It’s not always a drag working as a temporary employee in the job market today. Although it can be grueling, possibly intolerable and even on occasion infuriating, the fact that one encounters a variety of people, all from different countries, cultures, religions and so forth, it can also be a memorable and educational experience. And in particular, while working at an assignment, I met a man who I engaged a series of discussions on the Christian church and Christianity in general. He was a Christian and one who held to most sound Biblical beliefs. However, in the course of sharing our own personal stories and how God was working in our lives, the subject of Bible translations was aroused. For some reason or another I happened to mention that I really liked the New International Version of the scriptures, to which he replied that, while being a wonderful source for devotion and perhaps reflection, it really couldn’t be trusted.

He went on to explain that his church, a denomination that I will not mention, defended the position of a firm ‘King James’ only’ reading of the Bible. He explained that there had been too many liberties taken with the translation of modern texts to where the only trustworthy one was the traditional King James. I must say I had heard of the controversy, but it wasn’t until this experience that I really began to look into the debate and try to discover the truth behind the claims on both sides. Here, we will look into the subject more closely and attempt to iron out the differences that exist in this highly contentious debate.

Where the question of what English translation of the Old and New Testament is best has come to a head, primarily in modern times, is in the presentation of the Revised Version of the King James Bible in 1881. In an attempt to offer a text to the public that was more ‘readable’, this effort proved not only controversial but introduced us to a debate that is going on to this day. Ultimately, those initially opposed to the revision felt that in many passages the meaning of certain words were changed, to where, some Christian doctrines may be called into question. This naturally led to an argument stating that alternative translations would only serve as a muddying of the waters of church dogmas and beliefs. Such scriptural truths such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ and many other essentials were touted as being questioned and possibly even denied by latter more modern translations such as the NIV. And this is a serious charge and one that should be addressed in a more extensive manner. In doing this, I haven’t the time go over all of the elements of the subject, so we will focus primarily on the New Testament alone.

To elaborate, both translations, the KJV and other modern translations, do differ in their source material. For example, the chief source from which the KJV is derived is known as the Textus Receptus. This is a text written in Greek that comprises what we know as the New Testament. Naturally, this is not an original but rather a copy of a copy of a copy, and so forth, all the way to the enlightenment writer Erasmus (its author). And likewise, modern translations are copies as well. However, most of them, including the NIV, find their source from the Alexandrian Text, and variations from other such materials. This text is made up of other sources that are somewhat of an amalgam of Greek, and sometimes Coptic, copies of the gospels, Paul’s letters, the epistles and other New Testament letters.

In short, the King James only group contend that in allowing other translations to arise, the objectivity and solidarity of God’s Word will become obscured, watered-down and ultimately inconsistent. They are afraid that what God has said will change and only through preserving the exact words expressed in the KJV (and from the Textus Receptus) can such exactness be kept in tact. But, this is precisely the contrariety of what those who embrace modern translations find to be the case. Rather, what God has said is preserved all the more through the discovery of numerous copies of the New Testament letters. And furthermore, given the nature of language and its perpetual evolution, they feel word changes must be made in order to express exactly what it was the bible writers were saying. After all, Paul never said “Thee� or “Thou�, but rather some other word that is best understood with a ‘socially linguistically relevant’ translation.

As to whether one is going to be ‘edified’ by reading modern translations is up to the reader. I am not going to make a decision one way or another for you or anyone else. But, I do suggest that one study the facts that are available. From what I’ve read, there is really no difference in ‘what’ is expressed in either translation, whether it be the KJV, NIV, or any other reputable translation accepted by most scholars. Whether it reads “Thy� will be done or “Your� will be done is not of interest. And furthermore, I doubt anyone is going to be tempted to deny Jesus’ deity, the virgin birth or some alternative view to being saved by reading something other than the KJV. I’ve heard it said that if the KJV “was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me.� But, I find it hard to believe that Paul spoke in Olde English. We know what he said, even when it doesn’t fit in a Shakespearean sonnet.

Send This To A Friend