Which Bible?

Is the King James Version the Best Translation of the Holy Bible in English?

A. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the King James Version of the Holy Bible is so clearly the best available that it alone should be used by English-speaking Christians, or whether a number of translations should be considered equally good for use in the church, for private devotions, public worship, mission, and theological study.

In the course of our investigation we shall scrutinise the arguments of those who insist that the King James Version[1] is still the best translation available. To do this effectively, we must assess the KJV by the criteria used in arguments against modern translations by KJV advocates. We shall also raise a vital issue for any translation of the Scriptures, one that KJV advocates do not adequately address: the question of how effectively the translation actually conveys the words and meaning of the original languages for readers of English. By the end of this paper we believe we shall have abundant evidence to prove that the arguments of KJV advocates are unsubstantiated and invalid.

Let us be clear at the outset that our purpose is not to attack or undermine the KJV as a translation of the Scriptures, but merely to assess it honestly and openly by objective criteria. We hold the KJV in high esteem as a good and faithful version of the Holy Scriptures. We recognise that the KJV has been a real blessing to the English-speaking Church and that it has shaped our culture and society like no other book. We admit that the KJV is a better translation than some modern translations, many of which are simply too inaccurate or theologically-biased.

We are not concerned in this paper with the fanatical KJV-Onlyism of some American Fundamentalists, who teach that the King James Version itself is, by providence, inerrant, infallible, and directly inspired by God. Many with these views even hold that the KJV is at least as inspired and infallible as any Hebrew or Greek text. A few fanatics even seem to believe that the KJV has primacy over the original autographs. All in this group agree that not even one word was translated except as guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore that any deviation from the words of the KJV in an English translation, even minutely, constitutes tampering with or changing God's Word. They insist that the text of the KJV is exactly how God always intended the Scriptures to be.

Readers are free to assess these theories for themselves, though for our part we consider such views to be dangerous perversions of the doctrines of divine inspiration and providential preservation laid out in the great creeds and confessions of the Reformed churches. Even reading a few of the rants of the most extreme zealots for this kind of absolute KJV-Onlyism not only reveals an almost total lack of biblical scholarship, but a poisoned well of hatred against anyone who disagrees with these bizarre theories. There are already in existence several book-length, scholarly refutations of these extreme and dangerous theories.[2]

In this paper we shall concentrate on a very different type of KJV advocacy: a largely calm and reasoned position that amounts to what we might call practical or pragmatic KJV-Onlyism. This view teaches that the King James Version is a better translation than any other translation in English, both in terms of textual basis and accuracy of translation, so that all other English translations are, in varying degrees, corrupt by comparison, and therefore should not be used by discerning Christians. For the purposes of this paper we take the views of the Trinitarian Bible Society[3] as representative of this school of thought. One TBS publications states:

‘The Authorised Version, proven through the centuries and greatly loved by the Lord’s people, is a truly noble production and it remains the best English translation of God’s infallible and inerrant Word.’[4]

This conviction leads the TBS to the following constitutional provision:

‘This Society shall circulate the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as comprised in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha; the copies in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version.’[5]

Occasionally however, even the TBS strays beyond the bounds of acceptable comment, and seems too close to the fanatical KJV-Onlyists for comfort, even having the audacity to imply that anyone who criticises the KJV is doing the work of Satan:

‘Just as Job’s plight is known to be attacks by the enemy of the Faith to discredit God’s servant, so many today see attacks on the Authorised Version as coming from the enemy.’[6]

The TBS produces materials supporting the King James Version and giving arguments against modern Bible translations, all of which lead TBS to conclude:

‘We keep to the Authorised Version, not because it is older, but because it is better than the versions offered in its place. Our Bible is a precious gift of God for which we are thankful. Its excellence, its faithfulness, its power and fruitfulness, have been well tried in our own experience, and in that of millions more. We cannot surrender it in exchange for an inferior version.’[7]

We believe we can demonstrate that this assessment is in error. When the KJV is judged by the same criteria its defenders use against modern translations, we find the KJV’s own defects become apparent. The KJV is just as susceptible to attack as any other translation produced by flawed human beings. In this light, some of the attacks against modern versions are totally unfair and deliberately misleading.

For all these reasons we shall conclude that the best modern translations are as good and faithful as the KJV and should be used by English-speaking Christians who need or want the Word of God in their own living language.

B. Assessment of Arguments Employed by the TBS Against Modern Translations of the Bible

The TBS literature makes many criticisms of all modern translations of the Bible ranging from the more liberal New English Bible and Good News Bible through to the most conservative modern translations such as the New King James Version. Most of the arguments put forward are either completely invalid or carry much less weight than the TBS would place upon them.

Of the arguments employed by the TBS, there is only really one that is valid in the assessment of a translation of the Bible and that is whether a translation is accurate to the original language. We strongly support the view that sees accuracy of translation as paramount in the assessment of any translation of Scripture. We agree with the words of Robert Martin in his book Accuracy of Translation:

‘There is an overarching concern which dwarfs all other criteria in choosing a Bible version. What is the pre-eminent trait of a good Bible translation? The answer must be accuracy of translation.’[8]

KJV advocates rarely discuss the other primary valid assessment criterion of a translation, which is whether it effectively communicates to the reader of the receptor language that which was written in the original language. As Martin also states:

‘The task of the Bible translator is to communicate the content of the biblical texts (originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) in the native language of the readers for whom the translation is being prepared.’[9]

We shall not ignore this second fundamental criterion when we discuss the KJV later in this paper. To begin with though, we shall briefly assess some of the arguments against other translations made by the TBS.

1. The Argument from Inspiration

The TBS often states that because modern translations differ from certain KJV readings they undermine the Christian doctrine of the Inspiration and Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures.

‘Many modern scholars, it seems, have trouble accepting that what God said in His Word is true in all of its respects…Textual criticism has suffered the same fate at the hands of modern man. No longer is the Bible presumed to be correct and inerrant in all of its statements, even down to the individual words. Instead, the Bible is presumed to be just another piece of literature, to be ‘corrected’ according to the standards held by current scholarship.’[10]

The reader is thus left with two impressions that are both false. Firstly, that all modern scholars deny the traditional Protestant doctrine of the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Secondly, that any attempt in scholarship to use all available manuscripts to construct the true New Testament text is by definition tampering with God’s Word. This argument relies upon a disputed and faulty premise – that the Greek text underlying the KJV is word-for-word the original New Testament text. If, on the other hand – and this is easily demonstrable – the text underlying the KJV lacks the support of either the majority of manuscript evidence or the oldest manuscript evidence[11], then the charge of tampering with God’s Word in these cases has, at best, a very questionable basis. Indeed, a case could be made for a counter charge against the KJV advocates of wanting to add to God’s Word by incorporating words, phrases and sentences into the Greek text that are absent from all or almost all Greek manuscripts. The biblical warnings against tampering with God’s Word apply equally to those who would add to it as to those who would take away from it.

The orthodox doctrine on inspiration is as follows:

‘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.’[12]

The TBS confuses two distinct doctrines but presents them as one. They are correct that the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures are ‘given by inspiration of God’[13] as all evangelical and conservative theologians agree; but then they add on to the confessional statement a supplement to the effect that providential preservation means that the Hebrew and Greek texts used for the translation of the KJV are to be considered identical to the original autographs.

Few conservative biblical scholars would accept that the Textus Receptus is identical to the original autographs in every respect. Not even that great champion of the traditional text, J. W. Burgon, thought the Textus Receptus was perfect. Far from it. Conservative scholars come to their conclusion not in order to undermine the Bible, but to ensure that what we have in our Bible is actually what the inspired authors wrote, as much as this can be discerned from the existing manuscript evidence.

Yet throughout TBS literature the implication is given that anyone who questions the Greek text underlying the KJV comes to that conclusion from unworthy and unspiritual motives, rather than because they believe the manuscript evidence demands it.

For example one TBS booklet writes:

‘The Old Testament of the Authorised Version, based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text, was classified as inferior because it did not place ancient translations of the Hebrew text, such as the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, on the same level as the Hebrew in translation…

‘Many modern scholars, it seems, have trouble accepting that what God said in His Word is true in all of its aspects…Textual criticism has suffered the same fate at the hands of modern man. No longer is the Bible presumed to be correct and inerrant in all its statements.’[14]

New Testament scholarship aiming to establish the correct text simply cannot be dismissed as the work of liberals who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures. To do so is to bear false witness[15] against a great many fine men of God, who genuinely accept that the Bible is the very Word of God but question whether the KJV or its underlying text is as close to the original autographs as the totality of manuscript evidence suggests. The translators of the KJV themselves wrote these words:

‘If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.’[16]

One final point needs to be made here. Even supposing that all the TBS says regarding the original texts of the Bible is true, there are now in existence at least three modern versions of the Bible that are translated from the same textual basis as the KJV. But even these translations are rejected by KJV-only advocates including the TBS – even though there can be no textual basis for this rejection. This surely reveals the truth about the TBS position, which is actually more committed to defending the KJV itself, and not just the best New Testament Greek text as they see it.

For all these reasons, we therefore reject this argument against modern translations of the Bible as being invalid.

2. The Argument from Providential Preservation

Closely linked to the first argument is the second: the argument from Providential Preservation. The doctrine of providential preservation is biblical and is outlined in these well known words from the Westminster Confession:

‘The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.’ [17]

On this point the TBS try to have it both ways by seamlessly blending together truth and error. First they admit the following statements, which are perfectly orthodox treatments of the doctrine:

‘God has not left His church for centuries without an authoritative copy of the Word of God, but that God’s people down through the ages have faithfully copied and recopied copies of the original autographs.

‘This does not mean that any particular printed edition of the Greek New Testament today is perfect, but what it does mean is that the New Testament that we have today is essentially the same as that passed down through the ages.’[18]

There are no conservative scholars on either side of this discussion who would dissent from these statements. We believe these statements are true and in accordance with the Scriptures and our Confession of Faith. The plain facts are that almost 95% of the New Testament text is undisputed and no major doctrines or practices are affected by the 5% of the text where the manuscripts do not agree.

This is where we disagree: the TBS then flatly contradict their first statement by claiming that only the text underlying the KJV has been providentially preserved by God (to the exclusion of the texts underlying any other English translation). In the same breath they claim providential preservation for the manuscripts that were used to construct the KJV’s underlying Greek text, but deny it for any manuscripts, to say nothing of all other pieces of evidence, that are at variance with it.

‘This precious doctrine of the providential preservation of the Scriptures has been all but forgotten by modern textual scholars. Many of them treat the Word of God as just another book that can be submitted to the whims and changing norms of modern scientific methods…Preservation provides that no one local text, such as the one from Alexandria, Egypt, would become the dominant text. It took liberalism and unbelief to challenge this preservation process…The practical application of providential preservation is that the believer must choose between a modern reconstructed text based essentially upon two manuscripts from the 4th century…or he must choose as a text one which God has used through the centuries.’[19]

Under what basis is providence to be invoked to defend those manuscripts of which the TBS approves but to dismiss the manuscripts the TBS reject? Is the very existence of Aleph and B not attributable to the providence of God, but solely to the work of Satan?

Even if we reject them as being corrupt manuscripts for other reasons, we cannot deny that God has providentially brought about the preservation of the Aleph and B manuscripts - the two most important and oldest manuscripts - which do not contain the Byzantine text-type. We do not grant these two manuscripts perfectly represent the original autographs. In fact no single manuscript does. But surely the evidence of a widespread and earlier form of New Testament text that is different from the Byzantine text cannot simply be ignored either, as the TBS seems to advocate.

We should also point out that the TBS feels free to depart from the Majority Text[20] when it goes against the Textus Receptus[21] but at the same time uses the Majority Text to argue against readings in the Critical Text[22] when this does not match the Textus Receptus. This is blatantly unfair. We have some sympathy with the approach that seeks to place more weight on the majority of manuscripts rather than the oldest manuscripts, but if the TBS will not follow this approach consistently it leaves itself open to the accusation of double standards.

The fundamental problem is that providential preservation does not mean that any one published New Testament text is perfect (as the TBS admits itself), but the TBS acts as if it does and declares that text to be the underlying Greek text of the KJV. The fact that the precise Greek text claimed to be uniquely providentially preserved did not exist in its final form until as late as 1894 when Scrivener produced his edition of the Textus Receptus (to completely match the KJV translation) is not even mentioned.[23]

The TBS also state the following:

‘The Traditional Text of the New Testament is understood by conservative Bible-believing Christians to have been providentially preserved by God.’[24]

Although we might say this statement is correct in broad terms it is far from being the whole truth. Granted, if the word ‘traditional’ is removed from this statement then the statement is true. As it stands, the word ‘some’ would need to added before ‘conservative’ to make it an honest appraisal of the state of NT scholarship today, and if by ‘Traditional Text of the New Testament’ is meant the ‘Textus Receptus used in the KJV’ then it would be only be accurate if ‘a very few’ were added before ‘conservative.’ The majority of Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that the Textus Receptus is identical in every respect with the original New Testament text. Some modern Bibles are based precisely on the Majority Text or even the Textus Receptus, but the TBS will have nothing to do with these translations of the Traditional Text. Nor will they consider producing their own new and modern English translation based on their preferred textual basis.

We regret that careless or deceptive statements are often used in the TBS’s presentation of the manuscript evidence. When such evidence supports the KJV they are quick to appeal to the majority of manuscripts, but when the Majority Text is different from the KJV and closer to the Critical Text, they then ignore the vast majority or even all Greek manuscript evidence if it stands contrary to the Textus Receptus and the KJV. It is difficult to see how such a piecemeal and subjective methodology can be justified. It would appear that any principles of textual criticism can be bent any way required to make them support the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.

We do not think the doctrine of providential preservation can be properly be used as an argument against modern Bibles. Against modern Bibles based on the same text as the KJV or on the Majority Text, the argument has no bearing whatsoever. Even against the Critical Text, such an argument is far from conclusive and actually begs several questions.

3. The Argument from Doctrine

The next argument typically employed by opponents of modern translations, certainly employed by the TBS, is the argument from Doctrine. Simply put, this argument is that modern translations adversely affect historical Christian doctrines, the main one cited usually being the Deity of Christ.

‘Perhaps the most dangerous characteristic of the modern versions is that in following an unreliable Greek text they present in a weaker form, or completely omit, some of the clearest New Testament declarations of the deity of Christ and of His atoning sacrifice.’[25]

While this is not entirely wrong – some modern translations are affected adversely by liberal theology – it is certainly inapplicable to modern translations of a conservative nature. It is unfair and objectionable for a number of reasons. Firstly, the impression is given that modern versions omit these doctrines entirely because of a few disputed textual readings. This is simply erroneous. Secondly, the fact that the TBS extrapolates from a few verses to dismiss an entire translation as corrupt is unjust. Thirdly, the argument applies equally to the KJV’s shortcomings, as we shall show. Where the KJV is at fault, that is overlooked by the KJV advocates; where modern translations are at fault in individual verses, that is seized upon to dismiss the whole work as unacceptable. That savours of irrational prejudice and an attempt to fool God’s people, not a dispassionate argument to get at the truth.

We acknowledge that in several places the New Testament text of most modern Bibles does change some verses that deal with the deity of Christ, the most prominent one probably being 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJV reads in this verse:

‘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.’

The same verse in two of the main modern versions reads:

‘By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.’[26]

‘Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels; was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.’[27]

One TBS pamphlet states:

‘The Authorised Version bears a stronger testimony to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ that we find in many modern versions.’[28]

There are four important points that must be made to give balance to the overall discussion. Firstly, we are left with the impression from the way the argument is presented by the TBS that our doctrine ought to determine the New Testament text we choose rather than allowing the true New Testament text to determine our doctrine. This is a terrible error. Words that are not genuinely from the original autographs, no matter how true they actually are as statements of doctrine or practice, have no place in the sacred pages of the Bible. The choice of most likely correct textual variant here should be determined only by what we believe the original word written by Paul to be, and not what matches our theology - otherwise we can make the Bible say whatever we like.

If some Bible-believing scholars are convinced that ‘He’ and not ‘God’ is the correct reading, then it would be unconscionable to put the reading that better suits our theology irrespective of textual evidence. Down that road the cults go and the Church has no need of such tactics. It is certainly incorrect for the TBS to give the impression that everyone who believes that in Christ ‘God was manifest in the flesh’ must therefore approve of that reading in 1 Timothy 3:16 and that anyone who disagrees with that reading is therefore an enemy of that truth.

Granted, on the surface, the KJV is a stronger testimony to the doctrine of Christ’s deity. However, since even in the Critical Text, the antecedent to which "he" or "who" refers must be "the living God" of verse 15, it is simply not the case that the rendering "he" or "who" represents a lower Christology than the Traditional Text.

Secondly, although the TBS seems irritated by anyone who makes this point, it is crucial to realise that no doctrine is based on one disputed reading of one verse. Actually we get no doctrine from a single verse of Scripture, but on the basis of the teaching of the whole Bible. TBS literature often reads as if this were not the case. They give the impression that if the KJV reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is challenged the edifice of the doctrine of Christology will come crashing down to the ground. The truth is that the deity of Christ is made crystal clear in a great many New Testament verses that are not in dispute by either side in this discussion. For example the well-known verses from the beginning of the Gospel of John in a modern translation are crystal clear as to who Christ is:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’[29]

Thirdly, and this is where KJV advocates such as the TBS always fall unaccountably silent, there at least as many, if not more places in the modern versions, whether based on the same Greek Text as the KJV or based on the Critical Text, where the deity of Christ is more clearly established than it is in the KJV. We consider it extraordinary that no attempt is made by the TBS to present those who are guided by its booklets with all the facts on this point.

For example compare John 1:18 in the KJV and the NASB and then decide which is the stronger testimony to the deity of Christ:

'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' (KJV)

'No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.' (NASB)

Next, let us examine some examples where the KJV fails to translate accurately and thereby clouds Scriptures testimony to the Deity of Christ.

One text that bears examination is Titus 2:13:

‘Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ (KJV)

Now compare two modern versions:

‘Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ (NKJV)

‘While we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ (NIV)

The KJV reading indicates that ‘God’ and ‘our Saviour’ are two different persons; the modern versions leave us in no doubt that Jesus Christ is God our Saviour.

2 Peter 1:1 is similar:

‘Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ (KJV)

Compared with:

‘Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ (NASB)

‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.’ (NIV)

Also consider Philippians 2:6 and judge whether the KJV or conservative modern translations like the NIV sometimes bear better witness to Christ’s deity:

‘Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.’ (KJV)

‘Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.’ (NIV)

Being in the ‘form of God’ is not as strong as being ‘in very nature God’ it must be granted.

Even in Romans 9:5, which the TBS correctly cites as evidence of the better testimony of the KJV to the deity of Christ than is found in some modern liberal translations, we would argue that other modern versions are even clearer than the KJV on this point, due to the KJV’s rather awkward wording in this verse:

‘Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ (KJV)

Compare this with the clarity of a modern translation:

‘Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.’ (NIV)

So then, let us hear no more of modern versions watering down Christian doctrines like the deity of Christ.

There are actually some verses in the KJV that appear to teach doctrines at odds with evangelical orthodoxy, whereas the modern versions are in line with it. We shall raise two such examples. The first occurs in both Acts 19:2a and Ephesians 1:13b:

‘Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?’ (Acts 19:2, KJV)

‘In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.’ (Ephesians 1:13, KJV)

These renderings appears to teach that the sealing of the Holy Spirit is a separate event that occurs at a point of time after a person comes to faith in Christ. This translation is one of the main reasons a lot of Fundamentalists teach that the baptism of the Holy Spirit or ‘the second blessing’ is a phenomenon separate from coming to faith in Christ. This false teaching has caused untold damage to young believers convinced that their Christian experience is somehow diminished until this mystical event takes place.

Compare this with the same verses in the NKJV:

‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ (Acts 19:2, NKJV)

‘In whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.’ (Ephesians 1:13, NKJV)

These renderings correctly teach that the sealing of Holy Spirit occurs simultaneously to all believers at the point they come to saving faith in Christ.

The second example occurs in Revelation 22:14 (KJV):

‘Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.’

This verse in the KJV appears to teach the false doctrine of salvation by works. The same verse in a translation based on the Critical Text:

‘Blessed are they who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.’ (NASB)

In contrast this reading points to the fact that salvation is found through faith in the blood of Christ, as this ties in with earlier verses in Revelation in which the saints wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb.

‘These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’ [30]

Perhaps the most serious example of the KJV’s apparent deviation from orthodox doctrine. There is an inadvertent attack on the personality of the Holy Spirit in the KJV, which several times calls God the Holy Spirit ‘it’ rather than ‘him’. Such an error can only give fuel to anti-Trinitarian cults. An example is in John 1:32:

‘And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode on him.’ (KJV)

Compare this with:

‘And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.’ (NKJV).

Another example occurs in Romans 8:16:

‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ (KJV)

As opposed to:

‘The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.’ (NKJV).

We do not see how critics of modern versions can continue peddling the lie that only the KJV maintains a perfect and faithful witness to all the true doctrines of the Christian faith in light of these verses.

The truth is that no translation is perfect. Both the KJV and modern translations have some verses that are clearer on Christ’s deity and the other doctrines we are examined, but also some verses where the choice of translation may obscure the truth. It is without foundation to assert that only the KJV bears a strong witness to any doctrine in Christian theology. For this reason we regard the argument from doctrine as invalid against the modern translations.

4. The Receptor Language Arguments

We have now dealt with what we consider the most serious arguments raised by KJV advocates against modern translations of the Bible. There are, however, several other arguments that must be briefly dealt with. The first of these is really a group of arguments, the substance of which is that modern translations place the rules of grammar, style and idiom of the receptor or target language (for us modern English) above these aspects of the original source languages: Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.

The TBS states:

‘A great difficulty in the New International Version translators’ theory is the view that the importance of the receptor or receptor language over that of the original authors. The result is that the need of the reader takes precedence over the fidelity to the text. Sentence structure and word usage must be such that the reader will have no trouble understanding the author’s intent, regardless of the author’s actual words.’[31]

It should be noted firstly that as so often the TBS takes two different points, splices them together, and then invites the casual reader to reject both because he feels compelled to reject one. This is quite unfair. In this case the two points are the requirement of the receptor language against what is termed ‘fidelity to the text.’ But let us separate these points, taking the latter first. We agree that fidelity to the original language is important in a Bible translation. Indeed, it is crucial. No English text is a good translation of the Bible unless it sticks closely to the words and meaning of the Bible in its original languages. While not compromising this requirement, we must not ignore the other side of the equation, although the TBS seems more than happy to do so. No English text is a good translation of the Bible unless it effectively communicates the meaning of the Bible in its original languages to the English reader.

So, in one very real sense, an English translation must put the needs of the reader over what the TBS calls ‘fidelity to the text,’ otherwise the English reader is no better off with an utterly literal translation he cannot understand than he is when faced with the original languages that he cannot understand. A hyperliteral translation that does not read anything like genuine English prose or verse will fail to communicate properly with English readers, and if it fails in that purpose, it is a bad translation no matter how faithful it is to the original language.

The real objection to the TBS’s statement is that it castigates the translators of the NIV for producing what in many respects a good translation should be: one that reads clearly and idiomatically in modern Standard English. That is not to say that we feel the NIV always gets the balance right between accuracy and readability; the TBS and others have rightly drawn attention to where the NIV slips in terms of accuracy.[32] Yet to blame these imperfections in the NIV on the fact that the translators made the receptor language more important than the original language is misleading. It is impossible to produce a translation of a foreign text without placing the balance of judgment with the receptor language. The KJV translators certainly did this themselves. If they had done otherwise, rather than having the magnificent work of English they produced, we would have been burdened with a virtually unreadable wooden collection of English words, a linguistic oddity something like Young’s Literal Translation. We quote John 3:16 in Young as an example of where the TBS’s argument logically leads us:

‘For God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.’

We conclude that this aspect of the Receptor language argument is really not a valid argument, as the logic underpinning it is ultimately an argument against any translation whatsoever. It makes an idol of the original languages and makes a mockery of the command to preach the gospel to all the nations. Fortunately, the TBS does not actually take own its argument to a logical conclusion.

There remain two subspecies of this argument to be briefly addressed:

(a) The Second Person Pronoun Argument

An argument that the TBS frequently makes in favour of the KJV and against all modern versions concerns the translation of the forms of the second person singular into English. This the KJV renders these as thee, thou, thy, and thine. Modern versions would naturally substitute you, your, and yours.

Some people argue for their retention because they feel these terms have more reverence when addressing God. We must point out that such as argument ignores the nature of the English language where, just as 'tu' in French or 'du' in German and coming from the same route, thee, thou, thy and thine are the more familiar, the more intimate, the more personal, the less polite way of addressing another person. Thus it has always perplexed us to hear thee defended and you condemned for being too familiar when addressing God.

It should be noted that the TBS does not base its argument for the retention of thee and its related forms on this argument. Indeed the TBS correctly points out that these forms are used throughout the KJV not only for when people address God, but also when God speaks to people and indeed when people speak to each other.

The TBS argument relies on the perceived accuracy these forms give the KJV over the modern versions. They put their argument like this in their booklet against the New King James Version:
‘Thus the NKJV does not differentiate between ‘you’ singular and ‘you’ plural. This distinction, which is made in the Biblical languages and in many modern languages, was recognised by the AV translators. They used ‘thee’, ‘thou’ and ‘thine’ to designate ‘you’ singular and ‘ye’, ‘you’ and ‘your’ for ‘you’ plural… Since there at least 14,665 occurrences of the singular pronoun in 10,479 verses in the AV, the possibility exists of numerous opportunities for misrepresentation and misapplication’[33]

We cannot deny that there is some truth in this argument. This aspect of the older translations (e.g. the KJV, Geneva Bible, RV and ASV) is useful to note and makes these versions useful for Bible study as the English reader can tell at a glance if the singular or plural is being used. It should be pointed out for the sake of fairness that where confusion is likely to occur, some modern translations use footnotes to point out if the ‘you’ is singular or plural, though this solution can be haphazard and some modern translations do not do this at all.

Having said that, we still conclude that this argument is invalid for the simple reason that it is not really an argument against modern translations of the Bible, but against the modern English language itself. Our language has simply lost the written distinction between the singular ‘you’ and the plural ‘you.’ Perhaps this is to be regretted from a linguistic point of view, and maybe we should feel that English is impoverished in comparison with many modern languages such as French and German where the distinction has endured. But this type argument is completely invalid and dangerous. To follow it is to permanently rule out any translation into genuine modern English because our language does not make the distinction found in the biblical languages.

Essentially the TBS is saying that if the vulgar[34] receptor language does not suit or match up properly with the original biblical languages, then that language is unworthy to receive a translation of the Scriptures. We believe this is in conflict with the Protestant principle that the Scriptures must be translated into the language of the people – not a form of that language at an arbitrary point in history – but the actual language of the people. On this point, the TBS is closer to traditional Roman Catholicism’s devotion to the Latin Vulgate than it realises. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

‘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.’[35]

The ‘vulgar’ language of English speakers in the world today is not found in the grammar, syntax or vocabulary employed in the KJV. True, we are still able to understand the KJV to a greater or lesser extent depending on our level of education (including our personal familiarity with the KJV); but that will not do justice to the great Protestant principle of an open Bible. It cannot be right to deprive the English-speaking world of a translation of the Scriptures in their own language, as it really exists in our time.

(b) The Historical Present Tense Argument

Similar in some ways to the argument based on the use of the Second Person Pronoun, though of considerably less importance, is the argument centred on the Historical Present Tense in Scripture. The TBS states this argument in several of the their booklets criticising modern translations of the Bible:

‘The NKJV makes a significant change to one of the important aspects of the AV. The AV correctly translates the historical present tense. When in an historical narrative a Greek writer desired to give his reader a vivid description of a certain event, he would use a present tense verb to express this. It would give the reader a feeling of being there as an observer.’[36]

However, we suggest this argument is invalid for the same reason as the Second Person Pronoun argument. The simple fact is that the historical present tense is no longer used in formal written English. Criticising translations that alter this tense, translations that merely reflect the language of our time, is really arguing against modern English itself. The TBS knows this is the case:

‘The translators of the New American Standard Bible…used the English past tense to make the reading conform to modern usage.’[37]

Of course the historic present tense is still found in informal speech, maybe especially in anecdotes and jokes (‘A man walks into a bar…’). But the Word of God is not a joke and it sounds strange and artificial when used in formal written English. That is not to say that a modern English translation cannot use this tense in the interests of fidelity to the original, but it is certainly no valid criticism if a modern translation follows modern English usage and changes the historic present tense to the familiar past tense. In either case the actual meaning is totally unaffected. It is therefore not a genuine matter of accuracy, at least it is no more an issue of accuracy than using punctuation marks, capitals, or chapter and verse divisions – all things the KJV translators changed from the original languages to enable the translation to communicate effectively with the readers of their day.

The TBS claims that the modern versions must have a different ‘philosophy’ of translation from the KJV on this basis; the truth is that they were translating into English of a different age.

5. Ad Hominem Attacks

One of the most disappointing aspects of the arguments employed by many KJV advocates is the use of ad hominem arguments against other translations and the translators who produced them, particularly since many of the same arguments are just as valid against the KJV, its translators and its defenders. We do not believe this is a correct method of argumentation for Christian people, people of the truth and love above all else. We shall briefly mention some of the attacks that have been raised, though this is by no means an all-inclusive list.

(a) The Financial Motives Insinuation

One of the most common attacks on modern verses is to either state outright, or to give the impression, that modern Bibles have been produced only to generate money for their translators, publishers and booksellers. No evidence to back up such a serious charge is ever produced. The charge is thrown like so much mud, in the hope that some will stick.

The TBS quotes one author making such an ad hominem attack with obvious approval:

‘Today there is an artificially produced conviction resulting from marketing techniques and imposed on the churches from without. This wholly modern consensus maintains the Bible publishing industry must now determine the texts of Scripture.’[38]

In another booklet, a thinly veiled attack on the integrity of the NKJV:

‘Perhaps they [the translators] were using the NKJV to advertise and sell copies of this Greek text [the Majority Text], which is also published by Thomas Nelson.’[39]

We would point out that the TBS does not indulge in some of the more vicious attacks that are made in print against those who are not KJV-only, but that does not make any such comments acceptable. There is no more justification for this kind of argument than there would be for proponents of modern translations to level the same charge against KJV advocates, suggesting that they hold to their views in order to make money from selling copies of the KJV or from selling copies of special KJV dictionaries to explain obscure words, or from selling modern editions of the KJV with glossaries, to enable the modern reader who only has access to the KJV to understand the Scriptures.

In the absence of real evidence, those who use such smear tactics against other Christians ought to be ashamed of themselves. We are disappointed that those who claim such devotion to the cause of the Holy Scriptures evidently do not have the same zeal in applying the scriptural teaching on thinking the worst about the their brothers in Christ to their own lives and witness:

‘Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.’[40]

‘If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?’[41]

(b) The Personnel Argument

The next common argument used for the KJV and against every other translation of the Bible is that the KJV translators were all godly scholars devoted solely to the truth of Christian doctrine and practice, while painting every other set of translators, to a greater or lesser extent, either as ungodly men or godly men easily led astray, who have, consciously or not, corrupted the Word of God. We simply want to point out that such an argument is propaganda dealing in half-truths, not the whole truth to which we are entitled.

A well-known TBS booklet that has been much reprinted concludes with the words:

‘[The KJV translators] were indeed “learned men” – and their scholarship was accompanied by a deep conviction of the Divine origin of the records which they were translating. Learning and faith went hand in hand to open the storehouse of God’s Work of Truth for the spiritual enrichment of millions from generation to generation, over a period of more than three hundred and fifty years.’[42]

In another booklet:

‘The Authorised Version…was produced at a time when men accepted the Bible as the inspired, errorless Word of the living God; whether working on the Greek text itself, or translating that text into English or any other language, they treated it as the very Word of God…thus they were careful not to allow theories outside the realm of Christianity to enter into their work. In this day and age, even many who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures have accepted theories of textual criticism and translation that are inconsistent with inerrancy.’[43]

The obvious implication is that modern scholars are not as godly as the KJV scholars were and therefore their translations cannot be as godly as the KJV. Of course there may be individuals involved in the translation of modern versions who are susceptible to such attacks. It could not be otherwise: none of us are without sin in this life. But that includes the KJV translators themselves. It is well-documented that one of them, Richard Thomson, who worked on the Old Testament translation, was a drunkard of whom it was said he ‘drank his fill daily’ for example.[44] As that fact does not invalidate the translation of Genesis to Kings in the KJV, neither do the sins of some modern translators automatically invalidate the modern translations they worked on.

Actually such an argument, which is not actually based on an analysis of the modern translations themselves, is completely beside the point, unless the texts that committees of conservative modern translators have produced show the affects of the translator’s sins. We have shown elsewhere in this paper that there is no such textual evidence in the best modern translations. Therefore the implied criticism is without merit.

The New Testament scholars, Westcott and Hort, who were largely responsible for the shift in scholarship from the Traditional Text type towards the Critical Text underlying most modern translations, are regularly vilified in pro-KJV literature in an attempt to discredit the Critical Text and all translations stemming from it. For example, the fact that both Westcott and Hort were sympathetic towards Anglo-Catholicism is regularly used against them. Yet at the same time, their great scholarly opponent, Dean John William Burgon is praised as the champion of the Traditional Text and of the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. The fact that Burgon also was a high Anglican who believed in baptismal regeneration is passed over.

Similarly, we find it hard to understand how the alleged Catholic or liberal tendencies of some modern scholars must count against the Critical Text, yet the fact that the Catholicism and Humanism of Erasmus, the scholar largely responsible for the Textus Receptus, has no bearing against that text.[45]

The point here is not to investigate the substance of these charges, but merely to suggest that if such facts are presented at all, at the very least they must be presented fairly; if religious beliefs and practices are to be brought forward against one’s opponents, this must be in a true context where the shortcomings of one’s allies are not glossed over.

These arguments are based on prejudice and partiality and are therefore invalid in assessing which is the best translation in English. We consider attacks on scholars involved in biblical textual criticism or translation, without accompanying evidence that their work has been affected by their doctrine or practice, to be irrelevant in assessing the merits of a translation. Where there is textual evidence of theological bias, clearly that is another matter. Examples such as the Living Bible (blatant Arminianism), New English Bible (liberal bias), or Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic bias) come to mind. But where there is no such evidence such attacks carry no weight. We believe translations like the NASB, NIV and NKJV have as few traces of translation bias as the KJV.

(c) The Footnotes and Headings Argument

A third type of ad hominem attack concentrates not on the modern translated texts of the Bible but on the apparatus surrounding the text, designed to be of assistance to the reader. We do not refer here to the apparatus found in many study bibles, such as cross references and explanatory notes, but to such phenomena as footnotes and headings, even though the KJV contains these itself.

This argument is used by the TBS against the NKJV, the most widely available modern translation with the same textual basis as the KJV, perhaps because some of the other usual arguments do not apply to the NKJV.

‘Most editions of the NKJV use topical headings in the text to identify the subject matter which is found in the verses or paragraphs which follow…The use of these headings dividing the text of Scripture is a fairly recent and widely accepted practice. However, the lack of objectivity in the use of subject headings quite often introduces problems into the text of Scripture.’[46]

The first point to that must be made in response is that although printed on the Bible’s pages, such headings are not part of the ‘text of Scripture’ as the TBS incorrectly states. In the NKJV they are printed in italics to emphasise this point. Therefore, the presence of headings is not strictly relevant to a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the scriptural translation itself. This argument also fails to recognise that headings are valuable in a similar way to chapter numbers and verses, they help the reader navigate the Bible better. The text between headings is very often a better guide to where passages or sections of a biblical book begin and end than the traditional chapter divisions.

The second point, which again indicates double standards, is that the KJV has headings above its text, at least my copy does and it was published by Cambridge University Press for none other than the Trinitarian Bible Society. Some of these go beyond what is strictly description and into interpretation[47] – exactly the same criticism the TBS makes of the NKJV.

Another criticism made by the TBS concerns the use of footnotes. The argument put forward is that the use of footnotes undermines the authority of the biblical text and will lead the reader to question the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God.

‘Throughout the NKJV New Testament, the translators made use of footnotes to aid the reader…One of the uses of these notes was to indicate textual variants which differ between various printed editions of the Greek New Testament…Many people, being untrained in the intricacies of textual criticism, do not understand the significance of these variants. Some people have found these notes confusing. Others have found them offensive, calling the truth of the Scriptures into question and open debate.’[48]

The same points we made in reply to the criticism of headings apply equally against this argument against footnotes in modern bibles. Footnotes are not part of the translated text. They are something separate from it though printed alongside the biblical text; and so their existence is, strictly speaking, irrelevant when assessing the accuracy and effectiveness of a translation of the sacred text itself. There may be good arguments against footnotes and headings and other peripheral features of English bibles, but those are separate arguments. As far as using this argument against modern translation is concerned, the argument is completely invalid.

Despite this, a few words on the positive aspects of footnotes are called for.

Many footnotes are merely a tool used to highlight where there is doubt concerning whether the verse should be translated one way or another way. Since the translators are forced to choose between alternatives, it is only but right that possible alternatives are pointed out to the reader. The KJV uses marginal notes for this very purpose. Marginal notes are the same as footnotes except for being located at the side of the page rather than at the foot.

As far as footnotes mentioning textual variants are concerned, we cannot agree that hiding the truth from the reader of Scripture advances the cause of God’s truth. Is it not a more honest approach to present the reader with the facts about readings that are disputed in the manuscript evidence, leaving it to the individual Christian guided by the Holy Spirit to make up his or her own mind, rather than simply present a chosen reading as if there were no manuscript evidence against it? The TBS answers this question in the negative, implying that suppressing the truth about manuscript evidence, somehow protects the reader, the Scriptures and the Church. We answer in the affirmative in the conviction that the truth can never harm the people of God. We cannot accept that the reader of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8a) in the KJV is really in a better position than the reader of the NKJV who knows, should he care to glance at a footnote, that those verses are not found in the Majority Text or in the Critical Text. The NKJV reader’s faith is equally likely to be strengthened in the knowledge that verses with no footnotes have the combined backing of the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and the Critical Text.

(d) Pejorative Slurs on Modern Translations

A further kind of ad hominem attack concerns the unsubstantiated, pejorative slurs and negative asides that are used when discussing modern translations by KJV advocates. No opportunity is missed to paint the blackest picture of modern translations, often by making mountains out of molehills, by taking an ounce of truth and trying to pass it off as a pound of evidence against the modern translations. Examples of these tactics are found throughout TBS literature. They call the NIV:

‘One of the most popular, and least conservative, translations in the English language.’[49]

Is such a statement justified? Is such a statement fair and true? It gives the reader the impression that the NIV should just be lumped together with the modern translations that are tainted by liberal theology. But an open-minded analysis of the NIV shows that though it sometimes gives a dynamic equivalent rather than a formal equivalent translation, it is theologically conservative in outlook, unlike the NRSV or REB for example.

The TBS describes some editions of the NIV in these terms:

‘Bibles that are only discovered to be Scripture when read by those familiar with the New International Version.’[50]

Obviously this is designed to give the false impression that the NIV is such a poor translation, so different from the KJV that the casual reader would fail to recognise it as a translation of the Bible at all. We fail to see how any review of the NIV can be taken seriously that does not rise above this pathetic level of slander and innuendo.

Little throwaway jibes are common, such as:

‘The New International Version is so easy to read that it is often read as one might read a newspaper: quickly and with little comprehension.’[51]

This may bespeak of the TBS reviewer’s manner of the reading the newspapers, but it is a paltry comment to make about a translation of Scripture, which is here chided for being clear and easy to read, while the KJV by comparison is lauded for being so difficult to read that it must be read at a snail’s pace and therefore, magically, more spiritually. Such twisting of the facts would almost put the Jesuits to shame.

The NIV is not the only modern translation that is treated in this manner. Against the Good News Bible, which sometimes changes ‘do not’ to ‘don’t’ in direct speech the TBS writes:

‘In serious literature, even in the 20th century, it is customary and appropriate to avoid these contractions.’[52]

That simply isn’t true, particularly in direct speech, as any serious novel or play of the 20th century would show. The signal being sent out here is that the GNB is not to be regarded as a serious translation. Of course makes it easier to turn people against something by first ridiculing it.

Even the NKJV does not escape from such slurs:

‘Numerous users of the AV who have attempted to change to the NKJV found that the NKJV lacked the trustworthiness which they had come to expect from the AV. The NKJV was not found to be a Bible in which they could put their trust.’[53]

It would be hard to conceive of a more unfair attempt to poison opinion against a translation of the Scriptures than this statement. We wonder who these numerous users are and frankly we suspect that their numbers would be minuscule compared to the thousands who have found the NKJV equally as trustworthy and accurate as the KJV, but much easier to understand.

‘The NKJV is a highly-edited new translation which is theologically and philosophically inconsistent with the AV…just another attempt to usurp the place of authority which the AV has enjoyed for well over three centuries.’[54]

The choice of words here, ‘highly-edited,’ obviously tries to make the NKJV sound like an abridgement of Scripture or a paraphrase in comparison with the KJV. Even reading any page of the NKJV alongside the equivalent page of the KJV shows this to be a untrue. The statement about that the NKJV being ‘theologically and philosophically inconsistent’ with the KJV is another slur, trying to make it sound as if the NKJV twists and distorts Christian doctrine, which it certainly does not. All these are clear attempts to frighten off inquisitive but hesitant KJV readers from even trying the NKJV.

We hope that anyone reading pro-KJV literature will in the future read with caution and discernment, and recognise the subtle methods used to throw mud at modern translations at every given opportunity. We trust readers will not be diverted from the truth by means of rhetorical tricks.

6. The Appropriate or Dignified Language Argument

The next argument is that the KJV is to be preferred because it alone is written in language that is appropriate enough or dignified enough for a translation of the Holy Scriptures. It is an argument that always has some resonance with those who love the Word of God, because most people are agreed the melodic, often poetic language of the KJV is among the most beautiful prose ever written in the English language. We can all see the attraction of the argument that the unique book that is the living Word of Almighty God, a book whose words are life-changing like no other book’s words, a book that describes the majesty and glory of God, should be written in a style of English to match its great themes and stories. But actually this is among the weakest arguments put forward in favour of the KJV.

We cannot deny the beauty and richness of the language in the KJV, which shall surely mean the KJV will always have a place not only as a translation of Scripture but even when considered only as part of the cultural heritage of the English speaking peoples. None of that changes a fundamental problem with this argument, which is that a highly ornate, poetic, majestic style of English does not accurately reflect the kind of Greek employed in the original text of the New Testament. The New Testament was not written in the high formal Greek of Athens that had been used by the Greek poets and dramatists. The New Testament is written in what is known as Koine Greek. This was the rough-and-ready language of the ordinary people of the Mediterranean at the time the New Testament was written – the language of fishermen, shepherds, tax collectors and tentmakers who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write to New Testament. The high literary style of the KJV may in some sense mirror our high view of Scripture, but it absolutely does not reflect the style of language actually found in the original texts and it is therefore an artificial style. If anything, the dignity and beauty of the KJV could only count in favour of the modern translations that often catch the tone of the original better for modern readers.

This does not prevent KJV advocates like the TBS from using this argument to attack modern versions.

‘The New International Version is not a version that has reverence for God as its cornerstone. With its contractions, short chopped sentences and paragraphs, its terseness, its vulgar language, it may communicate well but it lacks the dignity and cadence not only of the Authorised (King James) Version but also of the original languages as well.’[55]

One would have thought that formal modern English – leaving aside the slurs concerning lack of reverence and vulgarity – as used by real people today would be appropriate, but apparently this is not the case. For the TBS, ‘appropriate language’ seems to be confined to 17th century English.

They even cite some passages that are clear in the KJV to indicate how simple and straightforward the KJV is for readers. However, when it becomes apparent that the passage cited, from John 3, is clear in every translation in English, the argument loses much of its force. It is reduced to a half-truth as soon as difficult passages are encountered in the same KJV, in Paul’s Epistles for example.

An even more serious charge concerns ‘inappropriate’ language supposedly used by the modern translations, the NIV in particular. In discussing Ezekiel 23, a passage that is noted for the colourful sexual metaphors employed by the Prophet, the TBS makes this insupportable charge against the NIV:

‘The New International Version, however, uses detailed language – language inappropriate for this paper and certainly out of place in a Book whose Author desires the transforming of the mind to His standards. It is doubtful the descriptive language used in the New International Version, particularly that in Ezekiel 23, would be used even in the daily newspaper. It could certainly not be read to a child, and would only cause the mind of an unbeliever to stray from the message of the Scriptures.’[56]

Upon reading this, one would imagine that the NIV is a translation verging on pornography with imagery designed to sexually titillate the reader. Who would not be turned against a translation which had language so crude it could not appear in a family newspaper? When we turn, with fear and trepidation to Ezekiel 23 what do we find? The only verse that the above paragraph might conceivably have been referring to is Ezekiel 23:20, which reads in the NIV:

‘There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.’

By comparison the KJV here reads:

‘For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.’

Granted the NIV brings out the sexual metaphor more clearly than the KJV, but no one can deny that the same imagery is being used in the KJV, nor can it denied that such imagery is present in the original Hebrew. It may be because of such passages that Jewish young men were not encouraged to read Ezekiel until after they were thirty years old. What is completely absent are any words that merit the rebuke in the TBS assessment of the NIV. There can be no objection to the word ‘genitals’ (which is merely an anatomical descriptive word for the human reproductive organs). There is nothing dirty, pornographic or inappropriate in the language of the NIV here except in the mind of those who would use any means to defend the KJV and attack any other translation.

7. The Authority Argument

The final argument that is sometimes used in the KJV’s favour is the argument from authority. Actually it is merely an assertion made by people for whom the KJV is the Bible, the only Bible that they can accept. It has absolutely no objective bearing on our assessment of the KJV in comparison with other translations, but we mention it and deal with it here for the sake of completeness.

It is claimed that the KJV is the English version to which others are compared, which is true, and because of that it is claimed that the KJV is the objective standard against which other translations are to be measured, which is certainly not true. We cannot agree with the following statement from the TBS:

‘The Authorised Version has served as a standard English translation recognised throughout the English-speaking world as the source and foundation of effective Gospel preaching, and as the highest authority in all matters of controversy.’[57]

It would be strange indeed if a venerable and well-loved translation like the KJV, one that has permeated the culture of the English speaking peoples like no other book, were not the Bible to which others are compared. That is only natural.

The trouble begins when KJV advocates begin to talk in absolute terms about the KJV. It is simply untrue that the KJV is the source and foundation of effective Gospel preaching, which presumably means the only source. Likewise the KJV is far from being universally admitted as the highest authority in all matters of controversy. The place of highest authority in the Reformed religion is given to the Scriptures in their original languages, which are totally inspired, infallible and inerrant. The fact is that the KJV is only ‘recognised’ in the absolute terms stated by those who accept the TBS’s arguments against other translations and its tinted portrait of the KJV.

We have now examined in detail the seven most common types of arguments used by KJV advocates against modern translations of the Scriptures. The unwary reader of KJV propaganda will probably realise that some of the arguments employed have more substance than others; but he is likely to conclude that the sheer number of arguments put forward adds up to a cumulative weight of evidence casting more than reasonable doubt against all modern translations. Because of this possibility, we have examined the arguments put forward against modern translations in a lot of detail to demonstrate that each argument is invalid and therefore seven such arguments have no cumulative weight. Seven invalid arguments do not add up to even one slightly valid argument any more than the contents of a hundred empty pockets adds up to even a fraction of a penny. When KJV advocates are forced to use arguments like these against other translations, they merely demonstrate the lack of sound and valid arguments at their disposal.

Having proved that none of these arguments has any serious bearing on whether or not the KJV is the best translation in English, we can now move on to discuss the arguments that have relevance to this subject.

C. An Examination of the Accuracy and Effectiveness of the King James Version as a Translation of the Holy Bible

Two valid criteria for assessing any translation of the Bible, including the KJV, must now be discussed. These criteria are the accuracy of the translation to the original languages and the translation’s effectiveness in communicating to its readers the content and meaning of the original languages.

1. Mistakes and Inaccuracies in the KJV Compared with Accurate Modern Translations

The most fundamental argument used by KJV advocates is that the KJV is the most accurate translation of the Scriptures available in English. The TBS states this view forthrightly:

‘The chief aim of the translators in preparing the national version of the Bible, now commonly called the Authorised Version, was to express without addition or diminution the exact meaning of the original Scriptures.’[58]

However we have found abundant evidence of where the KJV fails to achieve this standard and also evidence of where leading modern translations achieve this better than the KJV. This is not to say that the KJV is always less accurate than modern translations; often the KJV is extremely accurate to the originals, and it would not be difficult to find verses in individual modern versions that are less accurate than the KJV, it must also be admitted. The evidence ultimately points to the fact that no translation, including the KJV, is perfect. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. We do believe, however, that the KJV does have some serious mistakes and inaccuracies in translation, which together call into question whether it is really the most accurate translation available in the English language. We shall now look at some examples of poor translations, mistakes and inaccuracies in the KJV. This is by no means an exhaustive list of such examples.

(1) Romans 6:1-2a

‘What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.’ (KJV)

The phrase rendered ‘God forbid’ is not in any sense a translation of the original Greek in this verse, which does not even mention ‘God’ at all. It is strange indeed that the KJV does not indicate this departure from the Greek either by means of a marginal note or by placing these words in italics, particularly since the translation chosen was a departure even from earlier translations like the Geneva Bible. The KJV translators took a fairly common interjection used in English, but akin to other phrases used by people with no thought of God, like ‘God only knows!’ or ‘For God’s sake!’ - phrases that actually take the name of God in vain, contrary to the Third Commandment, and elevated it here into the pages of Scripture. Literally the words used mean ‘May it not be!’ The phrase is much more accurately rendered in almost every modern translation, the NKJV, NASB and NIV being examples:

‘Certainly not!’ (NKJV)

‘May it never be!’ (NASB)

‘By no means!’ (NIV)

(2) Hebrews 9:26

‘For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.’ (KJV)

The KJV consistently mistranslates the word aion as ‘world’ when the word does not refer to a place but to a period of time. It happens at least 40 times in the KJV. It is not the word kosmos (used for the first ‘world’ in the above verse) but aion (from which we get our word ‘eon’). So in the NKJV the verse is correctly translated:

‘He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.’

(3) Acts12:4b

‘Intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.’

The KJV introduces the pagan festival of ‘Easter’ into the Scriptures whereas the original Greek word is pascha which means ‘Passover,’ the biblical Jewish festival (as the word is translated in almost all modern versions).

(4) 1 Timothy 6:10

‘For the love of money is the root of all evil.’

By stating that ‘the love of money is the root of all evil’ the KJV might be said to cast doubt on the veracity of God’s Word, for it is very evident that the love of money was not the root of either the first sin in creation when Satan rebelled against God, nor indeed of the first sin by mankind in Eden, which were plainly the result of other motives and since ‘money’ did not even then exist. Neither is money the root of many other kinds of evil that exist in the world today: sexual sins, heresies and idolatries of false doctrine and false religious practices, genocide and political oppression, to name just a few. Paul’s meaning is correctly conveyed by the modern translations which read:

‘The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.’ (NKJV, NIV).

(5) Acts 5:30

‘The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.’ (KJV)

The KJV translation of this verse appears to conflict with the Gospel narratives by suggesting that Christ was first killed and then his dead body was hanged on a cross. By comparison modern translations do not introduce contradictions into Scripture in this verse:

‘The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.’ (NKJV)

(6) James 3:2

‘For in many things we offend all.’

This almost gives the impression that the Christian is a boor, giving offence in many different ways to people with whom he comes into contact. Some readers might even take the verse as a licence to be rude for Christ’s sake. But the true meaning of the verse is very different. Compare the NKJV translation of this verse:

‘For we all stumble in many things.’

This draws out the correct meaning that it is not that as Christians we give offence to everyone we meet, but that even as Christians we all sin, stumble, offend against God’s law, in many things we do.

(7) 1 Corinthians 13

Throughout this chapter the KJV changed the word ‘love’ to ‘charity’ (translated as ‘love’ by Tyndale and the Geneva Bible which both predate the KJV it should be noted, so ‘love’ can hardly be characterised as a modern change to God’s Word!). We cannot but see this as an attempt to narrow the scope of the apostle’s words, for though charity, loving action, is part of Christian love, it is not all. This does even deal with the issue that in modern usage ‘charity’ means almsgiving, giving the unwary KJV reader completely the wrong impression and creating confusion:

‘And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor…and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.’ (1 Corinthians 13:3, KJV).

Since helping the poor is charity in modern English, this verse may be unfathomable to the modern reader, whereas in the NKJV the full meaning is clear (and more accurate to the Greek):
‘And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor…but have not love, it profits me nothing.’ (1 Corinthians 13:3, NKJV).

(8) 1 John 3:9

‘Whoever is born of God doth not commit sin.’ (KJV)

The rendering in the KJV is likely to lead the reader to come to one of two wrong conclusions, either perfectionism, that true Christians are so good that they never do anything wrong, or even more dangerous, that the wicked thoughts, words and deeds of Christians are not counted as sin before God.

‘No one who is born of God practices sin.’ (NASB)

This is a much better translation of the verse because it avoids giving either of the false impressions that can be taken from the KJV, and instead focuses on the point the apostle was really making. Although Christians do still sin and though their sins are still sins before God, they do not ‘practice’ sin, they do not spend all their time sinning, they do not make a habit of sin, they are no longer slaves of sin. As even the modern paraphrase, the CEV, renders it:

‘God’s children cannot keep on being sinful.’

