As I've been reading David Cloud's book, For Love of the Bible, my faith in the KJV is getting strengthened. I waver sometimes when I read criticisms of it saying it has many errors, but when I realize that those criticisms are almost exclusively generated from the modern-Bibles perspective, taking the Alexandrian texts and the abominable translation of Westcott and Hort and their followers as their standard, I recover from my lapse.
I see no reason why on principle the KJV COULDN'T need revision, however. I don't believe that any translation is perfect, directly inspired by God, and the translators themselves acknowledged that their work couldn't be perfect. They were, after all, revising previous versions of the English Bible that they considered to be God's word nonetheless.
However, I've more and more come to believe that in our time it is increasingly dangerous to think of revising the KJV at all. Who would do it? There is no authority who could authorize it as the English Crown could in the day of King James, and there are not enough experts today who deserve to be trusted with the task. The general mentality is utterly changed since the time of the King James translators. The King James was translated from a perspective of God-fearing reverence which can hardly be said for the revisions after it. Also, it seems to me that the revisions themselves with their abominable English have come to define what the text SHOULD say in a subtle but compelling way that makes it hard to defend the King James text even where it is clearly superior. For instance, "charity" even at the time of the revision was no doubt superior to "love" for translating "agape," at least in 1 Cor 13, but we are now so used to the revisions' "love" that the very use of "charity" that the King James had enshrined in the English language no longer carries the same meaning it did then. I suspect that meaning was still quite alive when the revision was first made, but by now it isn't and there is little hope of reinstating it. However, I do not capitulate. I now say we have to stick to the King James no matter what, even in the face of a clear error if there is such a thing in the KJV. ALL the other alternatives are dangerously more undesirable for many reasons.
I'm no longer going to be wavering about the KJV, such as by looking for a new translation from the Received Text as I had been doing from time to time before.
In David Cloud's book I've found many heartening quotes from men before and after Westcott and Hort who understood what was at stake and what was being challenged by the revisions, as they battled against the tide of rationalism that was bringing in destructive doubts about the Bible from many angles. I want to post some of those quotes as I go along with this blog, but right now I want to quote what Martyn Lloyd-Jones said in favor of the KJV back in 1961:
From Cloud, For Love of the Bible page 251, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones speaking at a rally at the Royal Albert Hall in 1961:
Whenever I start wavering, thinking that the KJV really IS too hard for people as so many complain it is, I'm going to remember this quote from one of my favorite preachers, Lloyd-Jones. He's right. The KJV improved the English language, it should go on improving the English language for every individual.I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the bible. ... The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its language-- particularly the archaic terms-- what does your modern man ... know about justification, sanctification, and all these Biblical terms? and so we are told the one thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick and Harry will understand, and I began to feel about six months ago that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorised Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologise for saying a word in favour of the Authorised Version in this gathering? ...
It is a basic proposition laid down by the Protestant Reformers, that we must have a Bible 'understanded of the people.' That is common sense ... we must never be obscurantists. We must never approach the Bible in a mere antiquarian spirit ... but it does seem to me that there is a very grave danger incipient in so much of the argument that is being presented today for these new translations. There is a danger, I say, of our surrendering something that is vital and essential ...
Take this argument that the modern man does not understand such terms as justification, sanctification and so on. I want to ask a question. When did the ordinary man ever understand those terms? ... Did the colliers to whom John Wesley and George Whitefield preached in the 18th century understand? They had not even been to a day school ... they could not read, they could not write. Yet these were the terms that were used. This was the version that was used--Authorised Version. The common people have never understood these terms. ...We are concerned here with something that is spiritual something which does not belong to this world at all; which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, the princes of this world do not know. Human wisdom is of no value here--it is a spiritual truth. This is truth about God primarily, and because of that it is a mystery. ...
Yet we are told---it must be put in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it. My friends, this is sheer nonsense. WHAT WE MUST DO IS TO EDUCATE THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE UP TO THE BIBLE, NOT BRING THE BIBLE DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL. One of the greatest groubles today is that everything is being brought down to the same level, everything is cheapened. The common man is made the standard of authority; he decides everything, and everything has to be brought down to him....
Are we to do that with the Word of God? I say No! What has happened in the past has been this -- ignorant, illiterate people, in this country and in foreign countries, coming into salvation have been educated up to the Book and have begun to understand it, to glory in it, and to praise God for it, and I say that we need to the same at this present time. What we need is therefore, not to replace the Authorised Version ...we need rather to reach and train people up to the standard and the language, the dignity and the glory of the old Authorised Version. [The emphases in all caps and underlining are Cloud's, those in boldings and italics are mine]
ReplyDeleteI want to give a practical example of the accuracy of the KJV. In the book 'GREAT STONES' Jeremiah 43:9-10, we made a three and a half year search to find these stones buried by Jeremiah. Sir Flinders Petrie ("Father of Modern Archaeology") had tried to find them but failed, because he thought the "great" stones in these two verses meant that they were some large rocks. But the verse said they were held in one "hand" so they had to be small, and it was to be a sign and rocks buried in the ground whether large or small are not a sign as they could be found most anywhere. At any rate, 11 out of the 12 best selling Bibles in America have changed this verse! They did this because they were also having a hard time trying to visualize Jeremiah the prophet holding boulders in his one hand. Only the King James Bible had this verse right and did not change it. The other versions took the word “hand” out, or gave Jeremiah and extra hand “hands”, or added the word “some” stones, most all translated the word “great” as large, which it could be, but not if held in one “hand” as God’s word said.
I have asked Hebrew scholars if they know of any Hebrew manuscript (there are several thousand manuscripts) that has “hands”, or no word for hand in this verse, and no one knows of one. I would like to quote the Hebrew scholar Dr. D.E. Anderson, she is a professional translator and graduate of Reformation International Theological Seminary in Fellsmere, Florida. I asked if all Hebrew manuscripts have the word “hand” in the singular, and was told “I can't confirm absolutely that every manuscript has the singular,...[but this]....is the standard reading.” And, “every edition of the Hebrew that I have access to, including a facsimile of the Leningrad Codex and an original 1566 Bomberg, have 'hand' singular.”
There is a translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, whose date is, depending on whom you read, about 250 B.C. For this verse the Septuagint does not have the word “hand”, but this is a Greek translation and the Old Testament was inspired in Hebrew. Eleven out of the top twelve best selling Bibles (including the New KJV, best selling list was 2008, the year the book 'GREAT STONES' came out) have translated “great stones” as “large stones”, and as I said this is a possibility, but the context would not allow this. Eight out of the top twelve Bibles have “some” stones. But this word “some” is not found in the Hebrew text. “There is no word in Hebrew in this phrase to indicate ‘some’; nor is there a Greek word in the Septuagint for ‘some’.” Dr. D.E. Anderson. (There are English translations of the Septuagint that have it both ways). How did this matter for our search of the “great stones”? I never would have found the “great stones” had I been reading one of these other versions, because I never would have bothered to look in the first place. I was not looking for “large stones,” or “some” stones, but “great stones,” and that were small enough to fit in one “hand”. Any one of these changes would have stopped me from looking and eight out of the top twelve Bibles had all three changes in them! None of the twelve had it right except the KJV. Under what authority did they make these changes? They did not find them in the Hebrew, it is not unlikely that the translators assumed it, and using 'conjectural emendation' rendered it that way. Makes you wonder how many other changes they “helped” us with?