|
A couple of months ago, we received an email from a person
living in southeast Asia, who lamented that his church is
being torn apart. The divisive and destructive force was
coming from a couple of members who were King James Only (KJO)
advocates. This is sadly a story we hear all too often.
KJO proponents have been known to intimidate pastors and
split congregations by alleging that modern translations
are “perversions” of Scripture, and all who read the NIV
or NASB are being used of Satan. Their strong stance is
based in a belief that the King James Version of the Bible
is the only inspired and infallible English Language
translation. Many KJO-ists will go so far as to prefer
the KJV renderings over the Greek and Hebrew texts when
the two disagree. Their devotion to this wonderfully
poetic, four hundred year old translation is largely an
emotional response, and their arguments rarely hold up to
historical fact and scholarly scrutiny. At Contender
Ministries, we challenge this movement as one that is
erroneous, destructive, and nearly idolatrous in their
devotion to a book, rather than the message within.
Recently, I happened across a King James Only (KJO)
website. As is all too typical for these sites, it was
loaded with vitriol and calumny for those of us who use
modern translations, such as the NIV or NASB. One page on
their site was entitled “The
KJV Bible Handbook.” A section of this handbook was
subtitled, “Let’s Compare Bibles.” In this section, the
author listed several verses from the KJV, gave a brief
commentary after each verse alleging conspiracy or satanic
collusion on the part of modern translations, and then
lists the alternate readings found in the modern
translations. I wasn’t surprised to find this section
misleading, error-filled, inconsistent, and intellectually
dishonest. I feel compelled to respond in truth to the
errors, and to set the record straight. Below is the
excerpt from this page. My responses to each allegation
will follow in blue text. Parenthetically, I do not
harbor ill will toward the King James Version or those who
prefer it. I simply want to correct errors that are often
used in the division of churches.
Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.
The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that
God intends to preserve His WORDS forever. Notice how the
new versions destroy this promise by making you think the
context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:
NIV....... you will keep us safe
NASB... Thou wilt preserve him
Where does Psalm 12 say that
the “words of the LORD” refer to the King James Version
of the Bible? It doesn’t. Nowhere does this passage
tell us how God will preserve His words. Does
this mean He will do so by ensuring that no one can ever
change the substance of those words, or does it mean
that He will always make sure there is one infallible
version in one or more languages or translations? The
passage doesn’t tell us. It’s quite possible (and it’s
the position of the NIV and NASB translators) that verse
7 is referring back to verse 5, which reads,
“ ‘Because of the
devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of
the needy, Now I will arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will set
him in the safety for which he longs.’” (NASB)
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call
his name Immanuel.
Notice how some new versions attack the Virgin Birth of
Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity. As anyone well
knows, a young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a
virgin:
NRSV... young woman
REB...... young woman
NWT..... maiden
First, I should point out that
the NIV and NASB both have “virgin” in this verse, and
it’s a reading with which I happen to agree.
Nevertheless, the Hebrew word here, according to
Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, is ‘almah, which means
“virgin, young woman of marriageable age, maid or newly
married.” The KJV translates this word as “maid” in
Exodus 2:8 and Proverbs 30:19. It also translates it as
“damsels” in Psalms 68:25. So the KJV is inconsistent
in how it translates the same word. There is a word that
can ONLY mean virgin, and that is bethulah. Yet
the KJV translates IT as “maid” in Jeremiah 2:32,
51:22. Nevertheless, even in the modern translations,
the virgin birth is evident – they make no attempt to
hide it, and readers of modern translations still
consider Isaiah 7:14 as prophetic of that virgin birth.
Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which
were spoken of him.
Here the new versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling
us that Joseph was Christ's father:
NIV....... The child's father
NASB... His father
See Luke 2:48, where in the KJV
Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus’ father.
See John 6:42, where the KJV calls
Jesus “son of Joseph”.
See Luke 2:27 and 2:41 where the
KJV talks of Jesus’ “parents”.
If KJO advocates are going to be
consistent in condemning the NIV and NASB for referring
to Joseph as Jesus’ father, then they should condemn the
KJV as well. The NIV and NASB are both QUITE clear that
Joseph was not biologically the father of Jesus, but
rather filled the family role of father.
Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst
weaken the nations!
Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the
"Morning Star". The King James Bible never gives this
title to anyone else. However, in some new versions, Jesus
Christ and Satan are the same, because some versions have
taken the liberty to call Satan the "morning star" in
Isaiah 14:12. Although some versions do not go so far as
to call Satan the "morning star," they still throw out the
name "Lucifer".
NIV....... morning star
NASB... star of the morning
The Hebrew word here is heylel,
which means, “shining one, morning star.” The name
“Lucifer” never appeared anywhere before Jerome put it
in the Vulgate here. The NIV and NASB present a more
literal translation of this verse than the KJV. And
unless someone reads the verses out of context, they’ll
never confuse the individual described in Isaiah 14:12
with the One described in Revelation 22:16. Most people
can exercise common sense here.
Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in
the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form
of the fourth is like the Son of God.
