Part 2: KING JAMES VERSION

We will start with the King James Version. I would consider this version in the broad category of a 'word-for-word' translation. It was originally translated in 1611 A.D. It was translated by a 48 man committee. These men were dependent primarily upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts which were available to them. It is a very good version of the Bible and has been the standard by which all other versions have been judged for the last 390 years, but it is very difficult for people who speak English in the 20th century to understand. It is beautiful in its language, and therefore has been a favorite for many, many years. Some people have literally grown up with the King James Version, and therefore do not readily accept any other 'style' of language as Scripture. It is not uncommon to hear older Bible believing people talk and pray in "King James language."

The KJV has an excellent readable style for those who are familiar with it. However, it is often very difficult to determine the meaning of a passage because of the sentence structure and the words used. I have heard people in Bible classes debate the meaning of a single word in the KJV for an entire class period. If you are trying to help a new comer understand the Word of God it is almost impossible to help them see the meaning of a passage in the KJV. Some people will read it again and again and never see the point.

To it's credit, the KJV has served as the standard for the English speaking world for almost 390 years, and it is to this day the number one seller as far as English versions are concerned.

The KJV of today is really much different from the 1611 translation. I dont know of a soul who could read and understand the 1611 version. What is the basis of the KJV today is actually a revision which was produced in 1769 in which over 75,000 changes were made to the first edition.

The greatest weakness of the KJV is that it was based primarily upon the Latin Vulgate and a relatively small number of Greek texts for the New Testament. Since the time of the translation of the KJV over 5,000 Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have been been discovered which shed further light on what was found in the original text. Originally the KJV included the Catholic apocryphal book, but they were removed in 1629. There are over 1000 words in the KJV that are either not used in the English language in the 20th century, or have totally changed their meanings.

A simple example is the term "Holy Ghost." The Greek Word is "Spirit." But in 1611 the concept of spirit was best conveyed by the term "ghost."

The word "Baptism" is another example. The Greek word for "baptism" should be translated "immersion." In 1611 the practice was "sprinkling." Therefore, the Greek word was "transliterated" and a new word added to the English language. What does "baptism" mean? Anything you want it to mean. What did it mean in the first century? Immersion!

The KJV was also influenced by theological thinking of the day. An example of this is found in Hebrews 6:6-8 here the KJV says:

Hebrews 6:6-8 KING JAMES VERSION
6* If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7* For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8* But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

Here is how the NASB?95 edition translates the same passage:
Hebrews 6:6-8 NEW AMERICAN STANDARD ?95 edition
6* and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7* For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8* but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

Can you see the subtle difference? The Bible teaches that it is possible for a person who becomes a Christian to fall away from grace, but the King James translators did not believe that. They translate verse six "if they fall away," as though no one had. The Greek manuscripts actually say, "having fallen away" which shows there were some who had been true Christians but had fallen away. There are a number of passages which prove that it is possible to fall away (for instance James 5:19-20; Galatians 5:4; 6:1).

In Acts 12:4 the KJV translates the word for "Passover" as "Easter." There was no such thing as Easter in the first century. Church history reveals that Easter as a religious celebration was unknown in the church of over 600 years, but the KJV translators believed in Easter, and since it comes at the same time of the year as the Jewish Passover, they just added it to the text rather than the word "Passover" which is what all Greek manuscripts have in Acts 12:4.

Another misconception for which the KJV is responsible is the confusion between "Hell" and "Hades" in the New Testament. In Acts 2:27 the apostle Peter quotes from an Old Testament passage which has to do with the Messiah, stating that his soul would not be left in the state of the dead. The Greek word for this is "Hades." The KJV translates this: "you will not leave my soul in hell." Jesus did not go to hell. He went to hades, which means the state of the dead and that is the Greek word that is used in the context. It should have never been translated "hell."

In Acts 2:17 the KJV translates "to make propitiation for" as "to make reconciliation for" the sins of the people. Sins are never reconciled--people are reconciled to God. It is impossible for sins to be made friends again, which is what "reconciliation" means.

There are numerous other examples, but we should note that the KJV is basically a good, usable version but was subject to error in a few places just like other translations. We should be reminded that all translations have problems in certain areas. There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation.