How accurate is King James' Bible?

Upvote:8

There is much misinformation in the article you cite.

The King James Version

First of all, there were not merely eight people who translated the KJV, but 47, as Wikipedia attests.

Manuscript Variance

It is true, too, that no two original language manuscripts are identical. However, the differences are, in the vast number of cases, meaningless or minute. In only a few cases is there really any question of meaning, but none of these brings into questions any doctrine of Christianity.

The differences largely consist of spelling variances, oftentimes in proper names like Moses or Capernaum. This is akin to the variant spelling of color and colour. Another major difference is word order, but in Greek this has not impact on meaning or translation. This is akin to saying either "I am going to the store" or "To the store I am going". So, again, are there differences? Yes. But is the meaning changed at all? No. See this question for more examples.

Indeed, the fact that scholarship continued to unearth new manuscripts shows the seriousness with which translation is done. There are codexes that date back to the 400s not discovered until the 1800s, and of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls unearthed in 1957 that weren't available to the translators of the KJV - and they prove how good that translation is.

The Invention of the KJV

The King James Version is, indeed, the most used translation of all time. However, the assertion that this is some invention of 16th Century religious fanatics with a message of their own to propagate is absolutely absurd.

The KJV is not the first translation of the Bible at all. It isn't even the first translation into English. Prior to that was the Wycliffe translation, Bishop's Bible, the Matthew's Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and others. All of these versions are extremely similar, and the differences have to do with either difficulties in translating a particular word or phrase or in the selection of close synonyms in English.

These also conform to the previous Latin translations, so the KJV is an accurate translation of a preponderance of evidence that supports the original readings. The Textus Recptus on which it was based literally means "the received text" because it was so widely used and translated.

Finally, even if the King James Version isn't the best available today, there are lots of other translations available. That they differ so little is testament to how ridiculous it is to assert that there was any form of collusion. Indeed, there are even questions on this site about how to judge the accuracy of the text yourself and published tools you can consult see how the various manuscripts came together to give us what we have today.

Conclusion

Thus, the article you cite might be amusing to the unlearned who are hostile to Christianity, but it is factually wrong on many points and dishonest about historical realities.

Even if all that were true, it would be pretty amazing that such a book would be banned by so many countries, attacked by so many secular philosophers, and hated by so many atheists.

Some have predicted the death of both God and His Word, yet its pulse today is stronger than ever, and its message continues to reach into the most remote and most hostile places of the world.

Many who have tried to disprove its message have convinced themselves, against their own will, of its truthfulness, and have come to faith in Christ (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Simon Greenleaf and others).

Many others who have been prisoners of depravity, in the depths of corruption, or on the brink of suicide, have found hope and peace and fulfillment in its pages.

That is not a bad record for a book that is supposedly a man-made invention.

More post

Search Posts

Related post