Did The King James Version Come Straight Out Of Heaven?

Did the King James Version fall straight out of Heaven?

Introduction

There has been much discussion about the King James Version of the Bible as opposed to every other one known to the English language. Some people believe that the King James Version has so much authority that the text upon which it is supposedly based has equivalent authority to the autographs, while all others have corrupted source texts. Which means that if someone can find another English version that has the same text as its source then one would also have to acknowledge these translations as having equal authority, and would logically have to admit that other translations have equal validity and authority with the KJV. Notice, the word “logically,” the argument must be logical, as opposed to emotional, from which so many who hold the view that KJV comprises the only true Bible argue. Alternatively, if someone can show that the source text for the KJV, the Textus Receptus, either has problems with it or that at least one other version has a source text closer to the autographs, then it can be shown that the King James Version did not fall straight out of Heaven.

A Brief Discussion About Translation

Before getting into that one should note that no translation has 100% accuracy, every translation suffers the error of translator bias(for example, the translator believes that one meaning of a word fits better than another meaning of the same word), and vernacular limitations, such as the lack of the existence of an appropriate word needed to adequately and accurately translate the source text. Prime examples of errant translations include: “Taiwan: [Read more about this at Come Alive!⁹] the translation of the Pepsi slogan ‘Come alive with the Pepsi Generation’ came out as ‘Pepsi will bring your ancestors back from the dead,’ Romania: in a Bucharest hotel lobby: The lift is being fixed for the next day. During that time we regret that you will be unbearable, and Denmark: in a Copenhagen airline ticket office: We take your bags and send them in all directions” (All above quotes come from http://www.ojohaven.com/fun/translation.funnies.html, 10/25/14). Certainly these examples have more egregious errors than any translation errors present in the various translations of the Bible, but the fact remains no translation has a 100% accuracy rating. To connect a dot for the reader, Textus Receptus was originally Latin and Greek, which means that any English version of that text constitutes a translation.

A fact should be established: the new testament was originally written in Greek, with Matthew constituting the only possible exception (http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm, 11/9/14). Any English version of the Bible would therefore comprise a translation, whether KJV or otherwise. And the Textus Receptus itself comprises a translation, as wikipedia suggests:

Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the “Majority Text” of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14).

Pay careful attention to the first line, “Erasmus … was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek….” So, whether one wants to claim the Latin part of Textus Receptus as the authoritative version, which would make it a translation from the Greek, or the Greek, which contains translations from Latin back into Greek, this source text contains translations. Additionally, Erasmus redacted the Textus Receptus, to dress up Paul’s words, as Wikipedia also indicates, “He declared, ‘It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin’[1]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14).

A Word On Source Texts

In addition to Erasmus’s work containing at least segments of translation, if not itself being a translation, Erasmus has edited the text and altered some of Paul’s words to improve it. Improve what God said through Paul? Was Erasmus even a believer? He has made statements like, “My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14). So someone who has admitted to feeling inspired by something other than God’s Spirit, has made a text, and people trust a translation of this text as the word that God’s Spirit inspired? Can someone who claims to be possessed by “some god,” or demon, really rightly comprehend God’s word so as to rightly redact Paul or emend Jerome? Should the “god” that possessed Erasmus be trusted?

Erasmus has made statements that should discredit his work purely based upon the source of inspiration. This is no different from the reason that so many KJV only people refuse to use any Bible translated from the Westcott and Hort “Critical Text,” on the grounds that evidence has surfaced which links the men who compiled it to the occult (http://www.christiandoctrine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1011:westcott-and-hort-unbelievers-who-influence-millions&catid=175:the-bible&Itemid=551, 11/9/14). So, they classify the source of the Critical text as evil, and refuse to see the evil inherent in the text to which they ascribe such authority. Especially when related to the Bible, one must consider the source.

What about the Nestle-Aland? Some consider this version to also be evil. However, the only real link to the occult or masonry that any reputable source records consists of the fact that this corpus comes after the Westcott and Hart, and not that any of the scholars practiced any maleficence, although the staunch supporters of the KJV – the same ones who refuse to look at the evil inherent in their own source – suggest that the Alexandrian texts used in Nestle-Aland suffer from Gnostic corruption (http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html, 11/9/14), though these consist of only suggestions and implications at best. So which translations come from Nestle-Aland? These include (this does not necessarily comprise an exhaustive list): NASB, NET, NIV, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Revised Standard Version, and the Tree of Life Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations, 11/9/14).

As a final point, if KJV is so authoritative, then its source text would have to have the same authority. Being a source text, it could translated into other translations, which one would have to take as having equal authority with the KJV. Has the Textus Receptus been translated into other English versions? Wikipedia lists:

King James

• New King James [28]
• Young Literal Version
• Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530
• Miles Coverdale’s Bible 1535
• Matthew’s Bible 1537
• The Great Bible 1539
• Geneva Bible 1557-1560
• The Bishops’ Bible 1568
• Webster Bible 1833
• Darby Bible 1884,1890
• The 21st Century King James Version 1994
• Literal Translation of the Bible 1995
• Modern King James Version 1999
• Analytical Literal Translation 1999 [29]
• Third Millennium Bible [30]
• Modern English Version (2013) [31]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14). So, since all of these have come from the same source text, all of these should be just as authoritative as the KJV. Which means that even the KJV only proponents must, logically, allow and support the validity of other translations.

Conclusion

With so many translations of the Bible in existence, and with all of them, even the KJV, having questionable influences on their source texts, which one should an English speaking believer choose? All of them have some apparent corrupting influence. I trust that the word of God is “…Sharper than any double-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12b, NIV), and that any translation that teaches that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the crucified, and risen Savior, Redeemer, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords as the only way to Heaven and God the Father, and that has consistency with what bonafide Spirit-sealed scholars say that the autographs teach has value, and could provide a valid choice to the believer.

Scriptures taken from Holy Bible, New International Version ®, NIV ®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.^TM Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

© Bema Sheep

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or research paper.