(9) Philippians 4:5

‘Let your moderation be known unto all men.’ (KJV)

The KJV gives the impression that ‘moderation’ is an attribute we should have and display in our dealings with other people. It is a word that normally relates to such things as beliefs and opinions (and here would naturally be misapplied to our Christian beliefs), or else it relates to behaviour or lifestyle in such things as the consumption of food and alcoholic beverages, or expenditure on clothes, holidays and recreation. But none of these things is in view in this verse.

‘Let your gentleness be evident to all’ (NIV)

‘Let your graciousness be known to all men.’ (NKJV margin)

This gives a completely different flavour to the apostle’s instruction and widens its application considerably. Most modern translations render the verse like this or in a similar way and these are much more accurate and clear translations for English readers than the KJV.

(10) Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9

‘But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.’ (KJV)

‘And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except is be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.’ (KJV)

‘Fornication’ means having sexual intercourse with someone other than a marriage partner. The KJV states that this is the only cause for divorce. But the Greek word translated ‘fornication’ is porneia, which has a wider meaning than the English word ‘fornication’. It would include all sexual sins, not just heterosexual intercourse. This has important pastoral and ethical implications depending on whether the reader follows the KJV or the modern versions in which the word is translated so as to give the true wider meaning.

‘But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery.’ (Matthew 5:32, NKJV)

‘I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.’ (Matthew 19:9, NIV)

We can only conclude that it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that the KJV is a perfect translation. We do not pretend that modern translations do not themselves contain verses that have not been translated as well as they might be, and in some cases these may be better rendered in the KJV. We merely point out that by a fair reckoning the KJV is not better than the best modern translations in this regard.

2. Departures from the Textus Receptus in the KJV

A more serious criticism of the KJV concerns the abundant evidence that the KJV does not follow its own underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, as closely as it could and should. Certainly the KJV does not follow the Greek as closely as the New King James Version, which is translated from the same Greek text as the KJV.

In one comparative study[59] of the Synoptic Gospels alone there were 280 occasions where the NKJV adhered more closely to the Greek of the Textus Receptus than did the KJV, including 120 examples in the Gospel of Matthew, 61 in the Gospel of Mark and 99 in the Gospel of Luke. Some of the inaccuracies in the Gospel of Matthew are given below, in each case the NKJV on the left being truer to the original Greek underlying the KJV than the KJV on the right is itself.

(1) Matthew 1:17 --- ‘the Christ’ / ‘Christ’
(2) Matthew 1:20 --- ‘an angel’ / ‘the angel’
(3) Matthew 2:1 --- ‘after Jesus was born’ / ‘when Jesus was born’
(4) Matthew 2:6 --- ‘shepherd My people’ / ‘rule my people’
(5) Matthew 4:11 --- ‘left Him’ / ‘leaveth him’
(6) Matthew 4:21 --- ‘the boat’ / ‘a ship’
(7) Matthew 5:21 --- ‘murder’ / ‘kill’
(8) Matthew 6:26 --- ‘more value’ / ‘much better’
(9) Matthew 6:31 --- ‘do not worry’ / ‘take no thought’
(10) Matthew 9:11 --- ‘Teacher’ / ‘Master’
(11) Matthew 9:36 --- ‘weary’ / ‘fainted’
(12) Matthew 10:25b --- ‘teacher…master’ / ‘master…lord’
(13) Matthew 11:29 --- ‘learn from Me’ / ‘learn of me’
(14) Matthew 13:32 --- ‘the seeds…greater’ / ‘seeds…the greatest’
(15) Matthew 14:9 --- ‘oaths’ / ‘oath’s sake’
(16) Matthew 14:35 --- ‘recognised Him’ / ‘had knowledge of him’
(17) Matthew 15:22 --- ‘demon-possessed’ / ‘vexed with a devil’
(18) Matthew 17:12 --- ‘about to suffer’ / ‘shall…suffer’
(19) Matthew 17:25 --- ‘Jesus anticipated him’ / ‘Jesus prevented him’
(20) Matthew 17:26 --- ‘sons’ / ‘children’
(21) Matthew 18:32 --- ‘you begged me’ / ‘thou desiredst me’
(22) Matthew 20:4 --- ‘so they went’ / ‘and they went their way’
(23) Matthew 21:42 --- ‘this was the LORD’s doing’ / ‘this is the Lord’s doing’
(24) Matthew 23:24 --- ‘strain out a gnat’ / ‘strain at a gnat’
(25) Matthew 24:30 --- ‘on the clouds’ / ‘in the clouds’
(26) Matthew 24:43 --- ‘broken into’ / ‘broken up’
(27) Matthew 25:41 --- ‘the everlasting fire’ / ‘everlasting fire’
(28) Matthew 26:25 --- ‘who was betraying Him’ / ‘which betrayed him’
(29) Matthew 26:49 --- ‘Rabbi’ / ‘Master’
(30) Matthew 27:36 --- ‘they kept watch over Him’ / ‘they watched him’

On the basis of accuracy alone, the KJV cannot be regarded as the best translation of the Scriptures in English, not even when comparing the two most widely available translations that have their textual basis for the New Testament in the Textus Receptus.

3. The Effectiveness of Communication in the KJV Compromised by Archaic Vocabulary and Grammar

We turn now to the second major criterion that must be used to assess any translation of the Bible and that is how effective the translation is at communicating the words and meaning of the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with speakers of the modern English language.

We find it odd that those who argue that the KJV is still the best translation either omit this criterion completely or completely play down its significance. Some deny that there are any problems with the KJV in this regard. A few even go so far as to pretend that the KJV is actually easier to read than modern translations. Often anecdotal evidence that can never be followed up or verified is brought forward in support of the pro-KJV viewpoint. However, we are convinced that the judgment as to whether or not a translation does its job is not a peripheral matter; it is at the very heart of the matter. Indeed, the requirement to communicate effectively is the paramount reason why we carry out Bible translations at all. A so-called translation that fails to communicate with its receptor language users is, on a practical level, no better than giving those users the Bible in the original languages to read.

In assessing the KJV’s ability to communicate effectively with readers of the Scriptures, three strands of deficiency in comparison with modern translations present themselves. These are almost all related to the fact that the English language is a living language and has undergone many changes in the four hundred years since the KJV was first published. The three problems this creates for the KJV in communicating with people in the 21st century are: (1) archaic language that most modern readers do not understand; (2) archaic language that actually misleads most modern readers, and (3) archaic language that is unnecessarily ambiguous for most modern readers. We shall examine evidence of all three problems in turn.

(a) Archaic language that most modern readers do not understand

KJV proponents maintain that the language of the KJV is not difficult to understand and even go as far as to suggest that calling the language of the KJV ‘archaic’ is a lie made up by enemies of the faith or by proponents of modern translations who all have some hidden agenda.

One such KJV-proponent writes:

‘The King James Version is also clear. There are odd words now and then, words unfamiliar to 20th century Americans; but on the whole it is clear. It is clear in Genesis 1 regarding creation; it is clear in Genesis 3 regarding the fall; it is clear in the gospels regarding salvation in Jesus; it is clear in the historical books; it is clear everywhere. I deny the common charge that the King James Version is impenetrably murky, especially for children.’[60]

We conducted an experiment for ourselves to find out if its opponents were indeed overstating the criticism of the KJV’s archaic language. We wanted to find out for ourselves if the KJV really is ‘clear everywhere.’ More or less at random, we selected a page of the KJV for each book of the Old Testament and the New Testament and examined it for archaic or difficult language. We were open to persuasion that the KJV was not nearly so difficult to understand as people suggest and perhaps wrongly assume. Unfortunately for KJV-proponents, our experiment provided us with overwhelming evidence of the archaic language of the KJV, which we believe renders it difficult to read and understand, even for experienced Bible readers.

Here are some of the words our research revealed, taken from all parts of the Scriptures (KJV / NKJV in all instances):

(1) Genesis 30:35 --- ‘ringstraked’ / ‘speckled’
(2) Leviticus 22:19 --- ‘beeves’ / ‘cattle’
(3) Deuteronomy 22:6 --- ‘dam’ / ‘mother’
(4) Joshua 9:4 --- ‘wilily’ / ‘craftily’
(5) Ruth 2:3 --- ‘her hap was to light’ / ‘she happened to come’
(6) 1 Samuel 30:31 --- ‘wont to haunt’ / ‘accustomed to rove’
(7) 2 Samuel 5:23 --- ‘fetch a compass’ / ‘circle around’
(8) 2 Kings 11:1 --- ‘seed royal’ / ‘royal heirs’
(9) 1 Chronicles 28:17 --- ‘bason’ / ‘basin’
(10) Ezra 9:3 --- ‘astonied’ / ‘astonished’
(11) Nehemiah 4:16 --- ‘habergeons’ / ‘armour’
(12) Psalm 119:147 --- ‘prevent’ / ‘rise before’
(13) Psalm 142:7 --- ‘compass me about’ / ‘surround me’
(14) Proverbs 4:24 --- ‘froward’ / ‘deceitful’
(15) Isaiah 43:17 --- ‘quenched as tow’ / ‘quenched like a wick’
(16) Daniel 8:7 --- ‘choler’ / ‘rage’
(17) Hosea 13:8 --- ‘rend the caul of their heart’ / ‘tear open their rib cage’
(18) Micah 1:16 --- ‘poll thee’ / ‘cut off your hair’
(19) Nahum 2:1 --- ‘keep the munition’ / ‘man the fort’
(20) Zephaniah 3:16 --- ‘let not thine hands be slack’ / ‘let not your hands be weak’
(21) Mark 5:7 --- ‘I adjure thee’ / ‘I implore You’
(22) Luke 2:49 --- ‘wist ye not’ / ‘did you not know’
(23) John 21:7 --- ‘girt his fisher’s coat’ / ‘put on his outer garment’
(24) Romans 12:16 --- ‘condescend to men of low estate' / ‘associate with the humble’
(25) Galatians 2:13 --- ‘dissimulation’ / ‘hypocrisy’
(26) Colossians 3:5 --- ‘evil concupiscence’ / ‘evil desire’
(27) 2 Thess 2:10 --- ‘and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness’ / ‘and with all unrighteous deception’
(28) 1 Timothy 1:10 --- ‘menstealers’ / ‘kidnappers’
(29) 2 Timothy 3:17 --- ‘throughly’ / ‘thoroughly’
(30) James 5:11 --- ‘the Lord is very pitiful’ / ‘the Lord is very compassionate’

We cannot blame the KJV translators for these archaic words and phrases. Doubtless in 1611 the vocabulary and grammar of the KJV would have been clear and accurate enough to meet the needs of most of its readers, just as it did for the majority of many generations of readers afterwards. But that does not excuse us from recognising the fact that for most readers today, the KJV is filled with strange, unfamiliar, and incomprehensible nouns and verbs that make reading Scripture in that translation much more difficult and much less clear than reading the Scriptures ought to be. These are not rare occurrences in the KJV; there are examples to be found on every other page of both the Old and New Testaments.

In these circumstances we cannot agree that such a translation is to be judged better than a modern translation where, all other considerations being approximately equal (as in the NASB and especially the NKJV, which even has the same textual basis), the number of unfamiliar words are greatly reduced for the modern English reader.

(b) Archaic language that most modern readers find misleading

A potentially more dangerous problem than merely not understanding archaic words occurs where the modern reader comes across a word with which he is familiar, but is mistaken in its meaning because the word in question has a different meaning now from it had in the 17th century when the KJV was written. There are many examples of this situation occurring in the KJV, perhaps even more than the occurrence of merely unfamiliar words. Many make the KJV reading seem strange or absurd and leave us wondering what the original languages actually mean; others actually lead to a plausible understanding of the verse that is at odds with, and sometimes the opposite of, what the true meaning of the verse should be. This is an absolutely fundamental problem with the KJV and in our opinion this situation even on its own must disqualify the KJV from being the best available translation in English.

Many of the verses that follow are not isolated examples of where confusion could result for the modern reader using the KJV, because many of these words are used in dozens of other Scripture verses throughout the KJV. In all examples, the word or words that has changed meaning and may now cause confusion is highlighted in italics.

(1) Exodus 25:31

‘And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.’ (KJV)

The KJV has ‘candlestick’ twice in this verse. This gives us a very different mental picture from the accurate ‘lampstand’ as found in most modern versions.

(2) Exodus 28:8

‘And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.’ (KJV)

The word curious now means something like ‘strange’ or ‘amusingly different’ but that is not the meaning the word had in 1611. The NKJV replaces this confusing adjective with ‘intricately woven’ making this verse much clearer for the modern reader.

(3) Leviticus 14:10

‘And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.’ (KJV)

On many occasions the KJV uses the word ‘meat offering’ for an offering that did not contain the flesh of any animal. The word was used in its archaic sense of ‘food’ but not necessarily the flesh of animals used for food. In this verse the NKJV changes ‘meat offering’ to ‘grain offering’.

(4) Judges 12:14

‘And he had forty sons and thirty nephews, that rode on threescore and ten ass colts: and he judged Israel eight years.’ (KJV)

The word rendered ‘nephews’ is entirely misleading as the thirty were ‘grandsons’ (NKJV) of Abdon, not children of his siblings.

(5) 2 Samuel 22:19

‘They prevented me in the day of my calamity: but the Lord was my stay.’ (KJV)

Nowadays ‘to prevent’ means to hinder or stop someone from doing something, but that is not what this verse means. The NKJV and NIV change this to: ‘They confronted me.’

(6) 1 King 10:26

‘And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen…whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem.’ (KJV)

Today ‘to bestow’ means to give someone something, especially to confer an honour or a legal right to someone. The verse makes it seem that Solomon gave up authority over his troops to someone in the cities. But ‘bestowed’ as used here, really means ‘stored away’, ‘kept’, ‘placed’ (Geneva Bible), or in the context of troops as in this verse, ‘stationed’ (NKJV, NASB). This gives the entirely different impression that the military commander was placing his resources where he wanted while they remained fully under his command.

(7) 2 Chronicles 13:7

‘Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them.’ (KJV)

For the modern reader ‘tenderhearted’ conveys an attitude of kindness, care, empathy, concern, but the verse is only actually stating that Rehoboam was ‘inexperienced’ (as in NKJV), which gives the verse a totally different character.

(8) Job 39:9 & Malachi 1:3

‘Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?’ (Job 39:9, KJV)

‘And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.’ (Malachi 1:3, KJV)

In these verses the KJV introduces the nonsense of pagan mythology into the Holy Scriptures, thereby leaving the inspired Word of God open to attack from those who would claim it cannot be taken seriously. The NKJV, taking advantage of the advances in scholarship since the time the KJV was written, removes references to these mythical creatures by changing these verses to the much more plausible ‘wild ox’ in Job 39:9 and ‘jackals of the wilderness’ in Malachi 1:3.

(9) Ecclesiastes 10:1

‘Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour.’ (KJV)

Here readers of the KJV are likely to think that a medical context is in view here because an ‘apothecary’ is now an old-fashioned word for a chemist or maker of medicines, but in the 17th century an apothecary was someone who manufactured perfumes and other scented lotions and ointments. The NKJV gives the true meaning by changing the word to ‘perfumer’.

(10) Song of Solomon 2:12

‘The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land.’ (KJV)

In modern English a turtle is an aquatic reptile with a thick and heavy shell. It is not a creature which makes any discernible noise to have a ‘voice’ in the land. The strange image this verse in the KJV creates in our mind is immediately dispelled if we read the same verse in the NKJV where the word is translated as ‘turtledove.’

(11) Luke 18:16

‘Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.’ (KJV)

In almost all contexts in modern English ‘to suffer’ means to experience suffering, whether physical pain caused by illness or injury, or emotional sufferings such as sadness, grief or guilt. The modern reader could easily take away the impression from the KJV that we are ‘to put up with’ children, or admit them to our fellowship but if we do it grudgingly perhaps then that is all right with Jesus. Nothing could be further from the Saviour’s mind here. The word translated simply means ‘permit’ or ‘allow’. Hence the NKJV: ‘Let the little children come to Me.’

The fact that little children who come to the Saviour are in many ways paradigms of all members of the kingdom, suggests far from ‘suffering’ children to come, we should rejoice and be delighted when they want do, not just put up with them.

(12) Acts 17:3

‘Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preached unto you, is Christ.’

The word ‘allege’ now means to assert something without its veracity having been established or tested. Obviously this is not the attitude Paul had. In the seventeenth century, the word ‘allege’ meant ‘to bring evidence’ or ‘to prove.’ Hence the rendering in the NKJV:

‘Explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ”.’

(13) 2 Corinthians 11:6

‘But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.’ (KJV)

Here Paul is not saying that his speech was impolite or coarse, but merely that it not eloquent or learned. The NKJV has ‘untrained’ rather than ‘rude’ in this verse.

(14) Galatians 1:11

‘For I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.’ (KJV)

The modern reader would probably assume Paul’s meaning here is something like ‘I guarantee in writing to you, brothers…’ or ‘I assure you in writing…’ as this is the modern meaning of ‘certify’. Actually the apostle meant ‘I make known to you, brethren…’ (NKJV).

(15) Ephesians 2:3 & 1 Peter 3:1

‘Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh.’ (Ephesians 2:3, KJV)

‘They also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.’ (1 Peter 3:1, KJV)

It is crucial for modern readers to know that in these verses the apostles are referring to the whole conduct of a person, not merely their spoken conversations, which is the impression the KJV gives. The NKJV brings this out for the modern reader with clarity:

‘Among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh.’

‘They, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives.’

(16) Philippians 1:8

‘For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.’ (KJV)

Nowadays it is hardly possible to read the word ‘bowels’ without thinking of the lower portion of the human digestive tract. The expression is translated literally in the KJV for the word used does refer to the intestines, but it is crucial that any translation conveys the figurative meaning of this phrase and for the modern reader the KJV fails to do this. At the time when Paul wrote these words the ‘bowels’ were considered to be the seat of the emotions, just as we metaphorically refer to the ‘heart’ even though the heart is really only a pump moving blood round the body. Many translations, including some predating the KJV convey Paul’s meaning better than the KJV.

‘For God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of Jesus Christ.’ (NKJV)

‘…in the tender mercies of Christ Jesus.’ (ASV)

‘…from the very heart roote in Jesus Christ.’ (Geneva)

All of these translations communicate more effectively what the apostle intended to convey in this verse, than the KJV, which at best sounds strange and at worst would sound coarse or even amusing to modern ears.

(17) Philippians 4:6

‘Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be known unto God.’ (KJV)

The KJV sounds as if Paul was encouraging the Philippians to live without care or prudence, or perhaps even recklessly, relying solely on prayer to make up for these deficiencies. Yet that is certainly not what Paul meant. In the seventeenth century ‘care’ was a noun meaning ‘worry’, so ‘careful’ meant ‘fully of worry,’ as modern versions indicate:

‘Be anxious for nothing…’ (NKJV)

‘Don’t worry about anything…’ (CEV)

(18) 2 Thessalonians 2:7

‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ (KJV)

In modern usage, if you ‘let’ someone do something, you ‘allow’ them to do it. The word means the exact opposite in the KJV.

‘For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.’ (NKJV)

(19) Titus 2:14

‘Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.’ (KJV)

Peculiar now carries with it the connotation of being strange, odd, maybe slightly crazy, which is not how the Scriptures describes the church of Christ.

‘Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.’ (NKJV)

‘Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.’ (NIV)

(20) Hebrews 4:12

‘For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.’

For the average person reading this, it would seem that the word of God is fast or swift, implying that it acts rapidly to achieve its ends, but that is not always the case, and it is certainly not what the verse actually means. ‘Quick’ is an archaic way of saying ‘living’ or ‘alive’.

‘For the word of God is living and powerful…’ (NKJV)

‘For the word of God is living and active…’ (NIV)

(21) James 1:21

‘Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.’ (KJV)

Leaving aside the fact that ‘superfluity’ is an unfamiliar word for most English readers, we would point out that in the KJV ‘naughtiness’ does not refer to the kind of mild misbehaviour we associate with children, but wickedness and evil of a much more serious kind. Modern bibles make the meaning of the verse much clearer than the KJV.

‘Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness.’ (NKJV)

(22) 1 Peter 2:9

‘But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.’ (KJV)

The modern reader would think Peter was saying the people alive at the time he wrote the letter, that generation, were chosen by God, but that is not what Peter wrote. Once again the meaning of the word has changed since the KJV was written.

‘But you are a chosen people.’ (NIV)

‘But you are a chosen race.’ (NASB)

‘But ye are an elect race.’ (ASV)

We cannot agree that a translation containing many words that have changed in meaning, sometimes drastically, in the interval between when the translation was written and today, should still be considered the best translation in English. There are just too many such archaic words in the KJV.

(c) Archaic language that most modern readers find ambiguous

The final problem with the outdated language of the KJV is that the KJV often gives renderings of the original languages that are ambiguous to the modern reader, and do not reflect the clear meaning of the original. A few examples will demonstrate this difficulty in the KJV.

(1) Matthew 10:42

‘And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.’ (KJV)

The ambiguity here is whether the word ‘only’ refers to ‘only a cup of cold water’ or to ‘only in the name of a disciple.’ Either meaning is possible judging only from the English text, but the Greek text is very clear that the only refers to the cup of cold water and this is brought out clearly in NKJV:

‘And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.’

(2) Matthew 26:27

‘And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.’ (KJV)

Obviously the ambiguity here is whether Christ is saying that all the disciples should drink from the cup or that they should drink all of the contents of the cup. But the Greek is not ambiguous.

‘Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you”.’ (NKJV)

(3) Romans 11:31

‘Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.’ (KJV)

This verse makes it sound as if our mercy towards unbelievers will result in God showing mercy to them, which is certainly not what Paul says in this verse. Our mercy cannot save anyone else.

‘Even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.’ (NKJV)

(4) 1 Corinthians 1:21

‘It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.’ (KJV)

Many times this verse is quoted by people, as phrased in the KJV, to indicate that the act of preaching is considered foolishness by the world. But that is decidedly not what Paul meant. Here the word translated as ‘preaching’ is not a verb but a noun, it refers not to the act of preaching but to the content of gospel preaching, which is brought out in modern translations:

‘It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.’ (NKJV)

‘God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.’ (NIV)

(5) 1 Corinthians 6:4

‘If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.’ (KJV)

Here the KJV tells the reader that those who are least esteemed in the church should act as arbiters of disputes within the church, an incredible but clear apostolic command. Crucially here, the KJV fails to convey that Paul’s statement was originally a rhetorical question, not a statement, which completely changes the sense of the verse.

‘If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?’ (NKJV)

‘If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?’ (NASB)

(6) 2 Corinthians 5:21

‘For he hath made him to be sin, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.’ (KJV)

The KJV leaves the reader in doubt whether ‘who knew no sin’ refers to God the Father or God the Son, but this should not be ambiguous in an English translation, as the phrase clearly refers to Christ.

‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.’ (NKJV)

‘God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.’ (NIV)

(7) 2 Corinthians 6:11-13

‘O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.’ (KJV)

These verses are almost unintelligible to the modern reader, but in even a literal modern translation it becomes crystal clear. This is the problem with the KJV in essence – it does not communicate the content of the originals effectively for the modern reader.

‘Our mouth has spoken freely to you, O Corinthians, our heart is opened wide. You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections. Now in a like exchange – I speak as to children – open wide to us also.’ (NASB)

D. Conclusions

We began this paper by conducting a full and detailed assessment of the many arguments put forward by those who believe that the KJV is the best translation in English or even the only translation that Christians should use. After examining these arguments critically, we accepted that one such argument is fundamentally valid. The one valid criterion was accuracy of translation. We then used that criterion and one other – effectiveness of communication – to assess the KJV itself in parallel with three conservative modern translations, the NKJV, the NASB and the NIV.

When assessing accuracy of translation it is apparent, in the face of abundant evidence, that although the KJV is for the most part an accurate translation of the Scriptures, it is far from being perfect. There are numerous instances of where the KJV makes translational errors that mean it is in places less accurate than modern translations. We also found many occasions where the KJV is less accurate to its underlying original texts than modern translations from the same texts.

Although we recognise that no modern translation is perfect and that there are verses where the KJV is more accurate than an individual modern translation, this does not dispel the overwhelming impression that the best modern translations are at least as accurate as the KJV. As accuracy of translation is the only valid criterion put forward by proponents of the KJV against modern versions, and as the KJV is approximately equal with the best modern translations when assessed by this criteria, the most that can be said for the KJV is that it is as good as modern translation in terms of accuracy. The evidence, even on this criterion alone, does not sustain the claim that the KJV is the best available translation in English. Far less does it support the proposition that it is the only translation that should be used.

Where the KJV is demonstrably inferior in comparison with modern English translations is in effectiveness of communication. We found abundant evidence of archaic language in the KJV, not only words with which the modern reader will not be familiar, but also evidence of archaic words that the modern reader would find ambiguous and, even more dangerous, words that would likely mislead the modern reader. The language of the KJV, while appreciated for its reverence and beauty, is ultimately a barrier between the Scriptures and the reader of modern Standard English. Because of this, we have to conclude that an accurate translation in modern English is a better translation than the KJV in terms of effective communication with readers.

As we have stated, our purpose in this paper is not to attack the KJV or suggest it should be consigned to history. The KJV is still a good translation of the Scriptures for English readers. Its merits are well-documented and its place as the historic English Bible can never be taken away. For those who have used the KJV all their lives and who know through years of use what the archaic words mean, there may be no reason to change to a modern translation. For every serious reader of the Bible the KJV remains a valuable and widely available study tool, particularly because it has been the translation used by a much sound Christian literature of the past four hundred years.

However, the answer to the question that prompted this paper still remains. Is the King James Version the best available translation of the Holy Bible in English? When assessed by the two fundamental criteria for a translation of the Scriptures, we must conclude that it is not. The best modern translations communicate the content of the original languages more effectively than the KJV to contemporary readers. We therefore conclude that the best modern versions are better than the KJV for most readers of the Bible in English in the 21st century.


NOTES

[1] The King James Version gets its popular name from King James VI of Scotland (James I of England), who approved the proposal in 1604 that a new English translation of the Scriptures be carried out, building on the work of earlier English translations, especially the work of Tyndale. It is also known, especially within the British Isles, as the Authorised Version though it was never actually authorised by any body, civil or ecclesiastical. We shall abbreviate its title to KJV in this paper. Originally published in 1611, the current form of text of the KJV actually dates only from 1769, when the last of four revisions were made to the text to update the typography of the older versions of the KJV as well as correcting some archaic terminology and non-standard spellings.
[2] D. A. Carson: The King James Version Debate and James R. White: The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? are two calm and reasoned responses by sound evangelical scholars.
[3] The Trinitarian Bible Society (abbreviated to ‘TBS’ throughout this paper) is based in London but has branches throughout Britain and in several English speaking countries overseas. It has consistently been a bulwark of the Reformed, Evangelical Faith against liberalism and Romanism and does much valuable work overseas to spread the Gospel to all the nations. For all this we are very thankful and pray that the TBS would continue in its labours. We also hope they will come to see that they have erred in their overzealous defence of the KJV as the only acceptable Bible in English.
[4] Malcolm H. Watts: The Lord Gave the Word (TBS Booklet), p.27
[5] Trinitarian Bible Society: The Constitution of the Society (1992), p.5
[6] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: The Authorised Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the KJV (TBS Booklet), pp.10-11
[7] Trinitarian Bible Society: Plain Reasons Why We Keep to the Authorised Version (TBS Pamphlet), p.3
[8] Robert P. Martin: Accuracy of Translation (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh 1989), p. 2
[9] Ibid, p. 6 (emphasis added)
[10] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: The Authorised Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the KJV (TBS Booklet), p.2
[11] Our personal view is that an eclectic approach should be used, following sound principles of textual criticism, to ascertain the most likely original text of the New Testament. We believe that this should be accomplished by taking into account all available textual evidence.
[12] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7
[13] 2 Timothy 3:16, KJV
[14] Ibid, p.2
[15] cf. Exodus 20:16
[16] The Translators to the Reader from the KJV.
[17] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7 (emphasis added).
[18] G. W. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about The Greek New Testament (TBS Booklet), p.5
[19] Ibid, pp.5-6
[20] The Majority Text, strictly speaking, is the Greek Text found by seeing which reading has the most support in the majority of surviving Greek Manuscripts. Two printed versions of this text has been published, with only minor variations between them. See The Greek Text According to the Majority Text by Zane Hodges & Arthur Farstad and The New Testament in Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by William Pierpoint & Maurice Robinson.
[21] See for example G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible (TBS Booklet), which defends the Johannine Comma found in only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts.
[22] The Critical Text is the name often given to the modern eclectic text of the New Testament based on all available manuscript evidence. It gives more weight to the earliest manuscripts which were not available to Erasmus or Beza when the Textus Receptus was published. The current editions of this text are Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 4th Corrected Edition) and Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition), both of which texts are now identical. In one sense the terms “Critical” and “Eclectic” for this text can be misleading because the truth is that all printed texts, including the Textus Receptus and Hodges-Farstad or Pierpoint-Robinson Majority Texts, are the products of textual critics and are chosen from a variety of manuscripts.
[23] The KJV translators did not follow any previously published Textus Receptus precisely but took an eclectic approach choosing between the various editions published by Erasmus, Stephens and Beza and very occasionally translating directly from the Latin Vulgate.
[24] G. W. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the Greek New Testament (TBS Booklet), p.4
[25] Trinitarian Bible Society: The Excellence of the Authorised Version, p.3
[26] 1 Timothy 3:16, NASB
[27] 1 Timothy 3:16, NIV
[28] Trinitarian Bible Society: Plain Reasons Why We Keep to the Authorised Version, p.2
[29] John 1:1-3, 14, NIV
[30] Revelation 7:14, NKJV
[31] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: New International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the NIV, p.4
[32] See Robert P. Martin: Accuracy of Translation and the NIV (Banner of Truth Trust) for a detailed discussion of the problem of inaccuracy in the NIV.
[33] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about The New King James Version (TBS Booklet), p.5
[34] Of course we are not using ‘vulgar’ here in the contemporary sense of lacking in good taste, but as used by the Westminster Assembly in its primary sense: ‘pertaining to the common people, plebeian, vernacular, public, common, usual, customary, common to all, prevalent, commonplace’ as in Chambers English Dictionary.
[35] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.10 (emphasis added).
[36] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about The New King James Version, p.12
[37] Ibid, p.12 (emphasis added).
[38] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: The Authorised Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the KJV (TBS Booklet), p.7
[39] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about The New King James Version, p.17
[40] James 4:11, NKJV
[41] 1 John 4:20, NKJV
[42] Terence H. Brown: The Learned Men: The Translators of the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible in English A.D. 1611 (TBS Booklet), p.11
[43] The Trinitarian Bible Society: Plain Reasons Why We Keep to the Authorised Version, p.2
[44] Gustavus S. Paine: The Men Behind the KJV, pp.40 & 69.
[45] William W. Combs: ‘Erasmus and the Textus Receptus’ in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp. 35-53 (http://www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF)
[46] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about The New King James Version, p.8
[47] For example: on the page of the Old Testament with Psalms 86 , 87 and 88 the heading is ‘God’s aid implored. Praise of Zion. Complaint in distress.’ Above the page with Matthew 7 from the Sermon on the Mount the heading is ‘Rash judgment reproved.’ Unobjectionable these may be, but they are not words taken from the passages over which they sit, and so must be classed interpretations.
[48] Ibid, p.17
[49] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: New International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the NIV, p.1
[50] Ibid, p.1
[51] Ibid, p.6
[52] Trinitarian Bible Society: The Good News Bible (TBS Booklet), p.7
[53] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about The New King James Version, pp.21-22
[54] Ibid, p.1
[55] G. W. Anderson & D. E. Anderson: New International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the NIV, p.32
[56] Ibid, p.14
[57] The Trinitarian Bible Society: Plain Reasons Why We Keep to the Authorised Version, p.3
[58] The Trinitarian Bible Society: The Excellence of the Authorised Version, p.1
[59] Gary R. Hudson: ‘The Superior Accuracy of the NKJV to the KJV’s Textus Receptus: A Study of the Synoptic Gospels’ (http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/superior_accuracy.htm)
[60] David J. Engelsma: Modern Bible Versions (PRC Booklet), p.14