This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that
Jesus Christ existed long before He was born in Bethlehem.
Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan
foolishness:
NIV....... a son of the gods
NASB... a son of the gods
This is not the verse you want to
use to show the pre-existence of Jesus. First, the NIV
and NASB rightly translate the Greek. What the author
of this article doesn’t say is that the person speaking
in Daniel 3:24 is King Nebuchadnezzar, a firm believer
in “pagan foolishness.” In his mind, there were an
abundance of gods. Furthermore, while the pre-existence
of Jesus is quite doctrinally sound, and easily
supported with the NIV and NASB, this is the wrong verse
to use as a support. In context, the four men consisted
of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and the fourth whose
form was “like a son of the gods” was an angel of God,
not Jesus.
Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the
forgiveness of sins:
Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so
we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in
modern translations:
NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
Once again, the oldest Greek has
been correctly translated. This verse is essentially a
repeat of Ephesians 1:7, which in the NIV reads, “In him
we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of
God's grace.” If the modern translations were trying to
hide redemption through Jesus’ blood, they’re failing
miserably, because it’s found right there in Ephesians.
Romans 14:10-12
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set
at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ….
If you'll read the above verses carefully, you will notice
how it magnifies Jesus Christ. According to verse 10, we
will stand before the Judgment Seat of CHRIST, and verse
12 says that when we do we will give account to GOD. When
we stand before Jesus Christ we will be standing before
God--an excellent text on the Deity of Christ. Now watch
as the new versions throw Jesus Christ clear out of the
passage by replacing the word "Christ" in verse 10 with
"God:"
NIV....... God's judgment seat
NASB... Judgment seat of God
Okay, here we simply have
differences in the Greek text used in the KJV versus the
modern translations. The oldest texts have the word
Theos, which means “God,” whereas the texts used by
the KJV have Christos, which means “Christ.” Yet
the argument could be turned around on the KJO-ist. In
Acts 16:7, the NIV says, “…but the Spirit of Jesus
would not allow them to,” whereas the KJV leaves the
name of Jesus out. Following KJO logic, I would contend
that the KJV is denying the deity of Jesus at Acts
16:7. Of course, I know that the KJV as a whole
supports the deity of Jesus, as does the NIV and NASB.
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This verse is very important because it places a definite
condition upon water baptism: one must first BELIEVE ON
CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of
the Bible:
NIV....... entire verse missing
It’s true that this verse is
not in the NIV, except for the textual footnote. Why?
Because this verse is found in only a very few Greek
manuscripts, none earlier than the sixth century, and
Erasmus inserted it into the TR due to its presence in
the Latin Vulgate and in the margin of one Greek
manuscript he had. This is an example of Catholic
influence on the KJV. I like the verse
personally, and it preaches well, but there’s a strong
argument for this being a Catholic addition, rather than
a modern translation deletion.
II Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but
as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak
we in Christ.
You can imagine how this verse must be a thorn in the
flesh to the modern translators who are busy CORRUPTING
the word of God day and night. So, do they repent of their
sins and get right with God? Of course not:
NIV....... peddle
NASB... peddling
The Greek word here is
kapeleuo,
which literally means “to be a retailer, to peddle, to
sell anything for a profit.” The KJV translators simply
didn’t do a very good job of accurately translating the
Greek. We could reverse the argument and ask, “Are you
suggesting it’s okay to peddle the word of God as long
as you don’t corrupt it?” Of course not, and you won’t
find a reader of the NIV or NASB who believes it’s okay
to corrupt the Word of God.
II Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.
This is the one command in the New Testament to "study"
and "rightly divide" God's word, and the Devil does NOT
appreciate it:
NIV....... Do your best...correctly handles
NASB... Be diligent...handling accurately
Once again, this is a matter of
translation. The NIV misses some of the “oomph” of the
NASB here, but I feel sorry for someone who just reads
the KJV and assumes the narrow definition of “study”. A
person can study without being diligent or doing their
best. And “correctly handling” is synonymous with
“rightly dividing.”
I Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so called:
Many lies are being propagated today in the name of
"science" (evolution for example), but I Timothy 6:20 has
been warning us about it all along - except in the new
perversions:
NIV....... knowledge
NASB... knowledge
The author obviously didn’t
research this very well. The Greek word in question here
is gnosis. Gnosis is used 29 times in the KJV, and
28 times the KJV translators correctly translated it as
“knowledge.” In this one instance, they gave it a
poor definition of “science.” Strong’s Greek Lexicon
defines gnosis as:
“1) knowledge
signifies in general intelligence, understanding
a)
the general knowledge of Christian religion
b)
the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this
religion, such as belongs to the more
advanced
c)
esp. of things lawful and unlawful for Christians
d)
moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living”
As you can see, the bulk of the
KJO arguments here are without factual basis. The author’s
accusations that the modern translations (perversions, as
he calls them) are in collusion with Satan, denying the
deity of Christ, and meddling with “pagan foolishness” are
morally and intellectually dishonest. The Word of God is
too sacred and important to be used as a pawn in baseless
slander and divisiveness.
|
