Should Creationists abandon the King James Version?
By Dr. Henry Morris, Founder and President Emeritus of ICR
In this day when many Christians have started using one of the
modern versions of the Bible, abandoning the King James Version,
it may be well to review a few of the reasons why many
creationists still prefer the latter.
The King James Translators
One reason is that all the fifty or more translators who
developed the King James Bible were godly men who believed
implicitly in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and
in the literal historicity of Genesis, with its record of six-day
Creation and the worldwide Flood. This has not been true of many
who have worked on the modern versions.
Furthermore, the King James translators (54 men altogether)
were great scholars, as proficient in the Biblical languages as
any who have come after them. They were familiar with the great
body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous
translations. They worked diligently on the project (assigned to
them by King James) for over seven years (completed in 1611),
with the result that the "Authorized" version eventually
displaced all those that had gone before and has withstood the
test of wide usage in all English-speaking countries ever since.
Which New Translation?
This is not a new question. There have been over 120 English
translations of the complete Bible published since the King
James, as well as over 200 New Testaments. Even if one feels that
he ought to switch to a modern translation, how can he decide
which, if any, is really the inspired word of God? I personally
have perused in some depth at least 20 of them.
Is God The Author of Confusion?
For a long time, the "official" version used in each Bible-
believing church was the King James, with the others used
occasionally for reference study by teachers and pastors. Now,
however, confusion reigns. Congregational reading is no longer
possible, and Scripture memorization, which has been an
incalculable blessing in my own Christian life, is almost a lost
art these days.
And what about our belief in verbal inspiration? If it's only
the "thought" that counts, then the words are flexible, and we
can adjust them to make them convey any thought we prefer. Exact
thoughts require precise words.
Which Version Best Renders The Original Manuscripts?
Even many King James Bibles have foot-notes referring to what are
said to be "better manuscripts" which indicate that certain
changes should be made in the King James text. But what are these
manuscripts, and are they really better? It is significant that
almost all the new versions of the New Testament are based on
what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, whereas the King
James is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus.
As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, the King James is based
on the Masoretic text, while the modern versions rely heavily on
Kittel's revised Masoretic text.
The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts
of the Old Testament by the Masoretes Hebrew scholars dedicated
to guarding and standardizing the transitional Hebrew text as
"handed down" (the basic meaning of Masoretic) from the earlier
Hebrew scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient
Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error. As far
as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolf Kittel is concerned, it is
worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher
critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to
evolutionism.
The men most responsible for alternations in the New Testament
text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New
Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland.
All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott both
denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism.
Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of
the English revision committee which produced the English Revised
Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision
committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901
was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most
new versions since that time have adopted the same
presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers.
Furthermore, the Westcott-Hort text was mainly based on two
early Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus texts,
which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved)
obscurity in the 19th century. Since these are both said to be
older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Textus
Receptus, they were called "better." This was in spite of the
fact that they frequently disagreed with each other as well as
with the Textus Receptus and also contained many obvious and
flagrant mistakes.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does
not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they
were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus they would
naturally last longer that the good manuscripts which were being
used regularly.
So one of the serious problems with most modern English
translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and
evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of
the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His word? Would He not
more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the
absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?
How About The Archaic Language In The King James?
The beautiful prose of the King James is a treasure that
should not be lost. It has been acclaimed widely as the greatest
example of English literature ever written. Apart from a few
archaic words which can be easily clarified in footnotes, it is
as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago.
This is why the common people today still use and love it. It is
the "intelligentsia" who tend to favor the modern versions. The
King James uses mostly one and two-syllable words, and formal
studies have always shown its readability index to be 10th grade
or lower.
It is also noteworthy that the King James was produced during
the period when the English language and literature had reached
their zenith of power and expressiveness. This was the age of
Shakespeare, for example. Modern English is merely a decadent
remnant of its former beauty and clarity. It is no wonder that a
Bible translation produced at that special time is history has
endured for almost 400 years, meeting the needs and guiding the
culture of over ten generations of English speaking peoples.
We have abandoned today many fine points of grammar commonly
used in 1600. For example, we forget that "thee," "thou," and
"thine" were used to express the second person singular, with
"you," "ye," and "yours" reserved for the second plural. Today we
use "you" indiscriminately for both singular and plural, thereby
missing the precise meaning of many texts of Scripture.
Furthermore, the translators were not only Biblical scholars
but accomplished writers, and one of their goals had been to
produce a Bible that would "sing" with beauty and power, as well
as retaining literal faithfulness to the original texts, which
had themselves been written with majestic musical beauty.
With all these factors in mind, do we not most honor that
Lord and his revealed word by having it read and used in that
form of our language which was in use when the English language
was at its best, instead of in our modern jargon? All modern
versions are inferior to the King James in this important regard.
Conclusion
I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the
Bible for over 55 years, that Christians-especially
creationists!-need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as
long as they live. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great
revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the
personal lives of believers, more than He has with all the rest
of the versions put together, and "by their fruits ye shall know
them" (Matthew 7:20).
It is the most beautiful, the most powerful and (I strongly
believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have,
until Christ returns.
For Further Study
This brief article is a condensation of a 20-page booklet on the
same theme which I have prepared to answer questions by our
readers. This booklet is available on request from ICR.
Write:
Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667,
El Cajon, CA 92021
And check out his Home Page by clicking on the box below: