Which Translation Should You Trust?
A Defense Of The Authorized King James Version Of 1611
Part 2
A Defense Of The Authorized King James Version Of 1611
Part 2
By Timothy S. Morton
The contention of the Catholics and many Protestant Denominations that the New Testament canon was not officially established until the council of Carthage in 397 A.D. is silly. Did the first, second, third, and fourth century Christians not know which books were scripture until a Catholic council determined it for them? Nonsense. After John penned Revelation the matter was settled for Bible believers. The Bible was complete—66 books, each witnessed by the Holy Spirit.
Concerning the New Testament's preservation, it is only reasonable to conclude that God used the same group of people to preserve His word as He used to form the canon: the universal priesthood of believers. After the New Testament was completed (and even before), true believers were at work faithfully making copies for their own use and for the use of local churches. As the copies they used wore out they would make even more copies to replace them. In this manner the New Testament became widespread and its copies numerous. Needless to say, however, Satan was active in trying to stop this flood of Bibles, and he retaliated by "inspiring" counterfeit gospels and phony epistles. But the Bible believers were not fooled, they steadfastly kept God's word pure.
During this period (100 AD to 500 AD) Satan devised another devious tactic to try and stop the spread of Christianity; he raised up "scholars" to rationalize, criticize, and "revise" the scriptures. One of them, a man named Origen, is probably more responsible for the mass of translations we have today than anyone else in history. When he read the New Testament, the passages he couldn't understand he freely "revised," claiming the original had been miscopied. He was his OWN final authority, just like his counterparts today. Origen's humanistic attitude toward the scriptures was popular to the educated people of his day, and many so called "church fathers" became engaged in "correcting" the Bible also. Some of these "revisions" still exist today and are called "the oldest and best texts" by modern translators. It is true they are older than the majority of manuscripts, but the main reason they still exist is because Christians down through history knew they were corrupt and never used them. The "scholars" today who accept them are much more gullible than the average Christian of the fifth century. The "Textus Receptus" copies of the New Testament we have today are newer only because the believers were constantly handling and reading their parent copies, they simply WORE THEM OUT!
Near the beginning of the "dark ages" (now called the "middle ages" by those who ignore the millennium of Catholic inquisition) Satan made one of his most ingenious and diabolical moves. He "Christianized" the pagan religion of Rome and formed what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. He led the Roman emperor Constantine to prepare the way for his brand of Christianity to become the state religion, making it illegal for Christians to "worship" except through the church at Rome. Though many believers were deceived and joined with the "MOTHER OF HARLOTS" (Revelation 17:5), many others refused and were sorely persecuted (see Foxe's Book Of Martyrs). This persecution continued for centuries, but small remnants of believers, scattered throughout Europe and western Asia, remained true to God and continued to preserve His word in various languages. These believers were known by many different names (Waldensians, Albigensians, Lollards, and others), but they all believed they had God's word and were not about to let the pope take it from them. Many of them died horrible deaths at the hands of the Catholics because of their steadfast refusal to conform to Rome's doctrines or give up their beloved Bible. There were times when the Romanists would find some of their Bible texts and burn them in great piles with much ceremony, but there were always some copies that escaped detection. During this millennium of darkness untold gallons of blood was shed to preserve the purity of the scriptures. Does your Bible mean that much to you?
As with the Old Testament, the invention of the printing press changed things, and in 1516 some New Testament manuscripts were compiled together to make a complete text and was printed. The press made the Bible much more available to the public and thus harder to destroy. This directly led to the Protestant Reformation. This text, after some revision, became known as the Traditional Text or the Received Text (Textus Receptus). The corrupt text that came from Origen is called the Alexandrian Text. It was named this because it originated in Alexandria Egypt (a type of the world). The Textus Receptus originated in Antioch Syria; the place where the disciples were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26), and the center of operations for Paul's missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-3).
For an enlightening study, the reader is encouraged to check all the verses in the Bible which mention "Alexandria" or "Antioch." "Alexandria" is usually mentioned in a negative light (Acts 6:9) and "Antioch" in a positive (Acts 11:26). Is the Holy Spirit trying to tell us something? Undoubtedly so.
The two most "universally esteemed" representatives of the Alexandrian Text are the vile Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two corruptions are considered "the oldest and best texts" by most scholars, yet they have hundreds of contradictory readings between them and THOUSANDS compared with the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, these two manuscripts were LOST to humanity for nearly one thousand years! Vaticanus "turned up" in the Vatican in 1481; Sinaiticus was discovered in a Catholic monastery in the mid nineteenth century. Did God lose His "best" manuscripts until then? Did the Christians before this time not have access to the "most reliable and accurate texts?" Nonsense. The Bible believers of the past knew these manuscripts were corrupt because they didn't agree with their pure Bibles and because their sworn enemy the Catholics had them. "By their fruits ye shall know them"
In short, the Authorized Version was translated from the God honored Received Text which is covered with the blood of countless martyrs; nearly all the "new" translations came (at least partially) from the corrupt Alexandrian Text which no one shed a drop of blood to protect. This alone should make any Christian think twice before he abandons the King James Version for a modern translation.
