This page is not an exhaustive look at the King James only controversy. However, I have been confronted with the "error" of my ways by a few web visitors who insist that the King James English Bible is the only version a Christian should read. This page mostly consists of a series of links to other (more thorough) pages.
A few introductory comments are in order. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, English (King James or other) is not one of the original languages of the Bible. Therefore, all English translations of the Bible will suffer somewhat from differences in languages, differences in idiomatic expressions, etc. Different translations tend to aim for either word for word (more difficult to understand) or thought for thought (less "accurate") representation of the original language. Most translations (including the King James version) substitute "inaccurate" translations of certain words so that the thought will be understandable to our culture. For example, Revelation 2:231 contains the Greek word nephros, which literally means "kidneys." However, the English sounds pretty weird when Jesus says, "...I am He who searches the kidneys and hearts..." The word refers to the deepest emotions and affections of man,2 and is more understandable in our culture when translated as "thoughts" or "mind."
Why did the translators of the King James Bible translate it into the common English of the time? They said that they wanted to make a version that everyday common folks (of the time) could understand. Obviously, King James English no longer qualifies as being the common language of our time, and would probably be rejected by those very translators if they were alive today.
Well, shall we get started? Here are the links.
- How The Bible Came To Us - If you don't have an good background regarding the manuscript evidence for the Bible, you should start here (You should know the difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian text types).
- The KJV Translators Said THAT?!? - Some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism come from the translators of the KJV!
- KJV Only? (King James Version Bible) - A letter pointing out many of the problems with the KJV.
- The NIV The Making of a Contemporary Translation - Isn’t the King James Version Good Enough? (The KJV and the NIV Compared) (PDF version)
- The KJV's Archaic Language - Pros and Cons - The good, the bad and the ugly of KJV English.
- John 1:18 - Why the NIV makes a stronger case for the deity of Christ than the KJV.
- The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the
Modern Translations? Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1995.
- Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration.
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.
- Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of The New Testament an Introduction
to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual
Criticism. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
- Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of The Old Testament: An Introduction to the
Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
- Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart, United Bible Societies, 1995.
- 'And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. (Revelation 2:23)
- From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
(1) The kidneys owe their importance in the Bible partly to the fact that they are imbedded in fat, and fat of such purity that fat of the kidneys was a proverbial term for surpassing excellence (Deu_32:14 margin). For the visceral fat was the part of the animal best adapted for sacrificial burning, and hence, came to be deemed peculiarly sacred (Lev_7:22-25; 1Sa_2:16). Accordingly, the kidneys with the fat surrounding them were burned in every sacrifice in which the entire animal was not consumed, whether in peace (Lev_3:4, Lev_3:10, Lev_3:15; Lev_9:19), sin (Exo_29:13; Lev_4:9; Lev_8:16; Lev_9:10), or trespass, (Lev_7:4) offerings; compare the "ram of consecration" (Exo_29:22; Lev_8:25). So in Isa_34:6, "fat of the kidneys of rams" is chosen as a typical sacrificial term to parallel "blood of lambs and goats." (2) The position of the kidneys in the body makes them particularly inaccessible, and in cutting up an animal they are the last organs to be reached. Consequently, they were a natural symbol for the most hidden part of a man (Psa_139:13), and in Job_16:13 to "cleave the reins asunder" is to effect the total destruction of the individual (compare Job_19:27; Lam_3:13). This hidden location, coupled with the sacred sacrificial use, caused the kidneys to be thought of as the seat of the innermost moral (and emotional) impulses. So the reins instruct (Psa_16:7) or are "pricked" (Psa_73:21), and God can be said to be far from the reins of sinners (Jer_12:2). In all of these passages "conscience" gives the exact meaning. So the reins rejoice (Pro_23:16), cause torment (2 Esdras 5:34), or tremble in wrath (1 Macc 2:24). And to "know" or "try the reins" (usually joined with "the heart") is an essential power of God's, denoting His complete knowledge of the nature of every human being (Psa_7:9; Psa_26:2; Jer_11:20; Jer_17:10; Jer_20:12; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:6; Rev_2:23). See FAT; PSYCHOLOGY; SACRIFICE. Compare RS2, 379-80, and for Greek sacrificial parallels Journal of Philology, XIX (1890), 46. The anatomical relations are well exhibited in the plate in Sacred Books of the Old Testament, "Leviticus."
We are what we think.
- 04/14/2015 02:11 AM
What Is Biblical Inerrancy? (Part 1)
Last month, I discussed canonicity and how we got the Protestant Bible (see part 1, part 2, and part 3). This week, RTB editor Maureen Moser rejoins me for a conversation about biblical inerrancy—a topic of much debate and importance … Continue reading
- 04/07/2015 02:12 AM
World Religions: The Buddha and the Christ
Among the world’s great religious leaders, only two had such a profound impact that contemporaries inquired as to the very nature of their being.1 People wondered whether Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) and Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) were more than … Continue reading
- 03/31/2015 05:56 PM
God Incarnate: Jesus Christ’s Unique Identity
There’s no denying that Jesus Christ ranks high among the most controversial figures in human history. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both true God (the second Person of the Trinity) and true man (the Incarnate Son of God). … Continue reading
- 03/24/2015 02:27 AM
The Resurrection: Christianity’s Most Dangerous Idea
Originally published in Reasons to Believe’s ezine, New Reasons to Believe, vol. 2, no. 3 (2010) “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”1 This line—from my favorite book in … Continue reading
- 03/17/2015 02:55 AM
More Deaths in the Name of God—or No Gods?
Originally published in Reasons to Believe’s ezine, New Reasons to Believe, vol. 2, no. 1 (2010) Great evil has been done in the name of Christ. This charge, a frequent objection to historic Christianity raised especially by the new atheist … Continue reading
- 03/10/2015 02:02 AM
God as the Source of Knowledge
Originally published in RTB’s ezine, New Reasons to Believe, vol. 1, no. 1 (2009) Does the Bible indicate where knowledge comes from? Since evolutionary processes can’t guarantee true beliefs naturalism as a worldview faces insurmountable problems. For its part, the … Continue reading
- 03/03/2015 02:08 AM
World Religions: The Sage and the Savior
Among the world’s great religious leaders, two became far-reaching moral instructors of humanity. Confucius (the sage) laid down the ethical foundation for much of Asian civilization. Jesus of Nazareth (the Savior) taught moral lessons that distinctly shaped the ethical nature … Continue reading
- 02/24/2015 02:31 AM
How We Got the Bible, Part 3
This week we’ll be finishing up a series on the biblical canon, a topic that has been a source of discussion, debate, and controversy since the beginning of Christianity. We’ve covered the doctrine of divine inspiration and standards for recognizing … Continue reading
- 02/18/2015 12:07 PM
How We Got the Bible, Part 2
Last week RTB editor Maureen Moser and I began a discussion of the biblical canon, including the doctrine of inspiration and the criteria for recognizing canon, particularly for the New Testament. But as we noted, the branches of Christendom view … Continue reading
- 02/10/2015 02:22 AM
How We Got the Bible, Part 1
Earlier this year, scholars announced the discovery of what might be the oldest known copy of the Gospel of Mark (see here and here). A fragment of Mark’s book was found on ancient papyrus used to create a mummy mask. … Continue reading
Last Updated January 9, 2006