Giuseppe Guarino
I know, English is not my language. But I love it. I love to watch movies in English, read books and comics.
And, yes, my favorite Bible is in English: the King James Version.
I’ve learned that, for many English-speaking people, the King James Bible can be difficult to understand. But honestly, I find it beautiful — and worth the small effort it takes to get used to the thees and thous. To be even more honest, I actually like them.
Now that I’m about to teach on this topic, I want to explain, as simply as possible, two reasons why I still choose the King James Version over other translations. I’m not saying I don’t read other versions of the Bible — I do, because I value different perspectives. But when it comes to studying the Word, I still prefer the KJV.
Here are two main reasons why I think the KJV translation is still the most reliable in English.
1 – THE KJV TRANSLATES THE BEST ORIGINAL TEXT
Some will jump off their chairs when reading this.
The Masoretic Text, which the King James Version translates in the Old Testament, is still the standard text used in all modern translations today. The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed its reliability. Let me put it in simple terms: manuscripts that are more than two thousand years older have confirmed the accuracy of the manuscripts we’ve always used — and that’s why we still rely on them today.
For the New Testament, the KJV translates the so called Textus Receptus, which is the most commonly available version of the Majority Text, a text that represents the result of a faithful copying process of manuscripts that has led to the vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts to bear witness to basically the same text.
“Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95 percent majority, but the remaining 5 percent do not represent a single competing text form.” “The chief Alexandrian witnesses, B, A … are in constant and significant disagreement among themselves.” The above statements are by Wilbur Pickering, a scholar that has long debated on the topic, published books and a critical text of the New Testament, i.e. he knows what he is talking about.
95 percent of consisting, reliable evidence: witness to one and the same text!
Modern translations rely on the so called Neologian Text: Kurt Aland’s Standard Text, UBS’s Eclectic Text that is full of contradictions and does not even agree with itself or the manuscripts it says it represents but is formed by picking and choosing readings from manuscripts according to the personal opinions of the critics involved.
Let us see what I am talking about.
| NIV JOHN 5
1Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.
[4] OMITTED
5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” |
KJV JOHN 5
1After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
|
The testimony of isolated manuscripts is often favored over the remarkable agreement found in the thousands of manuscripts that make up the Majority Text. Yet these isolated manuscripts often cannot even agree among themselves:
– whether there was a Jerusalem a sheep-pool (א) or ‘a pool at the sheep-gate’
– whether it was surnamed (BC), or named (D), or neither (א)
They cannot even agree on the name:
– Bethsaida – P75, B, T,W
– Bedsaida – P66
– Bethzatha – א and 33.
Are contradicting witnesses reliable?
Look at this misleading notes of the NIV
“Some manuscripts include here…”. Some? Hundreds!!! The rest of the evidence which is not this small amount of deviations from the original reading. Why deviations? Because they contradict each other!
Then another note:
Again the word “some” is used. TWO: Bethzatha – א and 33. FOUR: Bethsaida – P75, B, T, W
So “some” is both used for 6 witnesses and hundreds of witnesses. I call this – to be generous – a wrong interpretation of facts.
2 – THE KJV IS A LITERAL TRANSLATION
Why is it important that a Bible version translates literally?
Because this was the method of translating adopted for the Septuagint when the Hebrew Bible was first translated into Greek.
The same literal translation method was applied by the authors of the New Testament when writing in Greek and rendering a text from the Hebrew.
When a text is translated literally, it can be carefully studied and examined. Other methods of translation, however, often present the translator’s interpretation instead. If translators misunderstand the meaning of the text or allow their personal opinions to influence their judgment, the resulting “translation” will be biased and misleading, making it impossible for the reader to interpret the Word correctly.
Dynamic equivalences is the method that is totally at the opposite side of the literal. All the shades of grey between these two opposite ways of translating can never be as good as a literal translation. Those versions may be good for consulting, for reading purposes, but are not to be advised for serious study purposes.
Let us consider the same passage, John 5 but as far as the translation is concerned. The NIV writes that the language in which the pool was called was Aramaic. But the original text says Hebrew.
ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη ῾Εβραϊστὶ Βηθεσδά
which is called in Hebrew Bethesda.
The above is a literal translation. When you translate “Aramaic” you are not translating but interpreting. I want a translation, not an explanation or even worse, your opinion.
KJV “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
NIV “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:”
The NIV is not even translating here. It is more a paraphrase than a translation.
This is the interlinear of the Greek:
Βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαυΐδ, υἱοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ.
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
You know what you miss when you translate like the NIV does?
Let me show you.
Genesis 5:1
KJV – “This is the book of the generations of Adam.”
NIV – “This is the written account of Adam’s family line.”
The parallel between Genesis 5:1 and Matthew 1:1 has been removed in the NIV. In a literal translation it is there, evident, as the author of Matthew meant it to be.
I will show you why.
Matthew 1:1 – Βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαυΐδ, υἱοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ.
Genesis 5:1 – Septuagint – Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων·
Translating a text literally the translator:
- uses a biblical way of translating
- enables the readers and students of the Word to interpret the text themselves.
In conclusion, It is good to have access to several translations. I am not advocating the idea that the KJV is a second original. But though it is advisable to start reading the Bible with a text that is clear and easier to understand, if we need to seriously investigate the text the KJV is still the most reliable Bible available in English.