Are the differences between the King James Version and the modern versions substantial, Or is it just a war of words and personal opinions? Those in favor of the new versions tell us there are very few significant changes, and of those, none affect any vital teaching or doctrine. Can we believe this? I think not, and therefore cannot in good conscience recommend them to others. In fact, since the 1881 Revision, the general trend has been that each new version sounds less-and-less like the Word of God, and more-and-more like the word of men.
I believe sincere students of God's Word would be far more careful in their selection of a bible if they were better acquainted with the questionable circumstances which spawned the modern versions. It is well known by those most familiar with the issue, that the deluge of new versions has occurred in large part because of the rise of skepticism among 19th century scholars and critics. The effects of this skepticism became especially apparent in the area of Scriptural Inspiration and Preservation. In the words of the influential reviser B.F. Westcott, "I never read of the account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." Westcott's associate, F.J.A. Hort is no better for he believes Darwin's Origins of Species is unanswerable. What about God's account of origins as recorded in Genesis? I'll take God's explanation over Darwin's any day, and quite frankly, I have little patience when skeptics begin tinkering with my Bible.
How Many Changes?
It is claimed that the differences between the King James Version and modern versions involve only minor word changes, none of which affect bible doctrines. This simply is not true. Dr. D.A. Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, cites data in The Four-fold Superiority Of The King James Version, where he personally cataloged nearly 10,000 word changes made by Westcott-Hort in the New Testament alone. In his words:
"In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F Westcott and FJA. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR (Textus Receptus) in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from. the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek NT, or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 14O,521 words in the TR Greek NT”
In fairness to Hort, I shall give his own estimates on the extent of the Greek textual changes between his text and the Textus Receptus. He groups the changes into three categories: [ibid]
1). No Variation.
According to Hort's estimates seven-eighths of his Greek text had no variation from the TR and the remaining one-eighth involved only trivialities.
2). The proportion of the Greek New Testament that would still be in doubt if his principles were followed
According to this estimate, Hort says only one-sixtieth (1/60) of New Testament words are affected. Accordingly, this would be 2,342 Greek words. This represents 1.76% of the Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek New Testament if put all in one place.
3). Substantial Variation.
Hort claims, "the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation (from the TR) is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text." Accordingly, this would be 140 words, or a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament.
At best, Hort’s estimates are confusing. Dr. Waite, who documented the equivalent of 45.9 pages of changes in the Westcott-Hort text, flatly rejects Hort's principles and calculations of the changes. He observes the following:
"It is Hort's last estimate that has been seized by his modern day puppets and grossly distorted in order to fool people into thinking that the problem is very tiny, when in reality, it is much, much larger!" Dr Waite then adds, "Hort's pupils are either knowingly or unknowingly misquoting their teacher. They want to make the differences in the Greek texts very, very slight so as to minimize the arguments against the false Westcott and Hort-types Greek text."
I don't like to admit it, but for a time I was misled by reports minimizing the changes between the modern versions and the King James Version. Although I continued using my KJV, the claims of those promoting these modern versions caused me to be indecisive on the issue. If someone had asked me during that time to recommend a bible I would probably have responded, "It doesn’t really matter, just pick out one you like." Looking back, I now realize the mischief being caused by those promoting these unreliable versions.
Trends In Bible Translation
Verbal and Formal Equivalence
The historic purpose of scripture translation has been to bring the words of scripture from the original language across to the target language, which for us is English. The question is, How is this best done? Historically, the method used was Verbal and Formal Equivalence. Dr. D.A. Waite explains:
| "Verbal equivalence means that the very word, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the grammar. They didn't take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper concept of what "translation" really is. It comes from ‘translatus’ which in turn comes from two Latin words, trans ('across') and latus which is the past participle of fero (to carry). It means to "carry across” from one place to another, or from one language to another. It does not seek to CHANGE, or to ADD, or to SUBTRACT!" [from:The Four-fold Superiority of The King James Version] |
Dynamic Equivalence
The 1881 Revision Committee took the task of translation in a new direction. Their first step was to favor the Minority Text and thus break away from accepted historical restraints. By their rejection of the Traditional Text they demonstrated they had assumed a new role-- that of finding God's word. Given the liberties they allowed themselves, it is little wonder that subsequent revisionists have taken the liberty to go a step further. This second step introduces the technique of dynamic equivalence which, 1st). gives the revisionist unwarranted liberties as a 'commentator' and 'corrector', and 2nd). effectively promotes an attitude of irreverence for God's word by using contemporary language. When Revisers implement the technique of dynamic equivalence predictable results occur. Dr D A Waite observes:
| The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to ADD to God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God" Words (which is sin), or to CHANGE God" Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest possible CURSE on anyone who dares to do any of those three things to God" Words!! Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para ("along side or beside') and phrasis ("a word or phrase'). It means to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning it is to state something in other words. [from: The Four-fold Superiority of The King James Version] |
Equivalent Effect
The third step of this post-modern trend has been called equivalent effect. I borrow the term from Jakob van Bruggen who comments on the philosophy of modern translators. Bruggen is quoted in J.P. Green's Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol.2, p301:
"The tendency towards modern usage results from the attempt by translators to achieve an equivalent effect. This is a new factor in Bible translation. Formerly the central question was, WHAT one translated, today the central question is, for whom is one translating.... today the emphasis is on how the message is connected with its receptor, whether the receptor be an individual or a group. The message must be adapted to the listener in his own situation. The message must be encoded in such a way that the receptors may decode it 'within the limits of their channel capacity'."
Do you understand what Jakob van Bruggen is saying? Today's Revisers choose a 'target audience' within the category of English speaking people, then construct a version adapted for that target group. Friends, the Comic Book Version is not that far off... its coming. Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "dumbing down America"? This phrase refers to the results being achieved by forces at work in America's educational institutions. Just mark-it-down, regardless how uneducated school graduates become, our modern Revisers will see to it that they have a "bible" tailored to their moral and academic level.
The King James Version has a lasting and honorable legacy of assisting the common man to rise above himself and his circumstances. The historical circumstances which brought it to us were attended by the providence of God in remarkable ways. It has been honored by God to be instrumental in the conversion of thousands, producing genuine revivals wherever the English language is spoken. It has been used by educators, not only to teach the young how to read, but also to serve as an example of English in its best possible form. The language, the style, and the form of a book reflect the qualities and characteristics of its author, and none do it so well and so nobly as the King James Version of the English Bible.
http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen