 |
|
|
REASONS THE KJV IS SUPERIOR TO ALL
Outstanding Credentials of the KJV's TranslatorsAlexander McClure and Gustafus Paine have both written excellent biographies of the men who translated the King James Bible.These biographies document the fact that the KJV translators were scholarly and godly men. They lived separated lives and they were orthodox in doctrine. And all of them showed reverence for the divine authorship of God's Word and God's promise to preserve His Word.
The King James Bible was translated by men like Lancelot Andrews who wrote Greek devotionals. Lancelot Andrews was an Oriental language expert. He was conversant in fifteen languages. Most new version translators have had only a couple years of Greek, a couple years of Hebrew and might have taken Spanish or French in high school. Lancelot Andrews was conversant in fifteen languages.
Another great man who translated the King James Bible was William Bedwell. Bedwell was an Arabic scholar. He revived the Arabic language. It was about to die, and he literally revived it. William Bedwell wrote an Arabic to English Lexicon. A lexicon is a dictionary that will give the Arabic word and its definition in English. A Greek Lexicon gives the Greek word and its definition in English. William Bedwell wrote the Arabic Lexicon that is still in use today. Go to the library and if they happen to have an Arabic Lexicon it will probably be the one that William Bedwell wrote.
Miles Smith also helped to translate the King James Bible. However, he is better known as the man who translated all the writings of the church fathers into English. Most of the English translations of the church fathers which are still in print today are the translation of Miles Smith. If he was able to translate the church fathers correctly, and the liberals don't have to rewrite that, it should be a safe assumption that he also translated the King James Bible correctly.
John Boyce was a translator of the King James Bible. At the age of five, he could read the entire Hebrew Bible. At the age of six, he was considered a Hebrew scholar and was teaching the Hebrew language to adults.
These are only a few of the men who translated the King James Bible. Not some guys who had two years of Hebrew and/or Greek at a liberal seminary, but qualified men who wrote lexicons and who taught Hebrew at the age of six.
KJV Translators Were Better Aquainted With Biblical LanguagesIn the time of the King James Version the Greek, Oriental, and Hebrew languages were studied with intensity. In our day, Greek, Oriental and Hebrew languages are something that you take one or two semesters of in college. Not only were the men who translated the KJV closer to the languages than we are, they lived in the time when there was an intensive study of the languages that just does not exist today.
In the time of the King James translators, they wrote the lexicons for ancient languages. In our day, we use many of the lexicons that they wrote.
New Versions Translated By Wicked MenThe new versions had men like Westcott and Hort, who wrote the eclectic Greek text, which was published by McMillan in 1881. They also headed up the translation committee of the first "modern" English version, the English Revised Version. Westcott and Hort were involved in the occult. They were warlocks. They founded the Ghostly Guild. They believed that the first few chapters of Genesis and the entire book of Revelation were a fairy tale. Westcott and Hort were even spokesmen for beer advertisements in England. These are the fathers of modern Bible translations.
The textbook that has taught all modern version translators how to approach the Bible has been Introduction to the New Testament by guess who? The two beer advertising, Satan worshiping, communicating with the dead, you guessed it: Westcott and Hort. Liberal professors, who didn't believe the book they were translating. If the modern translator did not cut his teeth with Westcott and Hort's, Introduction To The New Testament, they did so by reading another book that was written by others who hold to the same philosophy and who are basically rehashing the same book.
The first of the modern translations to be counted as credible in evangelical and fundamental circles was the J.B. Phillips translation. J.B. Phillips used to sit on his couch at night, in his living room, and talk to the dead ghost of C.S. Lewis. The dead C.S. Lewis sat on J.B. Philips' couch and told him what to put in the Phillips' translation. Well, that has to be a good translation, with a godly man like C.S. Lewis coming back from the dead to help him in the translation effort. These are the kind of yo-yo's who translate the modern Bibles.
Kenneth Taylor, the translator of the Living Bible had such a foul mouth that the publishers had to rewrite the Living Bible before they could print it because of all of the profanity in it.
New Versions Translated By Cultists and HereticsThe new versions are often translated by lost men. If they claim to be Christian, they are ecumenical, Catholic, Charismatic, Cambellite, Millerite or some other kind of "ite." Most of them believe very weak if not totally erroneous doctrine and very few of them are ever committed to the doctrines of the inspiration and the preservation of Scripture. Even if they claim to believe in the inspiration of Scripture, they do not believe that God literally dictated every word of the Bible. Instead, they believe that in superintendence God probably oversaw the process but He did not give the Apostles and prophets each individual word.
Just look at the listing of the translators for the new versions and you will find Catholics on the board of editors. You will also find Pentecostals, Charismatics, Campbellites, Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. All of these cultic groups are involved in the translations of the modern versions. As you read the preface to the new versions you will find occult leaders, Catholic leaders, ecumenical leaders, apostate Methodist leaders, every kind of leader under the sun. These are the people who translate modern so-called Bibles.
Popular New Version Translated By SodomitesOne of the primary English "stylists" of the NIV was Virginia Mollenkott. Virginia Molenkott has been a known lesbian since 1962. Virginia Mollenkott was sent, in her own words, "swatches" of texts, often whole books at a time, so that she could approve and finalize word choices. She was a lesbian.
When Zondervan and the United Bible Society, the publishers and copyright holders of the New International Version were questioned about why Virginia Mollenkott, a known lesbian, was on the the translation team they said that they did not know she was a lesbian until after they had already printed the NIV. Well, that is not exactly true because in 1962 she officially came out of the closet. She was teaching at a state university on the east coast in 1962 and started a group for lesbian students on the campus.She served as a faculty sponsor for the group and was actively involved in it. She had publicly declared herself to be a lesbian.
But just in case the folks at Zondervan and the United Bible Society didn't know about that, it is a matter of record that in 1978 the late Dr. Bob Jones Jr., then president of Bob Jones University in Greensville, South Carolina, sent a letter to Zondervan and the United Bible Society in which he informed them that Virginia Mollenkott had taught language at Bob Jones University in the 1950's and was dismissed for attempting to seduce their female students into lesbian affairs. So they received a letter from the president of a large Christian university telling them that she was a lesbian and they ignored that letter. Then, they tell us these years later that they did not know she was a lesbian until after they had already printed the NIV.
Information exists from Mr. Michael Penfold in the UK which gives detailed documentation regarding Dr. Martin H. Woudstra who was the chairman of the NIV's Old Testament Committee. It has now come to light that Dr. Woudstra was also queer. For the sake of fairness, this information has surfaced after Dr. Woudstra's death, so it is possible that the UBS and Zondervan did not know that he was a queer.With a queer Old Testament Translation Committee chairman (Dr. Woudstra) overseeing the translation effort, and, a queer English language "stylist" (Ms. Mollenkott) finalizing the word choices, it is no wonder that the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" have been removed from the NIV.
Some New Version Translators Used A Nazi LexiconSome of the New Versions were translated by using Kittle's Lexicon of New Testament Words. Mr. Kittle was a Nazi and he was a member of Hitler's cabinet. Mr. Kittle's job was to produce a translation of the Bible that would convince German Lutherans to send German Jews to the gas chamber. Since the NIV translators and other new version translators relied on Kittle's lexicon to determine word choices in their versions, and since they relied almost exclusively upon Kittle's lexicon, one could follow the stream of logic to its ultimate conclusion and say that the NIV and other new versions are Nazi Bibles.
New Version Translators Become the Strongest KJV AdvocatesMost new version translators do not believe that God literally spoke every word of the Bible or that He promised to preserve every word, word for word. They simply feel they need to convey the "message" of the Bible. However, there are some who do believe in the inspiration of Scripture and they always end up walking away from their new version and embracing the King James Version.
The first of these men was Dean John William Burgon. Burgon worked with Westcott and Hort on the English Revised Version. He stayed with the committee throughout the entire translation effort, and upon its completion, he wrote a series of articles and books explaining why Westcott and Hort and the other members of the English Revised Version used a faulty text and faulty methods, and why the King James Bible was perfect.
Dean Bergon's writings persuaded the people of England to reject Westcott and Hort and to reject the English Revised Version. His writings have caused many scholars in America to reject the Westcott/Hort text at least in name. And that is why they had to come up with the Nestle's text as a means of deceiving us fundamentalists into thinking that they were not translating from the Westcott/Hort text.
The first modern English Bible to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. I previously mentioned that Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.
Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:
Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible. Kenneth Taylor told his psychotherapist years later that the reason why his life had been plagued was because he had perverted the Word of God. He died believing the KJV was the true Bible.I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception? Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.Jerry Fallwell and Curtis Hutson, both are independent Baptists, both sat on the translation committee of the New King James version, and both asked that their names be removed from the board of editors listing. Although Jerry Fallwell has not gone so far as to ban the new versions at Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church, hardly a sermon goes by that Jerry Fallwell does not make this statement. "For those of you who are reading from a lesser version…" Having seen the process used by modern version translators Jerry Fallwell has properly concluded that the King James Bible is the superior Bible and the others are "lesser versions."
Archaic Words? Yes, Archaic Words!Yes, you read right. Archaic words are a reason why the King James Bible is superior. Many in our day complain that there are archaic words in the King James Bible. This is one reason they give to support the retranslation of the Bible. They claim that we need to retranslate the archaic words to make them understandable in our generation.
What they often do not realize is that most of those archaic words found in the KJV were archaic in 1611 when they were chosen. The translators understood that the they could not honestly call their translation the "Word of God" unless it were completely accurate. Therefore, they used archaic, out of date words that people would have to look up in a dictionary because the more "modern" and "easier to understand" words would have resulted in an inaccurate translation. They made this decision because they, unlike modern translators, believed that God wrote the very words. The King James Bible translators could have mistranslated using words that would have been easily understood, but instead, they choose to use the very words of God.
Archaic Words and All, the KJV Is the Easiest To Read.Many in our day say, "Well, we have to have a new version, because we have to have a Bible that we can understand today. The children struggle with the King James. We need something easy for them to understand. Bla...Bla...Bla..."
This simply is not true. Harvard University analyzed various versions of the Bible, and they found the King James Bible was written at an 6th grade reading level. They found the NIV was written at the eleventh grade reading level. And all the other versions would require a college education for a complete comprehension. That is right, the Living Bible requires a college education for complete comprehension. Any sixth grader can read the King James Bible.
Also, the new versions have many more multi-type syllable words than does the KJV. They also have several more words that are three and four syllables than does the KJV.
Using the Fleisher/Kincaid Scale, Harvard University determined that the King James Bible is the easiest of all the Bibles in the English language to read.
Thee, Thou, Thy, YeAnother reason is the fact that the King James Bible uses the archaic words, "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye." Some show their own stupidity by claiming not to understand the meaning of these words.
The truth is that the ordinary Englishman did not use these words in the common, every day, language of 1611 when the KJV was translated. So why the choice of "thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye?" "Thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye" all mean "you." So why not just say "you?" Because "you" can be either singular or it can be plural.
There are times when the reader can not properly understand the meaning of a passage unless he knows for sure if the personal pronoun "you" is addressed to an individual or to a group. Usually, this can be determined by the context of the passage. Other times it can not. By using "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye" instead of "you" the KJV insures that the reader is never in doubt as to who a statement is addressed to.
For reference, all of the personal pronouns that start with the letter "T" are singular and all personal pronouns that start with "Y" are plural. So that would mean that "thee," "thou," and "thy" are singular while the pronoun "ye" is plural.
GOD, LORD, God, LordThe Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts refer to God by three different Hebrew names. The first is Elohim, it appears approximately 2,500 times in the Hebrew. The second is Jehovah which appears about 7,000 times. The third name is Adonai which appears around 300 times.
Elohim means "The Strong and Powerful God" or the "Almighty God." Also, the name Elohim is unique because it is a plural word that is used to describe a singular entity. This is because God is a trinity; i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Whenever the Old Testament Hebrew text adresses God by the name Elohim the King James translators use the English name "God." So whenever you see the name "God" spelled with a capitol "G" and a lower case "od" you know the Hebrew contained the name Elohim.
Elohim is a descriptive name. God's proper name is Jehovah. Whenever the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah the King James translators would use the English names "LORD" or "GOD." So whenever you see the names "LORD" or "GOD" in all capitol letters you know that the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah.
A third name used for God was Adonai which means "master" or "soveriegn." The King James always translates Adonai with the name "Lord." So whenever you see the name "Lord" with a capitol "L" and a lower case "ord" you know that the Hebrew contained the name Adonai.
An illustration of this is Joshua 7:7, "And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord GOD, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!" Understanding the names of God we can understand that in the Hebrew this passage reads, "And Joshua said, Alas, O sovereign Master Jehovah, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to the strong and powerful Almighty Triune God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!"
There are also times when the Hebrew names Elohim and Adonai refered to pagan deities. In these cases the KJV translators translated "god" and "lord" in all lower case. This was to distinguish the times these names were used to refer to Jehovah and when they were used in reference to a pagan idol.
The new versions simply do not pay this necessary attention to detail. This is important because each name has a significant meaning and that is the reason why the Hebrew's used three different names for God. To translate all three DIFFERENT names in the haphazard fashion of the new versions results in the alteration of the context of several passages. With the King James Bible, the Hebrew name used for God and the resultant context are always clear.
ItalicsWhenever you translate from one language to another there will be times when the words do not flow as well in the second language as they did in the original language. When this happens, translators will often insert a word and/or words into a phrase so that the phrase will read better. Whenever the KJV translators added a word in this fashion they always placed the added word in italics. They did this so the English reader would know that that particular word was not in the Greek or the Hebrew.
An example of this would be John 3:30, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Notice that the word "must" is in italics. This indicates that the word "must" was not in the original Greek but was rather added by the KJV translators.
In the new versions, italics are not used. When the new version translators insert words into the text they make no effort whatsoever to seperate THEIR ADDITION from the rest of the text. Therefore, the reader of a new version does not know that the word was not in the original text. The unsuspecting reader will then read the words of men and assume them to be the words of God. This will never happen when you read the KJV because the words of the translators are seperated from the words of God as contained in the original by the use of italics.
The italicized words in the KJV never alter the meaning of the text. They serve only as enhancers which cause the text to flow better in the English language. Nontheless, the translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest (and to avoid the plagues of Revelaton 22) set these words apart by placing them in italics. The translators of the new versions are not honest enough to do this. Instead, THEIR words are printed as equal with God's words.
Perfect MeterAnother reason the King James Bible is to be preferred is because it has a perfect meter. The King James Bible is written short/long, short/long, short/long. "Thy word / have I hid in my heart / that I / might not sin against thee." Short/long, short/long. Why? So that you can memorize it. Just try and memorize the New International Version. You would be surprised at how many seminary professors who hate the King James, and who normally reject its use, will allow students to memorize out of the King James. They do this because they understand it is much easier to memorize out of the King James than it is to memorize out of any other version. By the end of the first semester, all of the students normally memorize from the King James because they realize it is the easiest to memorize from.Why? Because it has a meter. The NIV does not have a meter. The American Standard doesn't have a meter. The Living Bible doesn't have a meter.
The Bible commands us, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word" Psalm 119:9. The Bible says we should "meditate therein day and night" Joshua 1:8. The Bible says "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee" Psalm 119:11. The key to success is Bible memorization.
The King James Bible is easy to memorize while the new versions are nearly impossible to memorize. I almost wonder if they are doing this on purpose to discourage future generations from memorizing the Word of God.
The KJV Is UnchangedEvery popular new version has undergone major revision. The American Standard was updated to the New American Standard. The New American Standard has now been revised again. Each time, several words were changed.
Also, the NIV has undergone a few different revisions. Each revision has resulted in new wording.
Purchase a copy of the NIV, NASV, LIV, or any of a number of other popular new versions and compare them to the originally published version of the same translation and you will see many words have changed. Then, buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same.
Many have claimed that since the KJV was "revised" several times between 1611 and 1769 that is why it was again necessary to "revise" it in 1881, 1901, 1981, etc. However, in using this logic, the new version advocates misrepresent the facts.
None of the "revisions" of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 resulted in the addition, subtraction, and or replacement of one word.
At one point the KJV was "revised" to add marginal notes but this did not change the text at all. Another "revision" was made to reflect the addition of the letter "S" to the English alphabet. This revision resulted in the word "Psalms" being changed from "Pfalms" to "Psalms" and other similar changes. Obviously, the wording did not change. A similar revision took place when the letter "J" was added to our alphabet.
The biggest revision took place when spelling was standardized in the English language. This resulted in over 20,000 changes. However, the examples given will illustrate that not one word was changed: "asswaged" was changed to "assuaged," "mortar" was changed to "morter," "plaister" to "plaster," "grashoppers" to "grasshoppers," "cuckow" to "cockoo," "flotes" to "floats," "soape" to "soap," etc.
So whereas a "revision" by modern translators means that you have to change hundreds of words, the word changes in all of the new versions adds up to far more than 20,000 changes, the "revisions" in the King James Bible have not resulted in a single word change. The King James Bible in print today is the "revised" edition of 1769. Take away the marginal notes (which are not a part of the text anyway) and take into consideration the difference in spelling and you will have the King James Bible of 1611. EVERY WORD is the SAME. Had the new version translators got it right the first time, as did the KJV translators, their would not be a need for them to continously revise their work and change the wording.
For the record, the New King James (NKJV) is not simply a 1980's revivion of the 1769 KJV. It is a complete adulteration of the text. Many words were changed and the result is that the NKJV reads more like a NASV than it does a KJV. The NKJV should not be considered to be a KJV!!
Even the World Rejects the New VersionsFor 300 years if you asked Joe Smuck on the street what the Word of God was he would tell you it was the Bible. And the Bible he would have in mind would have been the King James Bible. Even today most people still consider the KJV to be THE Bible. The average person in the English speaking world has not accepted the new versions.
In fact, many lost people loose respect for Christians because they feel that if we really loved the Bible we would not re-write it every six months. This is because in their mind the KJV is the Word of God and the new versions are unneeded perversions of God's Book. It would appear that Joe Smuck has more spiritual wisdom in this matter than does Dr. Seminary Chairman.
Additionally, many secular commentators are writing to warn Christians to stop re-writing the Word of God lest it result in the end of Christianity as we know it, the demoralizing of American culture, etc. While every denomination in America is re-writing the Bible to make it more "teen friendly;" TIME and NEWSWEEK are begging them to stop confusing wayward youth with 120 "versions" and just go back to the Bible that built our country and made it great.
"Christianity's" continous re-writing of the Bible has not made it so that more people will understand and therefore read the Bible. Instead, the multitude of "versions" has resulted in the a bad testimony to the world that has caused multitudes to reject the Bible and Christianity altogether. This is another folly of the new version crowd which the media is often quick to point out in its commentary on Christianity.
Time does not allow us to quote from a number of magazines and newspapers. But here is one for the sake of illustration: "If no one any longer reads the same words on the same page, on what basis will people talk to and understand each other? Will easy-read Bibles, rendering ancient mysteries and miracles in sitcom terms, inspire awe or channel surfing?" (TIME, 9/9/96)
And one more, this one was from the Wall Street Journal, "To tamper with the King James Bible, based on some imagined manuscript evidence, is like adjusting Big Ben to somebody's private wrist watch."
New Versions Hinder Missionary ActivityThe new version trend is no longer a strictly American problem. Organizations like the United Bible Society and Wycliffe Bible Translators are going around the world and replacing reliable, Textus Receptus based, foriegn translations with garbage translations based on Nestle's text. Often, they will raise the money for this by implying that these nations do not have the Bible in their language, when infact, they have had it for 100+ years.
Unfortunately, when a country is hit with a new version the natives usually loose all respect for Christian missionaries and the gospel. Often, the introduction of a new version into a country will undo in a few months to a year the works that have taken several generations of missionary work to build. This is especially true in the arabic world.
One example is in Egypt where Egyptian preachers report that they are always asked by the locals, "Why do you have so many different versions of the Bible?" It does not matter how "intelligent" sounding their answer is, no amount of "scholarship" will help them here. These Egyptian people are not getting saved for one reason, that is, in their own words: "Bible translations contradict each other, how can we believe the Bible? The Koran always says the same thing."
Folks, the new versions are sending precious Egyptian people to Hell. And they are also sending people right here in America to Hell. We can not expect to win people to a religion whose book can not be trusted. And in this country everyone trusted the Bible until around the turn of the century (the exact time so-called Christian "scholars" started re-writing it).
KJV Old Testament Is the Jewish StandardJewish scholars in Jerusalem and throughout Israel use the King James Bible as the primary Hebrew to English lexicon. Whenever a Jewish scholar wants to translate a word from Hebrew to English, their Hebrew to English dictionary is the King James Bible. They will look to see how the word they wish to translate was translated in the Old Testament of the King James Bible and then they will translate into the same English word that was chosen by the King James translators.
Orthodox Jews who live in the United States use the King James version of the Old Testament when they want to read the Bible in English. When you go to Israel, the tour guides use the King James Bible. If you ask one why he does not use a modern version of the Bible, he may laugh at you. He will tell you it is because the modern versions are based upon Hebrew texts that were written by heretics, primarily the LXX and the Ben Asher text.
Because of this, whenever a Jew wants to read the New Testament, they will normally use the King James Bible on the assumption that if the KJV is the only reliable translation of the Hebrew it is probably the only reliable translation of the Greek. They don't even use the NIV to line birdcages in Jerusalem.
And these are but a few of the hundreds of arguments that could be given to prove that the KJV is the superior English Bible. Thank God! He has given me an innerant copy of His Word - The KING JAMES BIBLE! What do you have to read and study?