Comment: I did not write this article: but I did write the statement here
I am almost sad that we hole the KJV as God’s only way of getting out the Word of God, like He is not able to accomplish His will and salvation of the elect by another translation.
Over the last 45 years many have disagreed that the various translations have come out of the hands of the devil, and have taken issues with any translations other than the KJV. Some have gone as far as to say, if you don’t use the KJV you are not preaching the Word of God. Some go as far as to say that the Greek was translated by the KJV. Some have said you should not preach if you use another translation. Some just say if you don’t use KJV I want listen to you preach.
Here is one of these comments:
If someone decides to produce a “new Bible version”, then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these “revisions”. The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisors are just trying to justify their sins!
There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren’t even “revisions”.
The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.
The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.
Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600’s!
Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.
There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid–or both. The many other so-called “revisions” of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). So if some punk walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks you, “So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?”, you can simply state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
And this was one of the response the the article about KJV
It must be noted though that the KJV translators weren’t KJV Only. They would not have a problem with new translations, in fact they probably anticipated that would happen.
They would have been open to new translations as the English language changed. This is what they said in their letter to the reader in the first edition.
“Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?”
This statement is important because they never considered their translation the be all, end all in English translations. They anticipated revision and change. They even said if theirs needed it, then it should be changed. If they didn’t think they get it 100% right, why are we so arrogant to say they did. Do we know better than they did? Are we more spiritual than they were? I choose to respect what they said about their own translation.
They didn’t consider themselves infallible or inspired. By putting in 8000 marginal notes, they admitted they could be wrong and therefore gave alternate readings.
“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scripture for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.”
They felt we should all have a translation in our own language.
, “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”
This is important too. They never considered their English to be all, end all. They would want you and me to understand the Bible. So a translation that is 400 years old that has a different style of English that many people struggle with, that has hundreds of words that have either changed meaning or we just don’t use anymore isn’t helping anybody if they can’t understand it.
“There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremp- torily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption”
There has been justification for new translations. More discoveries of manuscripts have happened since 1611 and English has changed a lot. However, if you like the KJV and that’s how God speaks to you, please continue to use it. However, please don’t judge my or anybody else’s orthodoxy and salvation because we use a different translation besides the old KJV.