Ok, I have gone through and shared 10 reasons why I am KJV-Only. If you haven't read them, they can be found here: KJV-Only. What I'd like to do now is share some reasons why I am NOT KJV-Only. Ok, I know that it is not the best way to word it, but it gets people's attention! I should say, this is not a reason that I am KJV-Only.
Reason # 1: Because the KJV is not copyrighted, whereas all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money.
There is a mixture of truth and falsehood in what I just wrote.
Truth: The KJV is not 'copyrighted.' That statement is true as far as we understand current coyright laws. However, the situation in England at the time of the translation in 1611, and the desire of the king at the time (I think his name was James), had what is known as the Crown Copyright - or something like that. It actually was more binding than what we consider current copyright. It never expires... just it is only good for England. Here in the United States, we were under that law until around 1776 - about July 4th I think it was, when in the course of human events it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands... OK, I'm off topic. If you look at a Bible printed in England (that would be an Oxford or a Cambridge), you will find the phrase 'cum privilegio' which means that it was printed with permission, or it was 'copied' with 'rights' by the crown. In England, the KJV is still copyrighted.
False: all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money. That is false because the copyrights of some verions have expired. Normal copyrights lasted for about 75 years. That means, that today, the American Standard Version (which is the American edition of the 1881 Revised Version of England) is no longer under copyright. But, just because it isn't copyrighted, does not mean that it's a good translation.
As for whether or not they are just out for money... I imagine some of them are, but I imagine some (if not the majority?) are actually out there trying to improve God's word... er, I mean, trying to improve the translation of God's word. I really don't know their motive. None of us do.
The copyright of the KJV by the crown was not for monetary benefit like copyrights are USUALLY employed today, but rather for political reasons. In America, there is freedom of the press, so books can be printed at will - though you can't copy someone else's work without permission. So, had the KJV been translated in America today, would it have been copyrighted?
...Interesting thought.
Reason # 1: Because the KJV is not copyrighted, whereas all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money.
There is a mixture of truth and falsehood in what I just wrote.
Truth: The KJV is not 'copyrighted.' That statement is true as far as we understand current coyright laws. However, the situation in England at the time of the translation in 1611, and the desire of the king at the time (I think his name was James), had what is known as the Crown Copyright - or something like that. It actually was more binding than what we consider current copyright. It never expires... just it is only good for England. Here in the United States, we were under that law until around 1776 - about July 4th I think it was, when in the course of human events it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands... OK, I'm off topic. If you look at a Bible printed in England (that would be an Oxford or a Cambridge), you will find the phrase 'cum privilegio' which means that it was printed with permission, or it was 'copied' with 'rights' by the crown. In England, the KJV is still copyrighted.
False: all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money. That is false because the copyrights of some verions have expired. Normal copyrights lasted for about 75 years. That means, that today, the American Standard Version (which is the American edition of the 1881 Revised Version of England) is no longer under copyright. But, just because it isn't copyrighted, does not mean that it's a good translation.
As for whether or not they are just out for money... I imagine some of them are, but I imagine some (if not the majority?) are actually out there trying to improve God's word... er, I mean, trying to improve the translation of God's word. I really don't know their motive. None of us do.
The copyright of the KJV by the crown was not for monetary benefit like copyrights are USUALLY employed today, but rather for political reasons. In America, there is freedom of the press, so books can be printed at will - though you can't copy someone else's work without permission. So, had the KJV been translated in America today, would it have been copyrighted?
...Interesting thought.
18 comments:
i forget, and didn't go back through the 10 reasons andy, but do you believe that the KJV is perfectly preserved and the translators were inspired by God the same as the original writers? just curious as i have heard multiple statements regarding that position.
You can get my definition here
My short answer is: Yes, it is perfectly preserved. No, the translators were not inspired the same as the original writers.
But I do believe it is a perfectly accurate translation of what was originally inspired, making it the inspired word of God in English.
So for clarification, is this your personal "Not KJV only" reason, or is this a presentation of what a person who might not be KJV only would say? I was unsure?
Mike,
This is an argument that some Pro KJV-Only people might make... I am writing that the argument is not convincing enough for me, or that it is flawed.
Sorry for the confusion - does this clear it up?
This is great Andy... There are good reasons to be KJV-Only, and I thin you did a good job on your 10, then there are bad reasons for taking good positions. I'm looking forward to the rest of your "not reasons"
Yep that cleared it up, I see where you're going with it now.
i was curious because there were a couple of revisions made a few years after the 1611 edition including the one known as the Cambridge edition and some of the original translators were involved with the revisions... i agree that i think it's obvious that the translators were not inspired as the original writers were... not sure what i think about your second statement yet.
to be honest i had never heard the KJV only argument until i started attending FBBC so i am just looking for more info...
Matt, the editions were primarily either corrections of printing errors or they were updating the language - meaning spelling, punctuation, etc.
Beyond those two things, I have read that there are few (much less than 1 percent of all of the changes) that go beyond those two, but I have not looked into them all close enough. By no means are the different KJV editions anything like the changes made in the New King James Version for example.
And, for more info, since my blog obviously wasn't enough... I would recommend D.A. Waite's fourfold superiority of the KJV. PDF FILE HERE. It is only 21 pages long.
Thanks andy i will make sure to read through that (seriously, i will)...
i was just curious about the revisions, i'm not arguing that a different version of the bible is more accurate, but wouldn't it follow that if the KJV is a perfectly preserved and a perfectly accurate translation then it wouldn't have needed any revision? just a thought...;)
or should i read that link that you posted and then see if i have any further questions?
I don't know if that document answers the revisiosn throughly. My Answers:
When it was first printed in 1611, the printer screwed up when putting each letter on the block - that needed to be revised.
Over time, the English language stopped spelling 'son' like this: 'sonne.' 'The' is no longer spelled 'Ye' and other changes like that. The change/standardization of the language needed to be revised.
Updating the language is not one of the charges that I make against the modern versions. If that's all they did, they probably would have been accepted. Although today, I would be against changing the Thee's and Ye's to just You's because then we lose the singular/plural distinction (Thee = singular, Ye = plural).
Does this satisfy you, or does the concept of revision still conflict with your understanding of a perfect, preserved translation?
i have just heard it presented so many ways, (whether in ignorance or not i can't judge) these statements are all gleaned from conversation with people from first bible.
1. KJV is the inspired, and is more reliable than the original texts because it was interpreted from a combination of all of them.
2. The translators were originally inspired just like the writers of the original texts and thus the KJV is an originally inspired Bible.
and many variations of those two.
now i will agree 100% that the other translation as you put it with possibly (i say possibly because i haven't researched it carefully) the NKJV as an exception, are not good translations and are not necessarily even good representations of the Bible (e.g. the living bible, NIV etc...)
however, i guess i would say this, and let me know what you think about it... The KJV is the most accurate modern (current language) translation, and is a true representation of the preserved Word of God. my reason for that statement is as follows:
it has been recognized through the history of the church that the canon or inspired word of God ended with the book of revelation. As such, i would submit that anything written after that point is man's interpretation/ translation and can not be called perfect or inspired no matter how close it is...
so i guess all that to say, i have no problem saying that the KJV is the most accurate translation and should be used as the English language authority. but i do have some difficulty saying it is perfect/ inspired.
thoughts?
1) "more reliable than the original texts..." I would only agree with that if the insinuation is that I (Andy Hinds) don't know Greek, so to know which texts are best does me no good - to me, the KJV is better than the Greek texts. However, I do not agree with the idea that the KJV is better than the original autographs as inspired by God - I contend though that they are equal (coming back there in a minute).
2) Nope, the translators were not breathed into by God - I don't think.
My opinion on NKJV: The NKJV is the closest flawed translation of the Bible.
"The KJV is the most accurate modern translation..." I agree with that statement, and go a step farther - it is a perfectly accurate translation.
"The KJV... is a true representation of the preserved Word of God" - I agree again. It truly represents the word of God in the English language.
"nothing after close of canon can be inspired" Would you imply that a man-made copy into the same language would not be inspired? ...I don't think you would imply that. So then really it's the issue of whether or not a translation of those inspired words can be perfectly translated. Right?
To answer that, I would go to the fact that there CAN be perfect translations - the common examples for that are: When Moses talked to Pharaoh, they would have been talking in Egyptian. When it was recorded in Exodus, it was written in Hebrew. Therefore, it was translated before it was recorded, and we have to believe that it was a perfectly accurate translation. Otherwise the Bible would be wrong when it says, "And Moses said to Pharaoh..." The second example is in Acts when Paul spoke to the Jewish lynch mob in Hebrew. Luke recorded it in Greek - but it also would have been a perfectly accurate translation. Again, the point is that there can be a perfect translation of something. If it is simply a copy into another language, then why would that change that it is still inspired?
Those are my thoughts on that :)
ok quick thoughts on this...
''Would you imply that a man-made copy into the same language would not be inspired? So then really it's the issue of whether or not a translation of those inspired words can be perfectly translated. Right?' yes correct, but also that there is a certain amount of human error involved in it as well... whether it is .00001% or 100% it is still error.
also, your uses of examples of 'perfect translations' i think can't be used, and this is why... the person doing the 'translating' (luke for example) was the one who God was inspiring to write a portion of the Bible. No human error in that translation was possible, very different for an uninspired translator... how many times when sitting in an institute class or sermon have you heard 'the word in greek actually means...'
i hope i'm not rambling... thoughts?
"La Biblia dice..." That translated into English is: "The Bible says..."
That is a perfectly accurate translation.
The Bible is more complex than that, but there were more complex translators than I involved.
What I'm getting with God's translation is that it is possible to perfectly take what was said in one language and have it 'translate' into another language. God demonstrated that for us.
I would like you to clarify which position you are taking (or maybe both):
1) The Bible as a whole can not be perfectly accurately translated into another language. Language does not allow it.
or
2) No human or group of humans is able to make a perfectly accurately translation of the Bible. Because they are human, it is necessary for them to make a mistake.
I think the example of Luke & Acts shows that number 1 is not valid. And for number 2, I would ask why not? If I can make a perfectly accurate translation of one phrase, why can't 50 guys over 7 years with a much better grasp of original languages makea a perfectly accurate translation of 1,189 chapters? 31,102 verses?
Just for fun, I did the math: Knowing that the translators broke up into 6 groups, for 7 years, if they worked 8 hours a day, they could spend up to 4 hours on every verse. Is that unreasonable to suggest that at least 7 guys working on one verse for 4 hours could not get it right?
let me use a quick example eros, philia, storge, thelema, and agape
all Greek words for love.
so 7 guys sit around for a week on one verse that contains one of these words and stick love in there, but the word means more than love, so in order to get that concept across they put a adjective in front or after...
'1) The Bible as a whole can not be perfectly accurately translated into another language. Language does not allow it... I think the example of Luke & Acts shows that number 1 is not valid.' i guess what i am trying to say is, unless God is inspiring the writer (translator) as He did in Luke and Acts (for example Daniel interpreting the writing on the wall in chapter 5, God gave only him the ability to read and interpret/ translate, and other places in the Bible) then it is hard to claim that a translation is the ultimate authority.
however, again, i'm not trying to prove that the King James Bible is not the Word of God. I believe that it is, but hesitate to claim that the KJV is the ultimate authority to the dismissal of all others... but i do have a better understanding for the arguments that you make, so thank you...
"...then it is hard to claim that a translation is the ultimate authority."
God is the ultimate authority.
Therefore what He says is the ultimate authority. He chose to reveal what He says to us today by inspiring men to write it down in Hebrew & Greek.
As that is properly translated into English, it remains still the ultimate authority. It doesn't supercede the originals, just like the written Scripture does not supercede the whole of God. But a translation can be an accurate representation of the originals in another language, and therefore an accurate representation of the authority of God. I say Perfectly accurate.
Thank you for bringing this subject up. Although I somewhat understand where people are coming from who talk about the other versions being copyrighted, it does end up coming across as ignorant. Speaking of ignorant, I was ignorant of this until I read your article! I've since studied up on it, but thank you!
Post a Comment