Is the King James Bible the real Bible?

We do not maintain the inspiration of the Authorized or any other version and never have.

What we do maintain is as follows: — That the Scriptures, as written in their original tongues, were given by inspiration of God, that inspiration extending to the words employed. That by means of the large number of ancient manuscript copies of the Scriptures preserved to us in the providence of God, we possess a very accurate knowledge of the Scriptures as originally written, the words or passages as to which any doubt exists being very few and unimportant. That the Authorized translation is on the whole very good and faithful in its rendering of the inspired original, but that it may be usefully compared with the Revised Version, and more especially with the New Translation by the late Mr. J. N. Darby, to ensure even greater accuracy. Substantially, however, it gives us the inspired Word of God in trustworthy form.

The version ordinarily in use was made from a text based chiefly on manuscripts of a late date. Since that time much earlier manuscripts have been discovered or examined. Other things being equal, the earlier the date of the manuscript, the greater its accuracy. Careful study examines all the manuscripts and reaches a text which is best supported by the oldest and most reliable authorities. Our knowledge of the text has therefore improved since the King James version was made.

We unhesitatingly advise the use of the authorized version alone as our textbook and companion. It is a great pity to take up any revision or version, no matter how excellent, and make it the basis of our work. If for no other reason, the fact that King James' version, while sufficiently accurate, is universally used would decide us in this.

Other Versions. As soon as one is fairly familiar with the text of our authorized version, it is very desirable to get one or more versions. The original Greek or Hebrew can be rendered of course in different ways, and yet the translation be faithful. It is this diversity of translation which proves so helpful as one advances in Bible knowledge. The way a sentence is translated, the different words used, or their arrangement, often prove a very suggestive help. Back of this is the question of the text, particularly of the New Testament which, as is well known, has been more or less improved by the discovery of ancient manuscripts since the time our admirable "Authorized" version was made. As we have already said, none need be disturbed at the thought that the text has been altered in certain places. If we remember that our Bibles were, for many centuries before the discovery of printing, copied by the slow and laborious means of handwriting, we may be sure that many little slips occurred, no matter how careful the copyist might be. It is worthy of note, however, that amongst the hundreds of manuscripts which are in existence, in the most faulty of these, not a single doctrine of divine truth has been affected, if we take the Bible as a whole. The vast majority of these errors are so manifest and of such unimportant character that their correction raises no question.

There are Bibles where it says, "from the book of life", and let me add here some thoughts here as to the reason and the causes why these different readings can occur. We had one before in the course of the day already, and this goes back to the famous Erasmus of Rotterdam who was a very learned man but a humanist. He was interested in the old languages, a feature of the Renaissance, and he was the first to say, 'Why not print the New Testament in the original language' (the printing press had just been invented some fifty years before). This had never been done before and Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1515 was the first to do so, but for that enterprise he needed manuscripts. Until the invention of the printing press every Bible had to be written by hand and there were comparatively few of them, only about six to ten of them. Nowadays we have about 5,300 manuscripts of the Greek Bible, but when Erasmus five hundred years ago printed his first Bible in Greek he had about six to ten manuscripts, all of them dating from about one thousand years after Christ and when the first New Testament scriptures were written. Unfortunately also these rather late manuscripts which he used for the printing of the New Testament were not complete and for our present interest, there was a serious gap in the Revelation. Thus when Erasmus wanted to print it in Greek he had no Greek text retranslated the Bible (and this is very important). He retranslated this part of the New Testament from the Latin back into Greek and he used the normal Latin Vulgate Bible of the Catholic church at the time. It was from this source he got "the book of life". But now we have about 5,300 manuscripts of the Greek Bible and there is not one in which the word "the book of life" occurs. This New Testament of Erasmus became naturally a forerunner, and it became world famous. The first to use it was Martin Luther in 1522 when he was translating the Bible into German. He used the New Testament in Greek, the original language but with these two weaknesses, it had only a few manuscripts and very late manuscripts, and secondly the last part of the Revelation was not the original Greek but retranslated into Greek from Latin. But the Lord used Luther for a great blessing in Germany and all over the Western world. Later on the Dutch Bible, the French Bible and the English Bible were translated from texts which stemmed back to what Erasmus had published. This is the basis of the Authorised Version. This Greek text became so well known that after fifty or sixty years it was called "The Received Text", the text received by all scholars as the only one, and there was no other at that time. About a one hundred and fifty years ago when Mr. Darby started to translate a new translation and at that time scholars had found about one thousand manuscripts of the Greek Bible in comparison with six to ten of Erasmus, and in these manuscripts which were at the disposal of Mr. Darby and his collaborators there were manuscripts which were five, six, seven hundred years older nearer to the original than the manuscripts of Erasmus had used. But in these further manuscripts the words "the book of life" never occurred and it became the basis for other new translations done mostly by unbelievers. Tischendorf was probably a believer, but later scholars and modern scholars are mostly unbelievers. They had many Greek manuscripts although not so many as we have today. Even the unbelieving modern editor of the New Testament says the text of the New Testament is practically one hundred percent sure. They base it mainly on the oldest manuscripts which were not known to Erasmus. Nowadays in certain Christian circles (and we are not untouched by it) there is a battle between those who cling to the Received Text and those Christians who cling to the text reconstructed by the modern scholars based on 5,300 manuscripts which we have now. Some go back almost to the time of John. The oldest portion of the Bible is the Gospel by John going back to the year 130 AD or even 125 AD (number P53 is the oldest part of the New Testament).

Why should we know this? Because the Received Text is not the inspired text which is shown by what has just been said and the modern Greek editions based on the oldest manuscript are not inspired either because it is the work of unbelieving 'Christians'. What are we to do? The first point is that for the most part both types of text are absolutely identical. There are not two different New Testaments! Ninety-five to ninety-seven percent are identical, so there is only five percent of all the thousands of words where there are differences and here we have one. Let us never forget that the Received Text is not inspired nor are all the modern versions, and modern Greek editions. No doubt we do need spiritual intelligence to see what the Spirit wants us to have. It appears that the word "commandment" should not be in verse 14, and the word "book" should not be here, nor should be "tree" because the evidence of the oldest manuscripts shows clearly that was not there. But at the same time we must be careful. Both the Received Text has its faults and all the unbelieving editors of the Critical Text which combines the greatest scholarship of our times in this field. What we need, and that is what brother Darby did, and what the other brethren did and are doing, to find the mind of God in the text, and happily there is now doubt all except a few remaining words.. Let us beware of being partisans of either the Received Text or the Modern Text which are both are human editions of the one inspired by God which God has been pleased (we must say so) to pass into our days in this way. The Old Testament has been translated in an entirely a different way. There is only one text in the Hebrew and there are practically no serious difficulties chiefly because of the Jews reverent jealousy to preserve the Old Testament in exactitude, something quite different from the way most scholars handle the New Testament.

If, in the translation, minor inaccuracies have occurred, these may be generally found and corrected by honest study. Of course, it is important that one should have a reliable translation, and we may be deeply thankful that the King James Version has been for centuries most prominent in English speaking countries, for in the main it is an excellent translation. A very few others will be helpful however, in giving a more correct rendering in certain passages, and this is advisable for study purposes. But many of the modern translations, and all paraphrased versions, should be avoided. For careful study, the New Translation by J.N. Darby is highly recommended.

As the word of God spread, many translations in many languages have appeared. Up to the present time these translations, in whole or in part, number over a thousand languages. Translations, however, cannot claim inspiration as the original Scriptures do. Yet the godly and learned scholars, who in the time of King James I produced The Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures, besought prayerfully the Lord’s guidance, support, and help in their very responsible task. Surely we can see that God has answered their prayers abundantly, when we examine the Scriptures we hold in our hands, and which we can receive with assurance as being indeed the word of God.

Ans.—None whatever. You may trust without fear the common, or “King James” Version. It may not be very critical, but it conveys the mind of the original in such a faithful way as to produce in the reader a divinely- wrought faith, and that is better than all the hair-splitting of men whose knowledge is of the kind which puffs up rather than edifies. Satan has been active to muddle the truth as to the New Birth, both to hide its importance and the greatness of the blessings linked with it. They who maintain in their souls the simplicity which is ever in Christ, will escape the contentions and perplexities of the would-be metaphysicians.

I beg my reader who may not know Greek not to suppose that I have any thought of unsettling his mind as to the plain English words in scripture. My object is just the contrary. In the English Bible, there are no doubt defects, as in every human work. I have found passages which I think might be more exactly translated, and have taken the pains to translate for myself the whole of the New Testament, save a few chapters. But I am sure of this, that the more intimately a person is acquainted with the idiom of the language — the more he is familiar with what the learned call the usus loquendi (that is, the customary forms of speech) — the more he will see how thoroughly well acquainted the translators were with the language they were dealing with. I can confidently affirm this to be the case in the New Testament; and as far as I can pretend to judge of the Old, I can bear the same testimony: so that, on the whole, while admitting some human defects, the reader who knows neither Hebrew nor Greek may be assured he has the sense of the original. Taken as a whole, it is the most perfect translation of any book I have ever read. I am told the Dutch translation is very good: I cannot compare them, but of those which I can, the English Bible is by far the best. Forty-six or forty-eight of the most learned and capable men were long engaged in it — divided into classes of six, who did the part they were most competent for; and then it was passed to the others, and revised by all, and compared with translations in other languages. My object then is, not to lead you away from your English Bible, but back to it with confidence. When persons object to a doctrine, that the original word has not the force ascribed to it in English, one is obliged to enquire what is its force in the original: but my object in this is that the humble English reader may be assured he has God's mind in what he reads. I add the Greek quotations, that those who know that language may see all is well founded and fair.

If we consider the many modern translations and view them very carefully I am afraid that since the King James Version the Lord's Deity has been downgraded. There has been a progressive and steady erosion of the clear textual testimonies to the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not saying this is true of all the translations but read them very carefully on this particular point.

It is to be noted that the Authorised Version of verse eight both interpolates and omits. The words, “the beginning and the ending,” are right in the text of Rev. 21:6 and Rev. 22:13, but wrong here. “God” after “Lord” is also an important omission. These and other blemishes are corrected in the Revised Version of 1881. It must be remembered that the excellent and, in general, godly men, who translated the Scriptures in 1611 had not the advantages of their successors in 1881. Neither the Vatican, Sinaitic (both most ancient of Biblical MSS.), nor the Alexandrian Codex were available to the translators of our noble Authorised Version.