Biblical Accounts Of Preservation
"Now," you may ask, "your brief appeal to church history was interesting, but are there any examples in the Bible of God preserving His Word?" I am glad you asked, of course there are. To list just a few, check where the high priest during Josiah's reign found the "book of the law" hidden in the "house of the Lord" (2 Kings chapter 22). God kept a pure copy hidden during the years of rebellion and idolatry so the good king Josiah could find it and bring about reforms in the land.
For another example check in Jeremiah chapter 36, where Jeremiah had "all the words of the Lord""all the former words" (vs. 28) upon another roll, plus, some NEW WORDS (vs. 32)! This is very significant. The ORIGINAL is destroyed and Jeremiah makes a COPY of all the original words and then adds MORE. The copy is NOT identical to the original yet BOTH are scripture!a copy does not have to be verbally and plenarily identical to the original to be scripture (more on this later). written upon a roll (vs. 4). Then see how after the roll was cut up and burned (by a Bible revisor), God commanded him to write They do not contradict but complement each other, similar to how each of the four Gospels complements the others without contradiction. The lesson here is:
For a New Testament account showing preservation, look in Luke chapter 4 where the Lord goes into the synagogue to read "the book of the prophet Esaias..." remembering that He read from a COPY of Isaiah and NOT the original. He did not once correct any "errors that crept into the text" or omit any words which were "added" by scribes. The copy He read from was just as pure as the original. If it wasn't He would have said so (Matthew 4:4)!
The above reference leads us to consider the critic's argument that copies cannot be as pure as the original. The King James Version completely decimates the logic of those who hold this view. To quickly settle this "problem," one needs only to believe two verses: 2 Timothy 3:15-16. This is the classic passage on the inspiration of the scriptures. Most Christians are familiar with verse 16, but let's look at verse 15 with it. Paul says in verse 15 that Timothy had known the "holy scriptures" since he was a child, and in verse 16 he says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God...." It is clear Paul considered the "scriptures" (copies) Timothy had to be "given by inspiration," since he says in the next verse that "all scripture" is. These two verses alone prove that COPIES can be "given by inspiration." What a terrible passage to face if one has "originalitis"! These verses are so plain in declaring that copies can be scripture that some of the new "Bibles" change them so their scholars can "save face." The reader should carefully note that verse 16 does not say the original writings WERE given by inspiration, but that all scripture IS (present tense).
Scholars use this passage to teach that only the "originals" were inspired, but it says no such thing! Not one time in the Bible is the word "scripture(s)" a reference to an original autograph. It ALWAYS refers to a copy! The originals were "given by inspiration" not because they were original manuscripts, but because they were SCRIPTURE. The key word is SCRIPTURE. Do not make the mistake of forcing the Bible to teach something it does not say, but remember, for a text to be scripture it does NOT have to be the original. God makes no distinction between the purity of an original and of an accurate copy made of it, even a copy made from another copy hundreds of years after the original!
Since "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," the "scripture" Christ quoted in Luke 4 was pure, as were the "scriptures" He commanded the Jews to search in John 5. Likewise, the "scripture""scriptures" the Bereans had in Acts 17 were pure; the "scripture" Paul had in Romans 4 was pure; and also, according to Peter, all the epistles of Paul are scripture and thus pure (2 Peter 3:16). Every reference to scripture in the Bible is a reference to God's infallible, inerrant word. Whether the scripture is an original autograph or a copy is immaterial. God does not esteem the former above the latter in any way and neither should we. the Ethiopian eunuch had in Acts 8 was pure; the
Now that we have shown that God's word must exist somewhere on earth in pure form you may ask: "How does one determine where God's word is or which Bible it is"? Or, "How can one know the King James Version is pure and free from error"? In the following chapters we will address these questions, but there is something else we must look into first.
"Verbal" And "Plenary" Translations?
The Holy Spirit does not use the terms "verbal" and "plenary" to describe scripture. He simply says it is "given by inspiration" (God-breathed). Verbal and plenary are terms theologians use to define their idea of inspiration. Evidently, the Holy Spirit's choice of words is not enough for them. At this point you may be thinking: "Do you mean to tell me that the Bible is not inspired word for word and completely and totally? I have believed this all my life and...." Well, "hold your horses" and don't jump to conclusions. We just mentioned how we believe "the words of the Lord are pure words," how we believe all scripture is infallible, inerrant, "God-breathed," and how we believe we have a copy. What we are referring to here is terminology. How words and terms are used and the implications that result from their use. If verbalplenary are used the way most scholars use them, no one could know he had a perfect Bible or not because the standard or authority to appeal to no longer exists. However, if we use Bible terminology, i.e. "given by inspiration," and do not force the scriptures to say something they do not, a person can know he has the words God wants him to have. This is really the heart of the Bible controversy: can a person KNOW he has a copy of the Scriptures—the pure words of the living God? We contend that he can; not because of man's ability, but because of God's promise of preservation. and
Concerning translations, the Bible critic's mentality compels him to dogmatically proclaim that NO translation can be inspired because it is impossible for it to be verbally and plenarily identical to the original. In their way of thinking, it could be possible for a Greek text to be identical with the "original Greek," but never a translation. They insist translated words cannot have precisely the same meaning as the words in the original language. Granted they can't, but who says they have to? The Bible doesn't. This argument is based on the assumption that only the original language can convey the exact words God wants man to have, but the Bible makes no such requirement. In fact, it allows for the alternative.
There are several places in the scriptures where a translation is "given by inspiration." Joseph, when he was a ruler in Egypt, spoke to his brethren in Egyptian (Genesis 42:23). There is no record of anything he said to them being written down in Egyptian. Moses later made an account in Hebrew, and this Hebrew text is the text given by inspiration. To say that a translation cannot be "word-perfect" is to invent a problem where no problem exists. It does not bother God that languages are dissimilar, He can give man the words He wants him to have without worrying about being "word-perfect." Likewise, when Moses and Pharaoh talked to each other concerning the release of the Israelites they also conversed in Egyptian (Exodus chapters 4-14). Moses, again, recorded all the words in Hebrew.
Suppose Pharaoh's court recorder recorded all the words spoken between Moses and Pharaoh in Egyptian. Would it not be the original and Moses' account a mere translation? Would not this "original Egyptian" text be the "verbal and plenary" account of what was said? Yet which one is given by inspiration? See the problems scholars make for themselves? If one follows their reasoning, the account of Moses we have today has two strikes against it: it is a COPY AND A TRANSLATION! Does this mean anything regarding it being scripture? Of course not! Suppose we had the Egyptian original before us today, would it be better than the copies we have of Moses' translation? Not at all. The writings of Moses are scripture (2 Timothy 3:16); the first-hand account of a recorder is not, even if it is the "original"!
For another example, look in Acts 22, where Paul speaks to the Jews in Hebrew and Luke records it in Greek! There is no Hebrew manuscript of Paul's words in existence. Does this affect their purity? You should know the answer. Each one of these three translations (and there are over thirty more) God has honored and "given by inspiration." They all are scripture, yet God did not see fit to record them in the Bible in their original language. Some people behave like they have forgotten that God knows all languages. He knows German as well as Hebrew and English as well as Greek. Of course, every believer will agree with this, but many act like they do not. What God sees as no problem (having an translation "given by inspiration"), Bible scholars and translators see as a great problem. God can give His words to anyone in any language EXACTLY the way He wants them to have them, without the words being "verbally" and "plenarily" identical to the original language. Many Christians, from listening to the "scholars" humanistic rhetoric to long, have been brainwashed and cannot understand this, but it is no problem for a Bible reading Bible believer.
Are Translations Inferior?
Another fact concerning translations is that in the three verses the word "translate" (or forms of it) is found in the Bible, the object translated is BETTER than it was to start with! I know this is heresy to the "scholars", but look at the passages yourself. The first verse is 2 Samuel 3:10. There, the kingdom is to be "translated" from the house of Saul to David. When one reads the context of this passage, and of the reign of David after, he finds the kingdom becomes better than it was in its original state! It is unified under one king, and he is the best king they will ever have until Christ returns! The second translation is found in Colossians 1:13. The translation here is the conversion of a lost sinner to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. No Christian can say this is not a translation for the better! The last mention is in Hebrews 11:5 where Enoch is spoken of as being "translated." Again, no believer in his right mind can say a person would not be better off to bypass death and go directly to Heaven. Enoch's translation is a vast improvement over his original condition.
As mentioned before, we agree that no translation can be "word-perfect" with the original, but this in no way means, as scholars assume, that a translation is of a lesser quality. It could just as easily be (as we have just seen) BETTER in quality than the original! The word of God does NOT lose its purity and authority by being translated. God can easily direct or influence translators to choose words that say what He wants said in any language. The words chosen may have a slightly different meaning than the original word, or they may not convey all of its "idioms" and "inflections" and the like, but so what? Many English words also have a uniqueness about them and can convey thoughts that no single Greek or Hebrew word can. It works both ways. God knew this, and He directed the Authorized Version translators accordingly. This is not to say that the translators themselves were inspired, but only that God used them to preserve His word in its purity in the English language.
Now that we have seen how God has promised to preserve His word, how He did preserve it, and how copies and translations can be scripture, we will begin to look at the King James Version in particular and see why it is to be preferred above all others.
To view this entire book, click the link below:
Which Translation Should You Trust?
