Why I No Longer Use the King James Version (KJV)

all right so today i would like to talk about a uh subject that's maybe not as important to everyone but uh i think it should be because um the king james version still does hold a lot of sway in our world today and this is certainly a version that i grew up with and you may be asking well why we why are we talking about the king james version well first of all when i when i typed into google the word bible you know you know what my first result was my first result was a advertisement for the king james version i mean it's the year 2020. the king james version came out in 1611 and yet to think that it's still in position one on google when i searched for it another search result on google was the website bible.com which is linked to the you version and the default for those and that most popular app on people's phones is the king james version uh it's always in the list of best-selling bibles and it is regularly in the top three and in fact i know so several people that use the king james version because uh not because they're wackos or weird but because they believe the king james version is the most accurate version so they're they're slogging through the old english and doing all the hard work because they believe the payoff is worth it and for some it may have something to do with the philosophy of life which i agree is generally true that harder is usually better but the king james version is not as good as a number of other translations and a lot of different churches and ministries and denominations have moved away from the king james version and they don't always really make it clear why the reason is behind the shift away from the king james version so i grew up with the king james loved it didn't really think there was any problem with it and um later on when i discovered that these easier to read versions were also more accurate i was just blown away and so i want to share with you some of the reasons why it um is not no longer i would say a good idea to to use the king james version why i personally don't use it uh really for anything not for study not for reference and certainly not as a measuring stick by which to uh rate other versions of the bible which i think for a lot of people becomes kind of like a standard they're like well the king james says this and the nasb or the esv or the niv or whatever says that and and they're using the king james as if it's some sort of measuring stick i don't think that's really a hopeful use of the king james version either so let's get into it shall we um here's our outline for today i want to look at very briefly some background of the king james version and then again into four main reasons why i no longer use it which is it has late manuscripts it has translation errors it has a limited lexicography that means an understanding of the original biblical languages and fourthly it has archaic vocabulary so let's uh see a little background about the king james version here all right so in the beginning of the king james in the prep preface it reads truly good christian reader and this is old english spelling so these are not typos they're just old english um we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation nor yet to make of a bad one a good one for the imputation of sixtus had been true in some sort that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better or out of many good ones one principle good one not justly to be accepted against that has been our endeavor that our mark so the goal according to the translators of the king james version is to make a good one better uh or out of many good ones one principle good one so the king james is a revision it is not a solo translation it's not going directly from the languages and bringing it to english it's actually revising what had previously been there and so here's a little history just ever so briefly really the genius behind english translations at least for starting this trend that culminates with the king james is william tyndale i mean there were a couple of others before him but he's really he's really the starting point for our focus here and after him coverdale came out with a bible which was mostly just tyndale and some extra parts added in because tyndale was executed before he could finish translating the bible fully then you had the matthew bible in 1537 the great bible in 1539 and then on the continent in switzerland you had the geneva bible in 1560 the bishop's bible revised the great bible and then the douay rheims bible was a catholic translation so you really have these three different streams you have like the mainstream from tyndale forward to the bishops bible and then you have somewhat independent streams of the geneva bible and the dway rheims bible which the king james then pulled upon all three of these streams of bible english bible translations and did a thorough work and obviously comparing it with the original languages but ultimately the king james is a revision of the bishops bible and the previous bibles going back to tyndale here so the 1769 version is what most of us think of as the king james today and that's because the original in 1611 when it came out uh used a very different spelling system i think i showed you some of the spelling of the original uh so that was updated in 1769 but they didn't change the name it's not called the kjvu the king james version updated it's just still called the king james version uh and other translations have done that the niv does that the esv does that they just update and they keep the same name so that happened in 1769 and really this version here that's what most of us think of when we are um referring to the king james version all right then we had a revision of the king james version 1769 called the revised version in 1881 and then a century later somebody some other group revi revised the king james version calling it the new king james version in 1982. then the revised version was revised in america called the american standard version of 1901 and then that was revised again and this time they call it the revised standard version of 1952 as well as the new american standard bible of 1971. a lot of people don't realize that the nasb the original was not a new translation it was a revision of the american standard version then the revised standard version was revised so they put a new out front called the new revised standard version in 1989 uh j.i packer and some others didn't like the nrsv especially the gender inclusive language so they came out with the esv they re-revised the revised standard version this is like who's on first and then uh certainly the new new american standard bible was updated in 1995. so um why did we need a new translation of the bible well the answer is simply because king james didn't like the geneva bible and here are some notes from the geneva bible that in particular he did not like exodus 1 19 and the geneva bible which had all these marginal notes said when the egyptian midwives disobey pharaoh's order it says their disobedience herein was lawful so i don't know about you but if you're if if you're the king right you don't want people going around with the bible that says good on the midwives in egypt for disobeying disobeying the king right because then what would happen people could say oh well we can disobey the king when we want to because look the bible endorses disobeying the king when you're going with your conscience so king james did not like that about the geneva bible furthermore in second kings 9 33 it says when jehu has queen jezebel throughout the window it calls it a spectacle and an example of god's judgments to all tyrants uh-oh you don't want throwing the queen out the window to be an example do you not if you're the king and then last of all second chronicles 15 16 when asa deposed his mother for idolatry it says herein he showed that he lacks zeal for she ought to have died so the geneva is saying man you really should kill off these royal people uh when they worship other gods and so on so for all these different reasons king james called the geneva bible which was the main most popular bible at the time let's see very partial untrue seditious this is pretty juicy right very partial untrue seditious and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits sorry i didn't do that with a english accent i'm limited in that respect there but uh that's that's what he said about the geneva bible and so what did king james do well he authorized a new version of the bible to be done as a competitor over against the geneva bible which he he considered to be an unauthorized version unauthorized for what for use in his country and for use in his churches the king at this time in england is the supreme head of all the churches so um if you have an unauthorized version it's not going to be allowed to be read in the churches of england so you authorize this new version and he got all these scholars together there were about 54 scholars who worked on it and to be honest i think they did a great job i think they were really really well researched well-intentioned people that did the best they could philip comfort who doesn't really even like the king james says the the following about it the translation went through several committees before it was finalized the scholars were instructed to follow the bishops bible as their basic version as long as it adhered to the original text and to consult the translations of tyndale matthew and coverdale as well as the great bible and the geneva bible when they appear to contain more accurate renderings of original languages here he goes on to say indeed the king james version has become an enduring monument of english prose because of its gracious style majestic language and poetic rhythms no other book has had such a tremendous influence on english literature and no other translation has touched so many lives of english-speaking people for centuries and centuries even until the present day so the king james version in my estimation was really an excellent version and for its time but it did have problems and so i'd like to take a look at some of those problems with you right now first off i want to talk to you about late manuscripts okay so this is really our focus for the first part of our critique here is the late manuscripts now here is a list of hebrew masoretic texts masoretic text is sort of like the mainstream manuscript tradition that survives to our day and what we can see here in the rightmost column is a little uh label that says available that means available to scholarship available to europeans typically you can see that the codex kyrensis the cairo codex which had a complete copy of the profits from the year 896 wasn't made available until the year 1983 the petersburg codex 1839 the london codex 1891 the aleppo codex which is considered to be the most accurate masoretic text on the planet uh 1958 is when it became available to scholarship uh the university of michigan torah 1922 the damascus pentateuch 1975 the leningrad codex upon which almost all old testaments are based today because it's a complete old testament is 1863 when that became available the university of bologna torres scroll wasn't available until 2013. so what did the king james people have available well they had this printed bible called the mikra mikra oat get a lot uh say that ten times fast right and so this was a printed rabbinic bible that they basically used and it's just not as old as you can see all of these right here are five or more centuries older than what the king james was based on but it's not like they did it they did this badly it just wasn't available look at all how much has happened in the 19th and 20th centuries for discovery of hebrew manuscripts furthermore earlier non-mesoretic sources or partial masoretic sources were also discovered such as this uh little scroll this little silver scroll category silver scroll which dates all the way back to the sixth century before christ just got the benediction from number six that didn't become available until 1979. the dead sea scrolls the greatest discovery of the 20th century when it comes to the old testament was not discovered until 1947 and not published until the 1990s then you had the nash papyrus in 1902 the ingetti scroll which uh wasn't even readable until 2016 and then the cairo geneza fragments which includes thousands tens of thousands of fragments of uh in some larger portions of the old testament wasn't available until the 19th century and to be honest they're still working their way through that in oxford to this day uh when we get to the new testament we have different sources we have the papyri the unseals the minuscules and the lectionaries and that's roughly in chronological order there is there is overlap but the papyri are the earliest manuscripts are all on papyrus paper um which is made from a reed by the nile in egypt and so the papyri uh are we have about 130 plus of those today and they are uh some of them date all the way back to the second century uh and third centuries and then you have the unseals these are the uh most famous codices or books of manuscripts and some of these the earliest uh date to the year 350 or so give or take then you have the minuscules minuscules don't start until the 9th century because that's when the handwriting style of uh smaller letters the minuscule script uh became i guess invented and then popularized and uh the the lectionaries are more or less um in the same time period as the the minuscules although you might see some that are that predate that but what did the king james have have available they had no papyri no unseals except for they had only two on seals one of them was called codex and the other one was codex regius and neither of these are very good new testament manuscripts however today what do we have available to us uh five was it four centuries later we have 140 papyri as opposed to zero instead of two on seals we have 323 these are the catalog numbers it's not exact because some of these get lost and some of them are joined together then we have 2966 catalogs minuscules 2486 catalog lectionaries for a grand total of 5915 greek manuscripts and like i said that number is uh you know maybe as low as 5 800 uh once you take into factor historical stuff that's happened um so let's look at some uh of our other flaws here that really shine through as far as late manuscripts this verse here in revelation 22 19 and the king james version reads and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy god shall take away his part of the book of life whereas the rsv and all modern versions read and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy god will take away his share in the tree of life that's interesting so the me and this is not a translation issue this is a manuscript issue the manuscripts that the king james version had available that they translated from said book of life instead of tree of life now why why was that well it this actually goes way back to desiderius erasmus in the uh was a 1516 he started putting out his new testament and uh before long he was able to come out with the second version and the third version but you know erasmus never he never had a manuscript for the last page of revelation so what he did was he just took the existing latin that he thought the church you know everyone thought was more or less accurate i guess and he back translated that into greek and the latin had said a book of life but actually once they started discovering revelation manuscripts for that last page they realized that it said tree of life so this is like a quick way to see is a translation based on defective manuscripts or a more accurate manuscripts you look at revelation 22 19 and this is all the more ironic because the verse actually says the whole point of the verse is like don't change the bible don't change specifically don't change the book of revelation and so that's the verse that erasmus changed but um it certainly is a nice uh quick litmus test to look at let's look at another couple quick examples of manuscript deficiencies that shine through in the king james along with other early versions let's see here first timothy 3 16 some of you are probably aware of this in the king james version it says uh that god was manifest in the flesh whereas in the american standard version it says he who was manifest in the flesh i mean does that seem like a big difference to you it seems like a big difference to me god or he and here's the reason why you have these two what they call is um nomina sacra these are names that get abbreviated by the scribes when they copy and so instead of writing out the word theos like this what they do is they just write the first and the last letters and then they just put a bar over the top of it to indicate that this is an abbreviation and so in the earlier manuscripts it said oh or if you're pronouncing it like an erasmus then you're going to maybe confuse these two together i don't know they don't look that similar but what you do is if you put a line in the middle and then a line above it let me get rid of my other annotations here yeah now they look the same right so uh it could be a scribal error that turned who into god uh it's very unlikely that you would turn god into who right it's more likely you would add than you would subtract and we don't have to guess about it because the manuscripts tell us the story this is a picture of codex sinaiticus the oldest complete new testament on the planet from about the year 350 discovered by constantine von tischendorf uh in the 1800s and we can see that right above where it says os here it actually says theos by a corrector this corrector is from the 12th century you can see here there's your oc which uh in greek is the word it's a relative pronouns who or he who and then right above it you've got the uh uh theta sigma uh the abbreviation for god and uh so you can see exactly what is going on here another one of these kinds of examples comes to us from first john 5 7 through 8 what we call the comma johannium and we can see on the left the king james version has this whole part about how there's three that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy ghost and these three are one on the right it does not have that and i spaced it so you can see exactly how much the king james has added in that's not in the oldest manuscripts and so this whole section here is what we call the comma johannium and uh it is definitely uh not the earliest not attested in the earliest manuscripts for example we find it in marginal notes that means it's not even in the main manuscript it's in the marginal note in these different minuscules 221 88 429 636 but the marginal notes don't date until the 15th or 16th century furthermore if it's in the main text these are the manuscripts that have the common johannium in the main text 629 661 918 and 2318 all miniscules as well the earliest of which is codex autobahnianus and that dates to the 14th or 15th century it is pretty easy to know what went on there it's a parallel bible with latin on one side and greek on the other the latin had this trinity formula in first john 5 7. so the scribe inserted it translated into greek and inserted it on the opposite page codex mont fortianas famously was the codex given to erasmus because what rasmus had said to his opponents was i'm not going to put these verses in to the bible unless you can show me one manuscript that contains them and they said all right you want a manuscript that contains them uh let's make a manuscript so they they manufactured in dublin ireland uh this codex and they gave it to erasmus and said all right see it's in there you have to put it in and that's in fact what happened erasmus did put it in as a result of this um this manuscript which was obviously just made for this this uh purpose in fact it's interesting if you read codex montfortianus um the the telltale sign that it's manufactured is that the common johannium and this is a little technical but it doesn't have definite articles at all and that that is an indicator that you're going from latin because latin doesn't have the definite article it doesn't have the word the how do you conquer the world for like a millennium without the word the i don't know the romans did it and uh whereas the greek language loves the word that we they just love the definite article it shows up in all kinds of places that we wouldn't use it in english and uh it's missing it's entirely missing from this one section which indicates that it was something translated from latin into uh greeks that's another indicator of that let's look at some extra verses in the king james version we've got an interesting list here matthew 17 21 18 11 23 14 we've got verses from mark from luke from john from acts from romans and all we have 16 added verses that are in the king james version that are not in other english translation and this really can throw people off because what happens is they'll be reading through their bible i'm talking about a modern bible not even the king james you read through your bible say the esv for example and uh suddenly you encounter a verse that doesn't exist in other words like for example in matthew 17 you'll go from verse 20 and then the next verse is verse 22. why is your bible missing a verse well it's not missing a verse it's that these verses had accumulated over time in the manuscript tradition so that in the medieval manuscripts on which the king james version was based uh when they decided where the verses would be they had already figured out what the numbers were and so the king james conformed to that standard but then when we found the older manuscripts this verse system was already in place so they said well what do we do they could either subtract out that verse but then that would change the location of all subsequent verses in that chapter and now your memorized locations for verses would be wrong i guess they thought that was that was too much trouble so what they did is they just they just skipped the number and when you are reading along in your bible the 16 places where this happens and it skips a number the reason why is simply because the older manuscripts contain an extra verse there that is not in the oldest manuscripts that we have all right let's move on to another problem here late manuscripts translation errors who's ready for translation errors this is uh not as much fun as talking to a room full of people just gonna throw that out there right now um but yeah translation errors are a second component of why i no longer use the king james version and i'll just show you a quick example of this this is ephesians chapter 3 verse 10 which i have for you here the greek the king james and the nesb the king james reads uh to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of god i realize you you might not have caught all that at once but uh let's let's put it this way that's an inverted sentence that's a totally backward sentence the subject of the sentence uh is following the sentences at the end of it uh typically in english unless you're trying to emphasize something you put the the subject of the sentence in the beginning part of the sentence whereas the nasb uh took that manifold wisdom of god and put it out front so you can see it here in the greek uh the it says the manifold wisdom of god right there at the end of the sentence the king james version very carefully followed the exact ordering of the sentence in greek even though that makes weird english as attested by the ultra literal nasb even the nasb reordered the sentence so that the beginning of the sentence or the subject of the sentence would be at the beginning of the sentence the manifold wisdom of god might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities and heavenly places and what this tells me is that the king james version was what we call a formal equivalence version it's it's bending over backwards to as much as possible mirror the language that it's translating uh however that you know that style can produce sentences that are very difficult for uh english speakers that are not you know familiar with that but let's get into some actual errors i just wanted to show you the translation style first here um oh okay i guess i don't have a slide for the errors i'm just gonna i'm just gonna tell you what they are all right you ready first timothy 6 10 uh is a famous verse have you ever heard of the phrase money is the root of all evil yeah it's not in the bible it's in the king james but it's not in the manuscripts from which the king james was translated and it's not in our uh more updated manuscripts based on the older texts first timothy 6 10 doesn't have the word the doesn't have the definite article and let me tell you there's a big difference between a root and the root when it comes to evil right so um the king james reads like all problems all sin leads back to money whereas what the greek actually says is that it's a root that's first timothy 6 10. ephesians 2 1 is another example where the king james just did something weird uh ephesians 2 1 says and you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins it doesn't say happy quickened in the greek and the king james knows that which is kind of interesting because they they italicize words that are added in that are not in the original languages and so that's what they did they italicized the words in ephesians 2 1 where it says you hathy quickened and i don't know why they did that maybe they thought people were going to get super depressed with ephesians 2 which is a super depressing beginning to a chapter and they wanted to sort of telegraph the punch by saying hey it's going to be okay you're going to get quickened in a few verses here i don't know i have no idea why they did it but they added in a phrase that's totally missing in the greek uh then another example is matthew 23 verse 24 where the king james version says if you strain at a gnat strain at an at not strain out a gnat uh once if you strain at something you think of somebody like squinting their eyes trying to see it right you're not thinking of using a strainer and you're trying to get something out of it no you strain things out not at and that's just another little error in the king james version so um i don't mean to give you the impression that king james was perfect i thought i think it was a great translation for what they had available but as we as we saw it does have some some errors and some problems all right moving on then to one of the bigger issues which is limited lexicography um did you know that nine times in the king james version they used the word unicorn yeah the mythical horse with the horn doesn't exist in real life uh nine times they took the word wild ox and they translated it unicorn yeah they just got it wrong no translations do that anymore or how about in isaiah 14 verse 12 where they call they translate the phrase son of the morning the phrase son of the morning in isaiah 14 12 they translate that as lucifer and now because they did that which is just a mistranslation it's son of the morning it's talking about the king of babylon i don't even think isaiah 14 is talking about the devil but uh because the king james version uh basically imported this sort of latin term as a name in isaiah 14 12 how many movies books tv shows pop culture references or whatever refer to the devil as having the name lucifer as a result of this um just error in understanding the original language which is what lexicography is they misunderstood the word for wild ox as unicorn they misunderstood the phrase son of the morning for lucifer and robert alter who's an expert on bible translation explains this nicely when he says the 17th century translators for all their learning had a rather imperfect grasp of biblical hebrew at times they get confused about syntax and they repeatedly miss the nuance or even the actual meaning of hebrew words usually this is a matter of being slightly off or somewhat misleading as when following the vulgate they transpose concrete hebrew terms into theologically fraught ones soul for nephesh which actually means essential self being life breath or salvation for yeshua which means rescue getting out of a tight fix sometimes the last there are real howlers such errors are probably understandable because hebrew was a book language for them cultivated for barely a century by christian humanists let me show you another example of where the king james version people just misunderstood a hebrew word in second samuel 6 19 the king throws a party and it says in the king james he dealt among all the people even among the whole multitude of israel as well to the women as men to every one of them a cake of bread and a good piece of flesh and a flagon of wine wow sounds like a great party except the words flagon of wine is totally a mistranslation it's a cake of raisins uh so so uh i don't know if like kings have subsequently thrown parties with a lot of wine as a result trying to imitate this verse but uh what this verse actually says is raising cakes which uh it's not as exciting we have to admit but i'd rather i'd rather get to what's accurate rather than what's exciting wouldn't you another example of limited lexicography when it comes to the greek side of the equation for the king james version is how they use the word world for the greek word age aeon instead of translating it as age they translate it as world and so we get these um this phrase in english that is really not all that biblical and it's the phrase the end of the world how many movies and scenarios have you seen like that whereas actually in the greek is the end of the age you have this age and then you have the age to come it's not like you have this planet and then there's going to be another planet to come later on but when you you when you hear that phrase into the world you think of total destruction comet hit in the earth or whatever movie you have in mind there but that's not at all what the actual bible says it says end of this age all right so let's move on to our last point which is um archaic vocabulary archaic vocabulary and let me show you an example luke 17 verse 9 says in the 1611 version doth he thank ye that sir you ant because he did the things that were commanded him i true not all right i was being ridiculous there but i was se i was saying it that way to emphasize how the spelling is so weird uh most of us have never even seen the 1611 king james let me read it from the updated 1769 duff he thanked that servant because he did the things that were commanded him i trow not question what does the word tro mean it's probably not a word that you use on a regular basis i'm guessing uh as it turns out you could read the entire king james version and you'll never encounter the word tro other than this verse right here so even if you even if you say oh sean i can figure out words based on context not this one this is the only incident or the only incident of the word tro in the king james version so it makes it a little bit difficult furthermore um this this uh language is not limited this archaic language it's not limited to just words that we don't happen to use anymore it's actually much worse than that because there are words that we use regularly that meant something different back then than they mean today and this is even more problematic than just having to look up an occasional word in a dictionary or in your phone or whatever you use here's another couple of examples from the bible philippians 3 21 who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned into his glorious body uh vile body uh that sounds super gnostic to me uh the idea that the human body is just vile it's gross it's disgusting it's it's an abomination and we just need to escape our bodies right that's the gnostic idea that's not what the word vile meant in 1611 vile actually meant humble and that's why modern translations translated who shall change our humble body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body well look if you don't know that if you just think vile means what it means today then you're going to read this sentence incorrectly or how about this study to show thyself approved unto god a workman that needeth not to be ashamed the word study in old english did not mean sit there with a with a book and a pen and do school work no not at all study in old english just meant be zealous for or be diligent has nothing to do necessarily with acquiring knowledge i mean it could but it's about an attitude of invigoration towards the subject right uh in other words be diligent to show yourself a proof to god that's really what this verse is saying uh and there are a whole bunch more this is a abbreviated list here but uh just to show you how some of these work the term mean man in 1611 meant just your average person common man or in our language say we would say person instead of man because it could be a woman as well right whereas the modern meaning of a mean man is a cruel man a bad guy meat used to mean any kind of food but now it means flesh peculiar used to mean that which belongs to one person now it means something strange that's totally different cherish used to mean to keep warm so to cherish your wife just to the husband is out there uh it just means keep her warm so don't worry about that no just kidding you weren't married in 1611 were you um but uh yeah no it means today to care about somebody not just to keep them warm uh so maybe that's an upgrade on that on that word passenger used to meant used to mean a passerby just somebody happens to be going by now it means somebody's riding in a vehicle to prevent meant to come before and uh now it means to hinder uh this is interesting for first thessalonians 4 where it says those who uh alive and remain will not prevent those who have fallen asleep and uh so you can get just wrong theology there because you don't understand that the word prevent means to come before not to stop somebody from doing something in the old version and then carriage is something carried whereas today it's something in a horse-drawn vehicle so uh yeah let me offer some concluding remarks here and then we can get into some q a in conclusion the king james version is an excellent masterpiece of english literature that considering the scholarship and manuscripts available at the time they did more or less the best job they could in 1611 however it does have some of these problems with it that are enough for me to to such that i no longer use the king james version and let me just ever so briefly uh remind you of what those are one is that they have in the king james version they had access to only late manuscripts the discoveries the incredible discoveries of the late 1800s and throughout the 20th century just didn't happen yet so they only had the later manuscripts second of all they have translation errors where they just they just get it wrong or they add in extra words or they um mangle the sentence order because they're trying to follow the greeks so excessively close then we have limited lexicography where they get hebrew words wrong or greek words wrong and then there's archaic vocabulary archaic vocabulary a lot of us think oh sean i can handle old english i took shakespeare in high school i'll be fine these and those don't bother me i'm not talking about these and thous those are not that big a deal i'm talking about thinking you understand the word and the word has changed its meaning so that what you think it means is not what it means anymore and only if you have um really an expert knowledge of old english are you even going to be able to spot those differences between um what that word meant in that context and what that word commonly means to us today and this is why these four reasons and probably others as well this is why the king james version has been updated it got updated in 1769 it got updated in 1885 in 1901 in 1952 1989 and so on and so forth and is still being updated every time they come out with a new esv uh and actually i heard they're working on a new nrsv and a new nasb but these are both ultimately revisions of the king james version going way back to uh even before the king james to the time of tyndale now um here's where this really gets practical for a lot of us have you ever sat in a bible study where somebody's using the king james version and they raised the question well my version says this and they've got like some extra words or it's just a totally different sense to the to the to the uh verse and uh you can use you can end up spending a lot of time fussing with manuscript issues or um translation issues with the king james version that even if you had a whole bunch of different modern versions you wouldn't have this problem and so uh this this really does in a sense undermine people's confidence in scripture because they're like oh well this was wrong or that was wrong it's better just to not use the king james version it doesn't provide any advantages unless you're a specialist in old english and it does have beautiful old english i mean there's no question about that but it is of little use for us today in most of our bible study and certainly in preaching as well so those are the reasons why i no longer use the king james version i wrote this long article about translation in general and you can get that on my website recitio.org or you can get it where carlos mentioned at theologicalconference.org but um this is actually presenting just one uh one section of that paper so if you're interested in more of it you can take a look at that on my website or on the theological conference website

Channel: Restitutio

Views: 2,911

Rating: 3.6055045 out of 5

Keywords: Restitutio, Sean Finnegan, King James Version, King James Only, KJV, Authorized Version, AV, evaluating the KJV, critique of the KJV, 1611 King James Version, 1769 King James Version, archaic language, Bishop's Bible, early Hebrew manuscripts, extra verses in the KJV, flagon of wine or cake of raisins, Geneva Bible, How We Got the Bible, King James, critique of Geneva Bible, lexicography, Masoretic Texts, papyri, Revelation 22.19, Tyndale Bible, uncials, William Tyndale

Id: mUmoVseAmjo

Length: 42min 50sec (2570 seconds)

Published: Tue Aug 04 2020