King James Bible or
NOT King James Bible?
By Stephen M Golden
Copyright © 8 February 2009, April 14,
2022
Some issues with the King James Version
Other Versions are not Without Error
Should
Christians use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively as the only
correct translation? Some believers
assert the only version or translation that should be used by Christians is the
King James Version. They call it the
“Authorized Version,” as if God authorized it.
Many of them don’t realize that God did not authorize
it. King James authorized it as a
response to the Geneva Bible which undermined the doctrine “that kings had been
ordained by God to rule the nations of the world, to promote justice, and to
dispense wisdom. It was, therefore,
imperative that kings should be respected and obeyed unconditionally and in all
circumstances. The ample notes provided by the Geneva Bible taught otherwise.
Tyrannical kings should not be obeyed; indeed, there were excellent reasons for
suggesting that they should be overthrown.”[1]
The King
James Version is certainly not without error.
In the
case of Philippians 3:11, the NIV comes closer to the original meaning of the
Greek:
Philippians
3:11 and so, somehow, to attain to the
resurrection from the dead. NIV
The King
James Version says:
Philippians
3:11 If by any means I might attain unto
the resurrection of the dead. KJV
This is
incorrect and leads to a common misunderstanding of the resurrection.
If Christ is coming to raise the
righteous 1000 years before the unrighteous, it would be natural and imperative
that the former should be called a resurrection from the dead, or out of the
dead, —the rest of the dead are left.
W. E. Blackstone relates that the
resurrection nekron
or ton nekron
(of the dead) is applied to both classes because all will be raised. But the resurrection ek nekron (out of the dead) is not once
applied to the ungodly. The latter
phrase is used 49 times, always with the idea of out of the dead.
Philippians 3:11 is used in a
remarkably significant manner. The NIV
renders it ‘resurrection from the dead,’ which is closer to the meaning than
the KJV which renders it ‘resurrection of the dead.” The Greek preposition ek is used in duplicate form.
The phrase is teen exanastasin teen ek nekron,
and the literal translation is “the out
resurrection from among the dead.”
This particular construction gives special
emphasis that this is the resurrection “out from among the dead.”[2]
“From
the dead” agrees with Jesus’ statement in Luke 20:35.
“But
they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection
from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: ”
The King
James Version misses the same opportunity as almost all other versions in
Mt.14:27:
But
straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it
is I; be not afraid.
It
should read “I AM”.
The
Greek is the same as in Jn.8:58
Jesus
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
“I AM”
is a claim to deity. It is the name for
God the Jews would not say. It is the
same as the tetragrammaton: YHWH.
In 2021,
on GAB, I encountered a group of false teachers who say Jesus is NOT God, and
that in this verse, there should be no comma.
They try to say Jesus was saying that before Abraham existed, God
existed. That’s nonsense on its face as
that concept was never in question by Jesus’ audience.
If you
remove the comma, grammatically, you have an incomplete sentence. “Before Abraham was
I am…” A what? Abraham was a what before
he was I am? If
you then say the “I am” is YHWH, you’re saying, “Before Abraham was YHWH.” The
sentence is incomplete. Without the comma the sentence stops abruptly before a
complete statement is made. Commas are
important.
For
example:
“Let’s
eat Grandma.” versus
“Let’s
eat, Grandma.”
or
“I love
cooking my family and my pets.” versus
“I love
cooking, my family, and my pets.”
and
“Rachel
Ray finds inspiration in cooking her family and her dog.” versus
“Rachel
Ray finds inspiration in cooking, her family, and her dog.”
Strong’s
number 3438. μονή monē; from 3306; an abiding,
an abode:—abode(1), dwelling places(1).
John 14:2
[2] In my Father's house are many
mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to
prepare a place for you.
This is
one of the aberrations of the King James Version that was inserted for the same
reason King James authorized the King James Version to be written. As a response to the newly released Geneva
Bible which cast doubt on the “Divine Right of Kings,” the word Mansion was
likely used to diffuse the anger of the people in that the king is wealthy on
the poverty of the people. The thought
being that in Heaven you will receive your reward, including a mansion, so don’t
begrudge the wealth God has given your king in this world.
There is
no other reason to have translated this Greek word as “mansion.” The word means “abode” or “dwelling
place.” The idea Jesus is presenting is
that there is room for all in His Father’s house.
Strong’s
number 371. ἀναξίως anaxiōs; adv. from 370; in an
unworthy manner:—unworthy manner(1).
1
Corinthians 11:27 and 29
[27] Wherefore
whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[29] For he
that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
This is
either our misunderstanding of 1611/1789 English or an egregious error on the
part of the King James Version Translators.
None of us is worthy of the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has done for
us. But we can hold his memory in
proper regard and examine our lives accordingly.
Were
Mary and Joseph sent away from an Inn?
Strong’s
number 2646. κατάλυμα kataluma; from 2647 (in the
sense of to lodge); a lodging place:—guest room(2), inn(1).
Luke 2:7
[7] And she
brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid
him in a manger; because there was no room for them in
the inn.
Mary and Joseph didn’t seek a room at an Inn. The taxation
decree required Joseph to travel to the town of his lineage. They would likely
have gone to a relative’s house in Bethlehem. The word translated as “Inn”
should be “guest room,” the upper room of the house.
Most versions make this error also. This is one case where translators have
consistently failed us, being biased by their own preconceived ideas. It is possible the King James Version placed
the incorrect notion in subsequent translators’ minds, and most were not
willing to challenge it. The word is the
same word Jesus used in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11 when He instructed His disciples to find a “guest room” to
eat the Passover.
Mark 14:14
[14] Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' [15] He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”
Luke
22:11-12
[11] and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where
is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' [12] He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
This guest room (or upper room) is where family guests would stay when they
arrived from out of town. This was the cultural norm of the time. So, they
weren’t turned away from an Inn and Jesus wasn’t born in a stable.
See Answers in Genesis: “Born in a Barn?”
Isa.14:29
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina,
because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for
out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be
a fiery flying serpent.
Palestina
is incorrect: Should have either been Phillistia or “pelesheth” which means “rolling in dust”.
The word
“whale” should not appear in the Bible.
It appears in the King James Version four times. Three times in the Old Testament (Hebrew) and
one time in the New Testament (Greek). Each
time, the word should have been translated “sea monster.”
8577. תַּנִּין tannin (1072c);
from the same as 8565 ; serpent, dragon, sea monster :—dragon(2),
monster(3), sea monster(1), sea monsters(3), serpent(3), serpents(2).
Some
translators used “huge fish,” or “great fish,” which is at least more
acceptable than “whale.” There was no
reason for the KJV translators to use “whale,” except perhaps that they rejected
the idea of sea monsters.
Genesis
7:12
[21] And
God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged
fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The
correct translation should be “sea monsters.”
Ezekiel
32:2
[2] Son
of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou
art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and
thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.
The
correct translation should be “monster in the sea.”
Job
7:12
[12] Am
I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over
me?
The
correct translation should be “sea monster.”
[40] For
as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth.
2785. κῆτος kētos ; a prim.
word; a huge fish :—sea monster(1).
The
correct translation should be “sea monster,” “huge
fish,” or “great fish.”
Genesis
37:3
[3] Now
[3] Now
Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born
to him in his old age; and he made a richly ornamented robe or him. (NIV)
[3] Now
Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of
his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors.
*[See Septuagint,
Vulgate; or (with Syriac) a robe with long sleeves. The meaning of the
Hebrew is uncertain; also verses 23, 32][See Septuagint, Vulgate; or (with
Syriac) a robe with long sleeves. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain; also
verses 23,32] (ESV)
[3] And
Israel hath loved Joseph more than any of his sons, for he is a son of
his old age, and hath made for him a long coat;
(YLT)
[3] Now
Most
misunderstand this verse to mean a coat of different hues. However, in the 17th century, “colours” meant features or folds.
There
are other discrepancies with the King James Version. I hope to add to this document as God
permits.
The
biggest problem I see with the King James Version is that it is a foreign
language. What’s the point of having a
translation if it’s not in your language?
We don’t speak 18th Century English, and since that is the
case, we misunderstand many things that were translated correctly and easily
understood for the people of that age.
However, much of the King James Version requires translation for our
understanding today.
The best
choice is to keep several versions open whenever you study the Bible, as well
as a Greek and Hebrew dictionary nearby.
I use Pocket
Bible: Multiple versions simultaneously and
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.
It runs on Windows, Android, and iOS.
“The
extent to which the Word of God is incoherent to us is the extent to which it
is no use to us.”
—God
of the Possible, Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, Baker Books, Second Printing July
2000, p.92
After Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah were thrown into the fiery furnace, they looked in, and saw four
men inside.
KJV
[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.
NIV
[25] He said,
“Look. I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the
fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
None of the many other versions I have
seen say “Son of God” in this passage.
What’s more, The Persians were not likely to know anything about the Son
of God, but King James’ scholars did.
So, this is yet another place where the King James Version is suspect.
I’d like
to mention that no versions are without errors or anomalies. For example, comparing the 1995 New American
Standard Bible (NASB) with the 1961 New American Standard Version (NASV), we
see a few issues right off the bat.
(Note: the
NASB is not the NASV.)
The NASB
does not contain the “vile footnotes” regarding “oldest and best manuscripts”
which refer to Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus which are both corrupt documents. They are very old. However, the only reason they survived in
their old state is because the monks who transcribed manuscripts rejected them
because they were corrupt. Unfortunately, the manuscripts they preferred
became worn out through use in making more manuscripts. Vaticanus
was found in a back room of a monastery, away from the other manuscripts and Sinaiticus
was found in a trash pile in preparation for burning. So while Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus are indeed two of the oldest manuscripts that have been
found, they are by far two of the worst manuscripts to cite, having visible
alterations and deleted passages.
Jn.9:38 The
NASV has a footnote: worship of creature or creator
Another
footnote in the NASV seems to reject Jesus’ eternal existence:
John 1:30 NASV -
"After me cometh a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before
me." A footnote reads, "lit. has become before
me."
The KJV
seems to be more correct in Rom.14:10
“…we shall all stand before the judgement seat of
Christ.”
Compare
that with 2Cor.5:10, which is consistent.
In the
NASV Matthew 27:54 says “a son of God.” The newer NASB does not have this questionable
phrasing. Even so, this statement was
made by the centurion, so it doesn’t really detract from Jesus’ deity.