{"id":3131,"date":"2020-07-01T11:38:00","date_gmt":"2020-07-01T17:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/?p=3131"},"modified":"2022-02-21T13:12:34","modified_gmt":"2022-02-21T20:12:34","slug":"kjv-is-corrupt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/kjv-is-corrupt\/","title":{"rendered":"KJV is Corrupt"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
The King James Version (KJV), Originally known as the Authorized Version, is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England completed in 1611 under the sponsorship of king James of England, Ireland, and Scotland.[1]<\/a> In January 1604, King James convened a conference to lay the ground work for a new translation in response to the use of the Geneva Bible by the Puritans[2]<\/a>, a faction of reformers from the Church of England.[3]<\/a> Instructions were given to the translators intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The translators were not allowed to add marginal notes like the Geneva Bible had.[4]<\/a> King James cited two passages in the Geneva where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of divinely ordained royal supremacy.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n William Tyndale translated the New Testament and published the first printed Bible in English in 1525.[6]<\/a> Tyndale subsequently revised his New Testament (published in 1534) in consideration of advancing biblical scholarship.[7]<\/a> Tyndale had also translated much of the Old Testament. He was executed on the charges of heresy for having translated and published the bible in the common language. Tyndale\u2019s work and literary style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into early modern English.[8]<\/a> In 1539, Tyndale’s New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the Great Bible. The Great Bible was the first “authorized version” issued by the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII.[9]<\/a> Later when the English Bibles were again outlawed, reformers fled the country and established an English-speaking colony at Geneva Switzerland.[10]<\/a> These expatriates undertook a translation that became known as the Geneva Bible.[11]<\/a> The Geneva Bible, originally published in 1560, was a revision of Tyndale’s Bible and the Great Bible and was also based on the original languages.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n After Elizabeth I took the throne in 1558, the monarchy and the Church of England had issues with both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible, especially considering the Geneva Bible did not “conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy”.[13]<\/a> In 1568, the Church of England responded with the Bishops’ Bible, a revision of the Great Bible in light of the Geneva version.[14]<\/a> All the official Bible of the Church of England, the Bishops\u2019 Bible failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n The Geneva Bible proceeded the King James Version by 51 years. [16]<\/a> It was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries and was published from 1560 to 1644 in over 150 different printings.[17]<\/a> As a product of the best Protestant scholars of its day, it became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers, thinkers, and historical figures of the time. The Geneva Bible was the primary Bible of 16th-century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare, [18]<\/a> Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan, author of The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678).[19]<\/a> The Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible with them on the Mayflower to Plymouth in 1620.[20]<\/a> The religious writings and sermons published by the members of the Plymouth colony suggest that the Geneva Bible was used exclusively by them.[21]<\/a> William Bradford cited it in his book of Plymouth Plantation.[22]<\/a> The Geneva Bible was the Bible that Puritans endeared, not the Authorized Version of King James.[23]<\/a> The Geneva Bible\u2019s popularity was greatest, wherever a strong Protestantism prevailed and was the preferred Bible of the Puritan clergy in England, Scotland, and America at the time.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n The Geneva Bible was a notable development from previous Bibles. It was the first Bible to use chapters and numbered verses. The primary reason it became the most popular version of its time is the more than 300,000 marginal notes included to explain and interpret the scriptures for the common people. It is these study notes that were considered a threat to the monarchy.[25]<\/a> Because the Geneva Bible was the preferred Bible of Anglican and Puritan Protestants, King James I opposed it and expressed his views at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 saying, \u201c”I think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst.”[26]<\/a> He felt strongly many of the annotations were “very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits…” In all likelihood, he saw the Geneva’s interpretations of biblical passages as anti-clerical “republicanism”, which could imply church hierarchy was unnecessary. Passages that made reference to monarchs as tyrants were regarded as particularly seditious. [27]<\/a> It was feared those who read such things would question the need for a king as head of church and if such annotations were in print, readers might believe these interpretations correct and fixed, making it more difficult to change his subjects’ minds. [28]<\/a> James had been dealing with similar issues with the Protestant leaders back in Scotland, and he wanted none of the same controversies in England. <\/p>\n The Geneva Bible was a political threat to his kingdom and thus King James commissioned and chartered the new Bible translation that would be to his satisfaction, first known as the Authorized Version – authorized to be read in churches. Instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops’ Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops’ Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list including the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.[29]<\/a> Rather than being an original inspired work, the KJV was a minimal revision with the primary motivation of suppression of the truth in rendering various passages in a way that was favorable to the established monarchy and religious order of the time. In stark contrast, John Adams, the second president of the United States, wrote: \u201cLet not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it most respect.\u201d[30]<\/a><\/p>\n The Authorized Version exhibits more Latin influence than previous English versions. [31]<\/a> Several of the translators had admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English with academic stylistic preferences and the prohibition against explanatory notes also had contributed to the reliance on Latin.[32]<\/a> This is because the Geneva Bible could use a common English word and describe its particular meaning in a marginal note, whereas the reader of the KJV could not benefit from notes and thus the translation itself required more technical terms from Anglicized Latin. Despite the instructions to use the Bishops’ Bible as a base text, the New Testament of the KJV is especially influenced by the Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators had also attempted to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.[33]<\/a> For the New Testament source text, the KJV translators primarily used the 1598 and 1588\/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, that also presented Latin texts alongside Greek ones [34]<\/a> . The translators also conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. <\/p>\n There are approximately 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza’s Greek text to maintain the wording of the Bishop’s Bible and other earlier English translations.[35]<\/a> Other readings were traced to the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus, corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or the Complutensian Polyglot. Although at least 80% of the KJV New Testament text is unaltered from Tyndale’s translation, the KJV borrows significantly from the Latin Vulgate and the Catholic Rheims New Testament. [36]<\/a> The KJV incorporates readings form a wide variety of 16th century Greek manuscripts and also exhibits several dozen readings that were in no printed Greek text. In these cases, the English of the KJV derives directly from the Latin Vulgate.[37]<\/a> Since the KJV is supposedly, translated from original languages, it may be alarming to some that numerous words and phrases in the KJV were from the Latin Vulgate and not any Greek Manuscript.<\/p>\n It has been suggested by some of those who advocate for KJV only, that the decisions to use Latin rather than Greek sources were divinely inspired.[38]<\/a> Some go as far to state that the AV\/KJV is a \u201cnew revelation\u201d, or \u201cadvanced revelation\u201d from God.[39]<\/a> A common argument is that if God provides truth through scriptural revelation, God must also ensure a preserved and uncorrupted transmission of his revelation. Their dogma of providentially preserved transmission gives them the presumption that Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the Greek autographs.[40]<\/a> This is counter to modern textural criticism which has demonstrated that the texts were corrupted over centuries of transmission. Textural criticism has given us a systematic approach to evaluating what is likely the original reading in providing both a restored critical text and a critical apparatus for identifying significant variants.[41]<\/a><\/p>\n Although some King James only folks think that the KJV translators were divinely inspired, the translators themselves did not. They wrote, \u201cThe original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the writer the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets.\u201d[42]<\/a> Later they wrote that \u201call truth must be tried by the original tongues, the Hebrew and Greek.\u201d Thus, the King James translators believed that the authority of Scripture was in the original manuscripts of the original languages.<\/p>\n The KJV translators also expressed that other English Bibles were inspired, even the poorest translations. They wrote, \u201cNay, we affirm and avow that the meanest (worst) translation of the Bible in English is the Word of God.\u201d This indicates that they believed that every translation was inspired by God, no matter how inferior the translation. They also believed it was the mission of the translator to continually update the language, not because God\u2019s Word is outdated, but because English changes. That is why the King James translators immediately started to make changes for the 1611 edition and came out with another in 1613 and another in 1629. The KJV translators wrote, \u201cWe never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation\u2026 but to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.\u201d This implies that they regarded prior translations as good including that of William Tyndale, Coverdale and others. The translators saw themselves as imperfect and said, \u201cneither did we disdain to revise that which we had done.\u201d They also advocated using a variety of translations saying, \u201cVariety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.\u201d[43]<\/a><\/p>\n As opposed to the Geneva bible which is more consistent in rendering the same word into the common English equivalent, the King James translators employed various English words depending on their interpretation of the contextual meaning. The translators stated in the preface that they used stylistic variation, finding multiple English words or verbal forms in places where the original language employed repetition. In practice they also did the opposite such as using the single English word “prince” as the translation of 14 different Hebrew words.[44]<\/a> However, in cases where they should have used the same English for the same word in the original language, they did not. When they should have used a greater variety of English equivalents corresponding for multiple words in the original language, they also did not. <\/p>\n The Apocrypha are noncanonical books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible and was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D.[45]<\/a> Many of these books are called deuterocanonical books by some including the Catholic church. It has been argued that the Apocrypha should have never been included since Protestants reject it as Scripture. The inclusion of the Apocrypha is an indication that KJV\u2019s should be questioned as being God-inspired. For example, Tobit 6:5-8 has a reference to magic and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. 2 Maccabees 12:45 teaches purgatory. Although the 1560 Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, it was separated from the rest of Scripture and contained almost no marginal notes. Many later editions of the Geneva Bible did not contain the Apocrypha.[46]<\/a><\/p>\n Initially the King James Version did not sell well when it competed with the Geneva Bible. The first and early editions of the King James Bible from 1611 lack annotations, unlike nearly all editions of the Geneva Bible up until that time.[47]<\/a> The KJV was cheaper to print because it didn\u2019t have the extensive notes the Geneva did. The early growth of KJV in England was further facilitated by market manipulation whereas Geneva Bibles could only be imported into England with a large tariff while the KJV was authorized to be printed in England at low cost.[48]<\/a> King James additionally took the step of prohibiting printing of new editions of the Geneva Bible.[49]<\/a><\/p>\n Although published in 1611, it was not until 1661 that the Authorized Version replaced the Bishops Bible for lessons in the Book of Common Prayer. It never did replace the Bishops Bible in the Psalter (a volume of the book of Psalms for liturgical use). As the KJV grew in popularity, there remained some among scholars, clergy, and the common people, who still used the Geneva Bible, complaining that the meaning of the Scripture could not be well grasped without the annotations of the Geneva Bible.[50]<\/a> The Geneva notes were actually included in a few editions of the King James version, even as late as 1715.[51]<\/a> Oliver Cromwell, preferred the Geneva Bible, when in 1643, he issued \u2018The Soldier\u2019s Pocket Bible\u2019 to his troops – a 16-page pamphlet made up of extracts from the Geneva Bible. Not until 1769, when a major revision of the KJV was released with revised spelling and punctuation, did widespread public perception change to the point of recognizing the KJV (Authorized Version) as being a masterpiece of the English language.[52]<\/a><\/p>\n The following table comparing the KJV with the Geneva bible serves to illustrate why the KJV should not be so highly regarded.<\/p>\nEnglish Bibles prior to KJV<\/h2>\n
Geneva Bible – principal rival and motivation for the KJV<\/h2>\n
Influence of Latin and the Catholic Rheims New Testament<\/h2>\n
The KJV as divine inspiration<\/h2>\n
Interpretive bias and stylistic variation in the KJV<\/h2>\n
Inclusion of the Apocrypha<\/h2>\n
KJV not an instant success<\/h2>\n
Summary comparison with the Geneva Bible<\/h2>\n