. 1:9; Eze. 2:7; Amos 8:11; Matt. 24:35; Mk. 8:38; Jn. 6:63; 12:48; 15:7; 17:8; I Cor. 2:13; I Thess. 4:18; I Tim. 6:3; II Tim. 1:13; Jude 17; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19. Many, many more could be cited. Translators who respect the words of God will use a verbal and formal technique of translation.

Dynamic Equivalence Technique

The translation philosophy of modern translators is best summarized in the preface of the NIV (New International Version). The preface says of its translators: “they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation.” Later the preface says: “To achieve clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts…”
This translation technique is known as the Dynamic Equivalence. The word dynamic means “change” or “movement.” Do we want translators to change and move away from the very words of God, or do we want them to stay as close as possible to a word-for-word process?
We certainly know how God feels about the matter. The Bible teaches that we are not to “add unto,” “take away from,” or “pervert” in any way his words (Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19; Rev. 30:5-6; Deut. 4:2; 12:32).
The Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, and the New King James Version, all use (to one degree or another) the Dynamic Equivalence technique in the translation process. Although the NKJV is certainly not as bad as the NIV, it does have its problems.
Why would anyone who claims to respect the Bible use or promote in any way translations which are not verbal and formal in their translation technique?

Three basic reasons have now been set forth for defending the KJV as the best translation in English today. Let us now consider some examples of fatal error found in modern versions: (Abbreviations: ASV - American Standard Version; NASV - New American Standard Version; NIV - New International Version; NKJV - New King James Version; RSV - Revised Standard Version)

Fatal Error in Modern Versions

1. The NASV uses the general terms “unchastity,” and “immorality” instead of the specific “fornication” in Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9. By definition this would allow divorce for other reasons than what the Lord said.
2. The NKJV uses the general term “sexual immorality” in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. This is still too general. Lasciviousness is sexual immorality, but not a scriptural reason for divorce.
3. The NIV teaches the false doctrine of faith only in Rom. 1:17.
4. The RSV teaches the false doctrine of faith only in Rom. 11:20. The word “only” is not in the text at all in this passage, but was inserted by the RSV translators.
5. The RSV attacks the deity, sonship, and virgin birth of Christ. The translators changed “virgin” to “young woman” in Isa. 7:14. They change “only begotten” to “only son” in Jn. 1:14; 3:16, etc. They change Mary’s statement, “I know not a man” to “I have no husband.”
6. The ASV, NIV, NASV, and RSV all omit “firstborn” in Matt. 1:25 which refers to the virgin birth of Christ.
7. The ASV, NIV, NASV, and RSV all omit the word “God” in I Tim. 3:16, again attacking the deity and virgin birth of Jesus.
8. The NIV has Timothy “testifying.” Timothy could not testify because he was not an eye witness. In II Tim. 1:8 the NIV translators changed the wording to justify the modern pentecostal denominational notion of people giving their “testimony for Christ.”
9. The Calvinistic doctrine of inherited sin is written right into the text of the Bible in Ps. 51:5; Rom. 8:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 by the translators of the NIV. Man is not born with a sinful nature.
10. The ASV, NIV, NASV, and RSV all cast doubt upon the integrity of Mark 16:9-20 by setting this section apart with brackets or by some comments in the marginal notes.

Would You Want Your Will Changed?
The New Testament is the last will and testament of Jesus Christ.
" And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Heb. 9:15-17)
Would you want someone tampering with your last will? Would you be concerned if they put words in that you did not write? What about if they left words out that you had written. Would you be distressed if soneone took your will and changed some nouns to pronouns, changed some nouns to verbs, and changed some nouns to adjectives? What about if they added some prepositional phrases - would this upset you? Check the NKJV and note the above changes in these verses: John 16:13; Mark 2:15; Luke 2:36; Acts 16:17; Mark 6:54; Acts 7:5; Rom. 13:9; Matt. 15:5; I Cor. 9:5; I Cor. 3:3; Acts 16:33; I Cor. 7:2; Lk. 4:29; Mark 9:18; Acts 12:20. I know these changes are small but they still constitute paraphrasing in the NKJV and not verbal and formal translating.

Summary Analysis of Popular Modern Translations
(List from best to worst)

1. ASV - Although a verbal and formal translation it is based upon a faulty text base (Example: the confession of the Eunuch is left out in Acts 8:37).
2. NKJV - Has more dynamic equivalency than many of my brethren think.
3. RSV - A dynamic equivalent translation with clear attacks upon the virgin birth - Isa. 7:14; Luke 1:34.
4. NASV - Not as bad as the NIV but has some major problems - Matt. 5:32; 19:9.
5. NIV - More of a paraphrase than a translation - filled with Calvanism and denominational error.
These five have been selected because of their popularity. There are hundreds more which do not have the wide circulation that these do.

Exaggerated “Errors” of the King James Version
Attacks upon the KJV of the Bible continue. Most people who criticize the KJV do not know what they are talking about. In most cases they are repeating what they have heard others say. Following is a response to some of the charges made against the KJV.

What about the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4?

The word “Easter” in versions previous to the KJV was used to translate the word “paska” (passover). Evidently the word was used to denote the “springtime of the year” in these earlier versions. However, the KJV translators eliminated the word “Easter” and translated the word “paska” as “passover” in every instance but in Acts 12:4. Why did they leave it as “Easter” only in this one place? R.C. Trench has no doubt correctly assessed this so called problem:
“They plainly felt that ‘Easter,’ which had designated first a heathen, and then a Christian festival, was not happily used to set forth a Jewish Feast, even though that might occupy the same place in the Jewish calendar which Easter occupies in the Christian, and they therefore removed ‘Easter’ from places out of number, where in earlier versions it had stood as the rendering of paska, substituting ‘passover’ in its room. With all this they have suffered ‘Easter’ to remain in this single passage - sometimes, I am sure, to the perplexity of the English reader, ‘Jewry’ in like manner (Luke 23:5; John 7:1), which has been replaced by Judea almost everywhere, has yet been allowed, I must needs believe by the same oversight, twice to remain” (On Bible Revision, pp. 34-35).
Even though the “oversight” remains in the KJV, there is nothing in the text that teaches the observance of “Easter” by Christians. No essential problem is created by this minor oversight.

Allegations concerning Calvinism

The man who taught me the truth in 1972 which led me out of denominationalism and Calvinistic theology used the KJV. I’ve been preaching for 27 years against the tenents of Calvinism using the King James Version of the Bible. Sound brethren for decades have taken the King James Version of the Bible in public debates and have defeated Calvinistic doctrine time and time again. Calvinism is streaming into the Lord’s church today through those who use the NIV not the KJV!

Archaic Words in the KJV

Another exaggerated charge made against the KJV is that it is filled with unfamiliar and out-of-date words. No one denies that there are unfamiliar (archaic) words in the KJV. Since its translation in 1611 some words are out-of-date or have changed in meaning. Please note the following points:

1. The KJV has 791,328 words.
2. The “Trinitarian Bible Society” has published a booklet listing some 618 words as being out-of-date (archaic) in the KJV.
3. Using these figures the percentage of words in the KJV considered unfamiliar and out-of-date is less than 1 percent. (Clearly this is not as much of a problem as critics would have us think.)
4. Remember an archaic word is not a mistranslation or inaccurate - it is just old.
5. Since any good dictionary will define these words, this should not be a problem to any serious Bible student.

Conclusion
The KJV is based upon the best original language texts. The KJV was translated by men who have never been surpassed in their linguistic scholarship and who used a verbal (and formal) translation technique. Popular modern translations are based upon a faulty text base and for the most part use a translation technique known as “dynamic equivalence”. By using this technique the translators have added to and taken away from God’s words at will. If you read these versions, you read fatal error. If you believe what you read, you believe fatal error. The KJV is still the best translation of God’s word in English today. It should be defended as such.

Randy Kea