The Christ in Prophecy Journal

The Bibles of the Reformation (Part 4 of 4)

The Reformation

Recent American Translations

The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament appeared in 1946. The Old Testament text came out in 1952.26 This version was denounced by conservatives as a “liberal translation.” Particularly controversial was its translation of Isaiah 7:14 where the word previously translated as “virgin” was changed to “young woman.” This Bible was quickly adopted by most of the mainline denominations.

In 1971 the complete New American Standard Bible was published.27 It constituted an extensive revision of the American Standard Bible of 1901. It was quickly adopted by Evangelicals because it is considered by many to be the most accurate word-for-word translation that has been produced in the English language. It was updated in 1995 to make it more readable.

The New International Version was published in full in 1973.28 It offered a “dynamic equivalent” conservative translation, meaning it sought thought-for-thought accuracy rather than word-for-word. It was also aimed at a junior high school reading level. It was ridiculed by Fundamentalists as the “Nearly Inspired Version,” but it has quickly become the best-selling modern-English translation.

The New King James Version appeared in 1982.29 It attempted to keep the basic wording of the old King James Version in order to appeal to King James loyalists. It replaced most of the obscure words and the Elizabethan “thee, thy, and thou” pronouns. There was also an attempt to update grammar, spelling, and word order.

The dawn of the 21st Century saw the publication of the English Standard Version in 2002.30 It represents a major attempt to bridge the gap between simple readability and the precise accuracy of the New American Standard Bible. And like the old Geneva Bible, the English Standard Version has been issued in the form of a phenomenal Study Bible (2008) that is full of charts, maps, diagrams, and explanations that run 2,750 pages in length!

The Response of King James Defenders

As you can see, there has been a flood of new translations since 1950, and the listing above does not contain paraphrases that range from the conservative (The Living Bible) to the liberal (The Message). Nor have I listed a number of very liberal translations. When you consider the sudden appearance of all these translations, there can be no doubt that people are seeking Bibles they can easily understand.

King James Version

King James Version

All these new Bibles have prompted King James users to dig in their heels. They greet every new version with derision and harsh criticism. Often their attacks get out of hand as they dub the new versions “Satan inspired.” Some even argue that the King James Version is a sacred, inerrant translation and that it is therefore the only “perfect” translation that exists today.31 Any survey of the history of English Bibles like the one I have presented above makes the King James perfection claim a laugh.

The more responsible critics usually point to what they call the “erosion” of the New Testament by the modern translations. They argue that the Greek text for the New Testament that was compiled by Erasmus (1466-1536) and published in 1516 is the only proper basis for a New Testament translation, and they point out that it was what was used for the King James Version. This text became known as the Textus Receptus.

Erasmus

Erasmus

They then attack the modern translations for abandoning the Textus Receptus and relying instead on the Greek text compiled by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort and published in 1881. They argue that although the Westcott and Hort version is based upon much earlier manuscripts than those used by Erasmus, the manuscripts are unreliable because they are “Catholic manuscripts.” This accusation is based on the fact that one of the manuscripts was found at a Catholic monastery in the Sinai desert and the other at the Vatican in Rome.

These attacks on the Westcott-Hort text are really irrelevant, for although the Westcott-Hort text was the “standard” critical Greek text for a couple of generations, it is no longer considered as such, and it has not served as the New Testament text for any of the modern translations. The standard text today is the Nestle-Aland text (1st edition in 1898; 27th edition, 1993).

The truth of the matter is that none of the Greek texts are perfect. They represent a pasting together of segments of the most ancient manuscripts. Erasmus did his best, but there have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since he put together his compilation, and many of those are much older than anything he had to work with. Furthermore, none of the differences in the compilations have any effect on the basic doctrines and truths of the New Testament.

The King James defenders need to keep in mind that the major purpose of the new conservative translations is twofold: greater accuracy and easier-to-understand language. How can you fault those aims? Here’s how one person has summed it up:32

We must remember that the main purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to get the Bible out of the chains of being trapped in an ancient language that few could understand, and into the modern, spoken, conversational language of the present day. William Tyndale fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the common, spoken, modern English tongue of his day…

Will we now go backwards and seek to imprison God’s Word once again exclusively in ancient translations?

Thanks to the King James Version

We are all beholden to the leaders of the Reformation Movement who were so determined to get the Bible in the hands of the people and in translations they could easily read and understand.

We also owe a great debt to the King James Version and the impact it has had on both the Church and Western Civilization. It was a Great Bible for its day and time. It has served the English speaking peoples well for the several centuries when it was the dominant translation (from 1700 to 1950).

The time has come to lay it to rest with honor and dignity and with heartfelt thanks. It has stamped our language indelibly. It has inspired many generations. Most important, it has opened the door to God for millions of people by delivering them from spiritual darkness into the light of the glory of Jesus Christ.

Notes

26) Wikipedia, “Revised Standard Version,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_version.

27) Wikipedia, “New American Standard Bible,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Version.

28) Wikipedia, “New International Version,” http://en.wikipedia/wiki/New_International_Version.

29) Wikipedia, “New King James Version,” http://en.wikipedia/wiki/New_King_James_Version.

30) Jeffcoat, “English Bible History,” page 9.

31) For an example of a “KJV Only” article, see: James L. Melton, “How I Know the King James Bible is the Word of God,” www.avi611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html.

32) Jeffcoat, “English Bible History,” page 9.

RELATED ARTICLES

ABOUT AUTHOR View all posts Author Website

Dr. David Reagan

Dr. David Reagan

Dr. David Reagan serves as the Founder and Director of Lamb & Lion Ministries. He is a life-long Bible student, teacher, and preacher whose sermons have been distributed worldwide and has led 45 pilgrimages to Israel. Dr. Reagan is the host of the television program Christ in Prophecy.

6 CommentsLeave a Comment

  • The article seems incomplete in that many translations are left out (Amplified, NLT, HCSV). Is this because you consider the irrelevant, inaccurate, or due to space constraints?

  • Thanks for these articles on the Reformation – so informative – so well done – just stating facts and history – I learned a lot and a blessed to have read this.

  • So in the end the author is basically saying the King James and its adherents are sincere, but sincerely wrong about modern translations. On this point Dr. Reagan is wrong. He’s bought into the Catholic lie about the King James Bible, the Textus Receptus and refused to do his homework about the deceitfulness on the part of Hort and Wescott.

  • I have to disagree with Dr. Reagan regarding the KJV being put to rest with regard to accepting modern translations. Although Westcott & Hort’s Greek text versions may not be the standard used today, the Nestle-Aland version of the accepted Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are even more corrupt than Westcott & Hort’s. The NIV and NASB are certainly flawed by their influences.

    Dr. Jack Moorman published a book called “Missing in Modern Bibles” that documents all the edits and deletions of words from the KJV in modern bibles that calls into question the deity of Christ.

    I also encourage Dr. Reagan to watch an excellent documentary called Bridge to Babylon (part of a 3 part series) to get a comprehensive understanding of how the word of God has been attacked by the Catholic Church, agnostics and the ecumenical movement to create a Bible that will be accepted under the authority of a One World Religion.

    My last thought are;
    If the KJV Bible has been so instrumental in leading millions to salvation through faith in Christ, then why would you want to discourage people from reading it going forward? I say we need to stick to what has worked for over 400 years. Especially now that there’s so many modern versions available that are filled with damnable heresies and doctrines of demons to trip people up.

    If the thinking is we need a new version that’s updated with modern English so more young people will read it, then assemble a body of men that are true men of God (like yourselves) to create a new translation based on the textus receptus and not the corrupt versions that were created in 1881 by academics like Westcott & Hort , or atheists like Nestle, Aland, Nida and Metzger since the 1950’s. Then I may be inclined to put the KJV to rest. But until then, I’m digging in my heels and keeping it right here next to me so I can be assured that I’m getting the incorruptible word of God everyday.

  • I find the NASB to be superior to all translations, I always compare it to the King James and as a pair they are pretty equal, the NASB does seem to be more in line with the oldest known texts. I just stay far away from esv. rsv, and all paraphrases, just my 2 cents, if you disagree just ignore this post.

LEAVE A REPLY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *