The King James Translators

What They Teach Us in the Preface to the 1611 King James Bible

Noel Smith, writing for the Baptist Bible Tribune, recommends a book entitled God’s Word into English by Dewey M. Beegle. Informing the reader of what this book contains, Smith states that Beegle’s book contains “the complete text (24 pages) of the preface to the King James Version (which most Bible readers have never read and which all should read).”

The original King James Bible was translated with a Preface entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” For a preface, it is quite lengthy, but it is worthwhile read. It should be read by everyone who reads the Bible, but especially by those who recognize only the King James Version as God’s word in the English language. Although I love and use the King James Bible, honesty compels me to report that the King James translators, were they alive today, would not see the King James Version as the only valid translation of God’s word into the English language. I would like to emphasize six facts concerning the King James translators using their own words in the preface to the King James Bible. I will supply direct quotes from the preface, and I encourage the reader to download a copy of the preface here. Any unbiased reader will see that the beliefs of the translators articulated in this article will be factual.

The Translators Sought to Make One Good Principal Translation

It is true that the King James translators revered the previous English translations that existed before the translation they produced. As a matter of fact, they used the previous English translations to aid them in their most noble work. They referred to previous translations as “good,” believing them to be valuable English translations. In the words of the translators themselves:

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.

The idea that the King James Version is the only good translation in the English language did not originate with the King James translators. They counted the translations before them as good translations.

When, however, the translators spoke of making one “principal” translation, what did they mean? Did they mean that their translation would be the only valuable translation in the English language upon its completion? I believe that the translators’ words in the preface will refute this notion in a solid manner, as we will see later.

By a “principal” translation, I believe it is clear that the translators strove for a translation that would be acceptable for public reading as well as private; for family devotions as well as religious services; for the president as well as the miner; for the rich as well as the poor; for the clergy as well as the layman. It is certain that the translators did not disregard the translations before them, and I am convinced that they would not have derided every translation after them.

The Translators Regarded Nearly Every English Translation as God’s Word

By stating that they desired to make “one principal” translation, the King James translators were not knocking the translations either before or after them. This becomes clear when the translators declare that even the “meanest” (i.e. the most average, the most despicable, the lowest in rank) English translations were to be regarded as God’s word:

We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession… containeth the word of God, nay, IS the word of God.

You may ask whether the translators would accept a translation as God’s word if it differed from the original Greek and Hebrew. The translators answer this question clearly. They refer to the fact that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint (which they call “the Translation of the Seventy”) although it differed from the original Hebrew writings, referring to it as God’s Word:

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (which it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

The Translators Referred to Their Work as a Revision

Although I have mentioned this in a previous post, I must again mention that the King James Bible was identified by its own translators as a revision! On the cover page of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as in many King James Bibles today) it reads:

Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised

This would be a good place to insert the fact that the King James Version was not the first English version of the Bible. When the King James translators set out to revise the previous English translations, they met much opposition. Would you like to guess what crime with which the King James translators were charged? They were changing God’s word! The English-speaking people already had the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and of course the translations of Tyndale and Wycliffe. Now, the King James translators had set out to revise the English Bible once again – and it was not welcomed.

Listen to the words of the translators as they acknowledge that their work of revising the word of God was not received with a warm greeting:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks.

In defending their work of revising the English Bible, the King James translators further added that, if the translators of the previous English versions were yet alive, they would thank the King James translators for revising their works:

So, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

When one opposes the works of modern versions upon the grounds that “God’s word does not need to be revised,” that opponent, if he or she were alive in 1611, would have opposed the King James Version itself.

The Translators Did Not Regard the King James Text as the Only Correct Rendering of the Original Languages

King James Bibles today do not have the marginal notes that were present in the original King James Bible. I am not speaking of “center column references;” I am rather speaking of notes that the translators made themselves. In the margin of the original King James Bible, the translators provided alternate translations. Those alternate translations were preceded by the word “Or,” and were regarded as equivalent to the text itself. In essence, the translators were saying, “We have translated a Greek or Hebrew word this way, but it can read that way as well.” Thus, the translators were admitting that a Greek or Hebrew word could be translated more than one way.

As you can guess, the translators were criticized for this. Their critics claimed that, by placing alternate translations in the margin, they were tampering with the authority of God’s word. God’s word can only be translated one way, their critics argued. This is the argument of many today who claim that the King James rendering of a certain passage is the only way that passage can be translated. The King James translators, however, did not believe this. In the preface to the King James Bible, they defended first, their belief that some of their renderings were questionable; and second, their use of marginal readings:

Doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption… So diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

The Translators Encouraged Using a Variety of Translations

Would the translators, if they were alive today, use the King James Version exclusively, or would they use a variety of translations? The answer is found in the preface to the King James Bible, where they quote St. Augustine in a positive light:

Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.

The Translators Were Accused of Heresy

One reason for the widespread rejection of the King James Version in 1611 was due the opinion that some of the translators held to heretical beliefs. Because the translators are heretics, the argument went, their translation should be rejected. The translators responded to this:

And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were Authors of the translations (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong).

It is common for some to reject a version because of a heretical translator. Or, how many times have we been advised to reject modern versions because of the beliefs of Westcott and Hort? Opponents of the King James Version in 1611 called for its rejection on the same grounds. I am convinced that the King James translators would not reject a Bible translation on the basis of the beliefs of its translators, as they had received the same treatment.

The “King James Only” Debate

Like my recent posts concerning the King James Version, this post is designed to be informational rather than confrontational. It would benefit the reader to read my recent posts regarding the King James Version before reading this post (Fundamentalism and the King James Bible and Thoughts on the King James Version). In this post, I simply intend to put forth a few facts regarding the “King James Only” debate.

That there is such a debate raging today is undeniable. The argument in this debate is defined simply by stating that some insist on using the King James Version exclusively while others make no such insistence. Those who insist on the usage of the King James Version exclusively are known as “King James Onlyists.” King James Onlyists insist that the King James Bible is God’s word in the English language, and that no other translation is to be regarded as the word of God. In Fundamentalism and the King James Bible, I clearly and correctly identify great men of God on both sides of the debate. Out of all the men who stood (or stand) for godly living, the inspiration of the Bible, the literal and premillennial second coming of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinlessness and deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and other fundamental doctrines of the faith, some of them used the King James Version exclusively, but some of them did not. Personally, I use the King James Bible and believe it to be a superior translation in many ways. I discuss this in Thoughts on the King James Version.

Although much can be said regarding this debate, I wish to focus primarily on one simple aspect of the discussion – the fact that I have personally found presuppositions, flawed logic, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate. I will state them candidly and expound upon them briefly.

Those Opposing the King James Onlyists

I believe that those who oppose the King James Onlyists are inconsistent with, at times, flawed logic in their arguments.

A PRESUPPOSITION

To begin, those opposing the King James Onlyists have a presupposition for their foundation. They presuppose that “older manuscripts” is equivalent to “more reliable manuscripts,” as they like to call them. It is undeniable that the Greek manuscripts that were used in translating the King James New Testament differ in many places from the manuscripts that were used in translating the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the majority of all modern versions since. The King James translators used the Greek text originally translated by Erasmus. This Greek New Testament would become known as the Textus Receptus (meaning “Received Text”) and would be used from 1604 to 1611 by the King James translators.

In the mid-nineteenth century, very old Greek manuscripts were found. One set of manuscripts was found in the Vatican. We call this set of manuscripts “Codex Vaticanus.” Another set of manuscripts was found near Mount Sinai, thus referred to as “Codex Sinaiticus.” Other sets of manuscripts were found, but these two were the oldest. They were much older, of course, than the Textus Receptus, which was used in the translation of the King James Version. From these manuscripts, two Cambridge professors, Dr. Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort, produced a Greek New Testament.

The first authorized revision of the King James Version was published in 1881 when the Revised Version of the New Testament was published. The Revised Version of the entire Bible was published in 1885. The American edition of this (British) revision was published in 1901. This New Testament of this revision was translated from the Greek New Testament produced by Westcott and Hort rather than the Textus Receptus. As a matter of fact, most modern translations use Westcott and Hort’s Greek text (or other similar texts) rather than the Textus Receptus.

Here’s where the “King James Only” debate comes in. Opponents of the King James Onlyists base their argument on a presupposition. For the foundation of their argument, they automatically assume, in most cases because they’ve heard it repeated over and over, that the manuscripts used by Westcott and Hort to produce their Greek New Testament are better manuscripts than the manuscripts used by Erasmus to produce his Greek New Testament (which was used by the King James translators). This argument is the basis of the argument (in many cases) for the one who accepts any English translation of the Bible as authentic. When the man who uses many Bible versions encounters the King James Onlyist, he often cites that the modern versions are based on “more accurate manuscripts.” And what evidence is offered for such a position? None, except that the manuscripts used to produce modern translations are older than those used in the translation of the King James Version. “Older is better,” they say. But such a statement is seldom proven. It is stated by the opponent of the King James Onlyist, and the opponent expects the King James Onlyist to use that presupposition as the basis for their argument without so much as questioning it.

I am simply stating that in a debate between a King James Onlyist and his opponent, the opponent of the King James Onlyist cannot merely use this statement without some degree of attempted proof. There is good reason, with respect to ancient manuscripts, to believe that, in fact, “older manuscripts” are not “better manuscripts.” For example, the King James Onlyist could argue that the manuscripts used to translate the Textus Receptus were newer because they were in use. Because the church used the Textus Receptus, there was need to recopy it through the years. Consequently, old copies of the Textus Receptus did not survive. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, however, were only kept in tact for centuries because they were not used! If they were such superior manuscripts, then why didn’t the church use them? This is a valid question and deserves an answer. Although the oldest manuscripts would seem to reflect what the writer originally wrote, it must be considered that those “more reliable manuscripts” were not used by the church through the centuries.

MUCH OF THEIR ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON “SCRIBAL ERRORS”

As I have already stated, the New Testament Greek text used by the King James Version is a different Greek text than that used by modern Bible versions. To account for these differences, both King James Onlyists and their opponents have different explanations. According to King James Onlyists, the Greek text produced by Westcott and Hort was simply corrupted. That’s all there is to it. The Greek text in Westcott and Hort’s New Testament differed in places from the Received Text because the Received Text was inspired by God and Westcott and Hort’s text was corrupted by Satan.

Opponents of the King James Onlyist, however, present a different viewpoint. They believe that differences occur between the Greek texts because of scribal errors primarily. Through the centuries, the scriptures were copied by hand, usually in monasteries. Opponents of the King James Onlyist believe that, as monks and scribes were copying the scriptures, through the years, they added and deleted words, phrases, and entire sections of scripture! To the opponent of the King James Onlyist, I would ask you to think about the argument you are presenting.

This, in my humble opinion, seems to be a weak argument, considering the fact that most of the time, the monk in the monastery or the ancient scribe had veneration for the scriptures. That they made mistakes is not debatable, but that they “accidentally added entire sections of scripture” seems to the logical mind unlikely. It has been my observation that, along with the “older is better” argument, this argument comprises the bulk of the argument for those who oppose King James Onlyists.

GOD’S WORD BECOMES COMMON AND ORDINARY

My final observation regarding the argument of the opponents of the King James Onlyists is not related to their argument itself, but rather the conclusion of their argument. I do understand that those who disagree with the King James Onlyist will take their liberty to read from a variety of translations. But I wonder how a reader of various versions chooses which version to read and regard as God’s word? It is seldom articulated by the opponents of the King James Onlyists how they go about choosing a Bible version. Most of what I have observed is this – that he who is not constrained to the King James Version sees all English versions as suitable translations of God’s word. But is this the case? It is very difficult to believe that every Bible translation is an accurate rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I am simply stating this to say that if one is going to oppose the King James Onlyist, he should at least explain how one finds a genuine translation of the Bible from among the many versions offered today.

One thing that disturbs me about those who use multiple versions of the Bible is the fact that God’s word seems to become common and ordinary. Translating the Bible from its original tongues into the English language (or any language) ought to be done with reverence. To put it plainly, it seems to be done these days for monetary profit. As I thumb through many new versions in book stores, there seems to be no sense of reverence to most of these modern versions. Everybody seems to translate the scriptures these days. It may be true that, as for the modern versions, the Bible is as “easy to read” as the newspaper; but it equally true that the Bible has become as “respected” as the newspaper. All I am saying is that the King James translators had a sense of reverence for the word of God (this is easily proven by simply reading the Epistle Dedicatory or the Preface to the King James Bible). This reverence is missing in many, many translations today. Many modern translators gallop and skip where angels fear to tread.

The King James Onlyists

Those who honor only the King James Version as God’s word in the English language are not without inconsistencies and flawed logic in their argument.

GOD’S WORD NEEDS NO REVISION!

This is a primary argument presented by the King James Onlyists. It is inconsistent in the simple fact that the King James Bible was identified by its own translators in 1611 as a revision! On the cover page of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as in many King James Bibles today) it reads:

Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised

This would be a good place to insert the fact that the King James Version was not the first English version of the Bible. When the King James translators set out to revise the previous English translations, they met much opposition. Would you like to guess what crime with which the King James translators were charged? They were changing God’s word! The English-speaking people already had the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and of course the translations of Tyndale and Wycliffe. Now, the King James translators had set out to revise the English Bible once again – and it was not welcomed.

In the Preface to the 1611 edition of the King James Bible, the translators stated that their work of revising the previous translations was not received with a warm greeting:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks.

In defending their work, the King James translators further added that, if the translators of the previous English versions were yet alive, they would thank the King James translators for revising their works:

So, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

When a King James Onlyist opposes the works of modern versions, stating that “God’s word does not need to be revised,” that opponent, if he or she were alive in 1611, would have opposed the King James Version itself.

CIRCULAR REASONING OF KING JAMES ONLYISTS

The King James Onlyist believes that the King James Version is the only English version that is to be regarded as God’s word. One of their supreme arguments, however, is based upon a presupposition that leads to circular, flawed reasoning. Please try to follow me.

The “King James Only” debate is a debate over the question of whether or not the King James Version is the only translation that should be regarded as God’s word in the English language. When the King James Onlyist sets out to prove this statement, he does so by using circular reasoning. He uses the statement he is trying to prove (that the King James Version is the only English translation to be regarded as God’s word) as his premise.

Let me illustrate. During the debate of a King James Onlyist and his opponent, the King James Onlyist will at some point show his opponent a chart containing a list of verses. The chart will show several verses with the King James rendering on one side, and renderings from a modern version on the other. They will show what the modern versions have “omitted.” The question is, “Omitted from what?” From the King James Version of course! This type of reasoning makes the King James Version the standard for measuring all other versions. Of course, that is really what the whole debate is about – whether or not the King James Version is the only version that can be regarded as God’s word in the English language.

Here are the points of the King James Onlyist in this debate:

1. Premise – The King James Version is God’s word in the English language.
2. The text of modern versions differs from the text of the King James Version.
3. Therefore, the text of modern versions differs from the text of God’s word in the English language.
4. Modern versions cannot be God’s word in the English language.
5. Conclusion – The King James Version is God’s word in the English language.

The King James Onlyist would prove his point in a more logically sound manner if he would begin with a premise that is both different from his conclusion and that is agreed to by his opponent. The fact that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek would be a good premise.

ACCUSATIONS OF DOCTRINAL TAMPERING

The King James Onlyist is quick to refer you to passages in modern versions that “omit” words, phrases, or entire verses. “Why do modern versions ‘omit’ certain words, phrases, and verses?” you may ask. According to the King James Onlyist, words and phrases that are present in the King James Version but missing in modern versions are missing because the modern versions are trying to “do away” with certain doctrines. But is that really the case?

I could provide a number of examples, but I will only show a few of the very common ones cited often by King James Onlyists. Perhaps the most common example of a verse that is found in the King James Version but is missing from many modern translations is I John 5:7. In the King James Version, I John 5:7 reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse is not found in the New International Version (although it is included in the footnotes). King James Onlyists insist that the NIV translators are “trying to do away with the Trinity!” But this claim is unsubstantiated. So, why is this verse missing from the NIV and other modern versions?

As stated earlier, the Greek New Testament that was used in translating the King James New Testament was produced by Erasmus. In Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek New Testament, the text of I John 5:7 was absent. This caused a stir, as the text had always been present in the popular Latin Vulgate. When asked why it was missing from his Greek New Testament, Erasmus replied that the verse was not found in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He then promised that if someone could produce a Greek manuscript that included the verse, he would include it in his next edition. Someone supplied such a manuscript (which was probably a brand new manuscript produced solely so the verse would be included), and Erasmus, faithful to his word, produced a Greek New Testament with the words of I John 5:7 in it. Just think of it – had the King James translators used Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek New Testament instead of a later one, the words of I John 5:7 would be missing in the King James Version!

The point is this – no one sat among the NIV translators and said, “We don’t like the Trinity; let’s take it out!” If the NIV translators were indeed determined to do away with the Trinity, don’t you think that they would have removed Matthew 28:19 (the Trinitarian formula for baptism)? What about Jesus’ statement claiming that the Son doesn’t know when His return would be; only the Father knows? In the NIV, that statement is intact (Matthew 24:36). What about the Trinity in Acts 7:55, where Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, looked up and saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. In the NIV, this verse is intact. The one who accuses the NIV translators of trying to do away with the Trinity is simply not making a judgment on the basis of fact.

Another verse used by King James Onlyists to prove that the modern versions try to remove certain Bible doctrines is Luke 2:33, which in the King James Version states:

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

In the NIV, the verse is stated this way:

The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Where the King James has “Joseph and his mother,” the NIV translates, “his father and mother.” Of course, the accusation is that the NIV is trying to make Joseph the father of Jesus, which would mean that Jesus was not virgin born. “The NIV denies the virgin birth!” the King James Onlyist exclaims. But is that a correct assessment? In the NIV, the virgin birth is clearly upheld in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.

So, what about Luke 2:33, where the NIV refers to Joseph as the child’s father? There is a simple answer. The simple answer is that if the King James Onlyist believes that the NIV denies the virgin birth by referring to Joseph as “the child’s father,” then, if they are consistent, the same King James Onlyist would have to conclude that Mary, the mother of Jesus, the virgin herself, did not believe in the virgin birth either. In the King James Bible, it is written where Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus’ father. Notice the King James rendering of Luke 2:48:

His mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

In addition to this, if the King James Onlyist will be consistent in his accusations, he must then conclude that the King James translators were trying to do away with the virgin birth of Christ when they translated Luke 2:41. Speaking of Mary and Joseph, the King James rendering of Luke 2:41 is:

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

The King James translators are here referring to Mary and Joseph as “his parents.” Were they trying to “do away” with the virgin birth? Of course not, and neither were the translators of the NIV.

Lastly, I want to examine perhaps the most common example provided by the King James Onlyist as proof of translators of modern versions trying to “do away” with certain doctrines. Notice Colossians 1:14 in the King James Version:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

See if you can spot what is missing from the NIV rendering of the same verse:

In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The phrase “through his blood” is present in the King James rendering, but absent from the NIV rendering (actually the phrase is absent from the NIV text, but is present in the NIV footnotes). Many King James Onlyists have ranted and raved about the NIV being a “bloodless” version. But is that an accurate statement?

The reason for the absence of the phrase “through his blood” in the NIV’s rendering of Colossians 1:14 is simple. As stated before, the modern versions use a different Greek New Testament for their source of translation than the King James translators. In the Received Text, the phrase “through his blood” was in the Greek text. In the Greek New Testament used by modern versions, the phrase is absent. The translators of both the NIV and KJV were being true to the text before them. The translators of the NIV were being very honest by stating in a footnote that the phrase “through his blood” was found in a few late manuscripts. There is no conspiracy on the part of the NIV translators to “do away” with the blood, a charge with which they are often accused.

Six verses later, in Colossians 1:20, the NIV translates the following:

…by making peace through his blood…

There is a Bible verse that is very similar to Colossians 1:14 and that verse is Ephesians 1:7. In the New International Version, notice its rendering:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

The King James Onlyist who claims that translators of modern versions “omit” words and phrases in order to tear down, do away with, or hide Biblical doctrines is either very dishonest or very ignorant.

VILIFICATION OF WESTCOTT AND HORT

As stated previously, the Greek text used in translating the New Testament of modern versions was produced by Dr. Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort. A tactic used by many King James Onlyists is to argue that modern versions should be rejected because Westcott and Hort were rascals! Most often, it is brought out that Westcott and Hort were men who defended Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. The inconsistency of this argument is clearly seen when we remember that the Textus Receptus was produced initially by Erasmus, who was a Catholic priest who defended the Mass and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Muslims Are Not Bible Scholars!

Recently I obtained a small, very colorful book* by I.A. Ibrahim entitled A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam. In it, I learned much concerning Islamic beliefs on various subjects. I learned, for example, that “Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism” (p. 59). When I read that sentence, I was amazed! I had just learned something that was foreign to the Muslims in the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Somebody send this book to Al-Qaeda! They evidently don’t know that the merciful religion of Islam is forbidden to use terrorism! How differently circumstances could have turned out if only the Fort Hood shooter and the Boston bombers could have read this book!

Oh but wait! There’s more! I learned further that “the life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are considered sacred, whether a person is Muslim or not” (p. 61). I never would have guessed that the lives of non-Muslims are sacred. When I examine Sharia-practicing countries, I notice that under blasphemy laws citizens lose their “sacred” lives, often by having their sacred heads cut off, for simply converting to Christianity. Someone please send this book to the government in Iran!

Then, my education continued. I learned that “Islam sees a woman, whether single or married, as an individual in her own right, with the right to own and dispose of her property and earnings without any guardianship over her (whether that be her father, husband, or anyone else)” (p. 63). Any casual student of modern Islamic social science, if honest, is forced to admit that none of the more than fifty Muslim states is known for the freedom of its citizens, to put it mildly. And the most oppressed among Muslim citizens are the women, who in many Muslim nations, are publicly flogged for removing the veil from their faces. Evidently, political leaders in Pakistan have never read this book!

These “truths” were eye-openers. But the sentence that perhaps seized my attention more than the others was the sentence that was directed to Bible believers. Ibrahim (the author) made the claim that if a person believes the Bible, they must believe that Muhammad is a prophet sent from God. The Bible supposedly teaches this. Look at the author’s own words:

The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the prophet Muhammad are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe the Bible. (p. 33)

Deuteronomy 18:18-19

Given as proof, the first Bible passage stated by Ibrahim is Deuteronomy 18:18-19:

Deuteronomy 18:18-19 – “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

The Prophet in this passage whom God promised to send, according to Muslims, is Muhammad. A simple study of the Bible will refute this solidly. Look at the above text. It says that God will raise up a Prophet “from among their brethren.” Ibrahim believes that the phrase “from among their brethren,” means that God promised to raise up a Prophet from among the Ishmaelites, because Ishmael was the brother of Jacob (Israel). Look at Ibrahim’s words:

The prophet spoken of was not to come from among the Jews themselves, but from among their brothers, i.e. the Ishmaelites. Muhammad, an Ishmaelite, is indeed this prophet. (p. 34)

This interpretation seems plausible, but is this interpretation actual? Does the Bible teach that the phrase “their brethren” in Deuteronomy 18 refers to the Ishmaelites (descendents of Ishmael, i.e. Arabs)? To see if this interpretation holds out, let us back up one chapter from Deuteronomy 18. Let us quickly examine a passage from Deuteronomy 17. This passage also contains the phrase “from among their brethren.”

Deuteronomy 17:15 – “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one FROM AMONG THY BRETHREN shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”

This verse speaks of the time when Israel would want a king to reign over them. The Lord made it plain that, when that time arrived, they were to set a king over them “from among thy brethren.” Is there anyone who would make any feeble attempt to claim that God wanted Israel to set an Ishmaelite over them as king? In I Samuel 9, the Lord indeed chose Israel’s first king. Whom did He choose? Did He choose an Ishmaelite? Absolutely not. However, He did choose a man from among Israel’s brethren. I Samuel 9:17 tells us that God chose Saul to be king. Who was Saul? He was an Israelite, of the tribe of Benjamin (I Samuel 9:21).

If I interpret the scripture fairly and honestly, I must admit that the phrase “from among thy brethren” in Deuteronomy 17 refers to God raising up an Israelite to be king, not an Ishmaelite. To be faithful to the laws of hermeneutics, I must interpret the same phrase one chapter later the same way. When God promised to raise up a Prophet “from among thy brethren” in Deuteronomy 18, that Prophet would also be an Israelite.

As for the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18, the Bible clearly identifies Him. In Acts 3, Peter the apostle is preaching. In Acts 3:22-23, Peter quotes Deuteronomy 18:18-19:

Acts 3:22-23 – “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

In verse 26, Peter identifies this Prophet plainly and unmistakably:

Acts 3:26 – “Unto you first God, having RAISED UP HIS SON JESUS, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

The Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is an Israelite, not an Ishmaelite; a Jew, not an Arab; a Saviour, not a murderer; and His name is Jesus, not Muhammad.

Isaiah 42:1-4

Ibrahim uses yet another passage scripture to indict Bible believers for their rejection of Muhammad as the Prophet. He states that the “servant” of Isaiah 42 is Muhammad. Let us look at the passage:

Isaiah 42:1-4 – “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”

Pointing to verse 11 of the same chapter, Ibrahim states that the above passage must refer to Muhammad:

Verse 11 connects that awaited messenger with the descendants of Kedar. Who is Kedar? According to Genesis 25:13, Kedar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad. (p. 35)

Actually, verse 11 does not connect the “servant” of verses 1-4 with a man by the name of Kedar. Let us look at verse 11:

Isaiah 42:11 – “Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.”

Verse 11 does not say that the “servant” of verse 1 is a descendent of Kedar. That is a nice try in twisting the scriptures, but that is plainly not what is said. In verse 11, the villages of Kedar were exhorted to lift up their voice and sing because of the servant of verse 1! Verse 11 says nothing about the “descendents of Kedar.”

So, who is the “servant” of verse 1? Matthew 12:15-20 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4, identifying the servant very plainly:

Matthew 12:15-20 – “But when JESUS knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.”

Jesus Christ told some of His followers to not make Him known. Why? So that Isaiah 42:1-4 could be fulfilled. Jesus Christ is the servant of Isaiah 42, not Muhammad.

John 14:16

Some time ago, while on Facebook, there was a thread of discussion regarding the Holy Spirit. At some point in the conversation, a Muslim gave his point of view, claiming that he was a former Christian. He converted to Islam upon understanding that the Comforter of John 14:16 was the prophet Muhammad. Notice John 14:16:

John 14:16 – “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.”

I never thought I would hear a man say that he believes that the Comforter of John 14 is the prophet Muhammad. Any so-called Christian who converts to Islam after seeing that Muhammad is the Comforter never had a genuine experience with Jesus Christ a day in his life. The claim that Muhammad is the Comforter of John 14 is so absurd that I hate to ask you for even a second of your time to read my refutation of such a notion.

Who is the Comforter of John 14? Jesus Christ, in the Bible, clearly identifies the Comforter.

John 14:26 – “But the Comforter, WHICH IS THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost. And just in case a Muslim Bible scholar tries to claim that Muhammad is the Holy Ghost, let me go ahead and refute that idea. Muhammad was not born until the sixth century A.D. The book of Acts was written in the first century A.D. In the book of Acts chapter 5, Peter asked Ananias why he lied to the HOLY GHOST. The Holy Ghost could not have been Muhammad because there was no Muhammad for five more centuries.

Conclusion

I will not be having any Bible studies with my local imam unless he is the student. The above passages of scripture do not refer to the prophet Muhammad. I must be fair, however. There is one Bible verse that very well may refer to Muhammad and his followers:

John 16:2 – “…the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”

*I.A. Ibrahim. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam: Second Edition. Darussalam. Houston, TX. ©1997, 1996.

Thoughts on the King James Version

In my previous post, I wrote concerning Fundamentalism and the King James Bible. I simply supplied the reader with information. It is my intention that this post, like the previous one, be informational rather than confrontational. It is my aim to simply present my own observations on the King James Bible, comparing it to other versions, especially the English Revised and the American Standard versions.

The Production of the King James Bible

To begin, allow me to present a few facts concerning the King James Bible that will likely already be familiar to most of my readers. First, the Bible was not written in the English language, let alone in the King James Version. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew for the most part, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Second, the King James Version was not the first Bible to be translated in the English language. The title page in nearly any King James Bible declares that the King James Version was “Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations diligently compared.” In the fourteenth century, Wycliffe’s Bible was translated. In the sixteenth century, the English language welcomed Tyndale’s translation, the Coverdale Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Then, in 1604, King James I issued an edict for a new English translation. Seven years later, it was completed.

Another fact to be noted concerning the King James Version is that the King James Version that is published today is not the 1611 edition, but is rather the 1769 edition. Most English-speaking people cannot read the 1611 edition. Since 1611, the King James Version has undergone a few revisions, the latest being in 1769. These revisions changed very little wording and focused mainly on updating the spelling and grammar.

The First Revisions of the King James Version (KJV)

For nearly three centuries, the King James Version was the prominent Bible translation in the English language. However, in the nineteenth century, a new set of manuscripts (copies of ancient scriptures) was found in the Vatican. With the discovery of these manuscripts, an English revision of the King James Bible was on the way. In England, scholars produced a revision known as the English Revised Version in 1885. This revision is commonly referred to as simply “The Revised Version” (RV). An American Revision Committee then went to work to produce the American edition of the Revised Version. This revision was completed in 1901 and is known as the American Standard Version (ASV).

I will mention other versions besides the RV and the ASV, but I want to focus primarily on these versions in comparison to the KJV for a couple of reasons. First, many prominent Bible teachers of years gone by have referred to these versions in their writings. Second, these revisions were the first versions to be offered as alternates to the King James Bible. Third, nearly all modern versions are revisions of the RV or ASV. Consequently, nearly all modern versions translate the Bible from the same manuscripts as the RV and ASV.

The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version Were Never Popular

The first Bible versions offered as alternates to the KJV, though used by famed Bible expositors, were never made popular. It is noteworthy that until recent years, the King James Version has been by far the most popular Bible translation. This is a remarkable fact for many reasons.

In 2012, the King James Version ranked #2 in sales, second only to the New International Version. Please consider a few things with me. First, when Bibles are ranked by number of sales, only the sales of new Bibles are counted. This is because publishers release how many new Bibles they sold in a given year. Used Bibles are not counted because used book stores do not order Bibles and books from the publishers. Please stay with me. Many Christian book stores that sell new Bibles have an extremely limited selection of King James Bibles. Plainly stated, it is becoming harder and harder to find King James Bibles in Christian book stores that sell new Bibles. Because of this, those looking for King James Bibles often buy them used. This is the case especially with those looking for King James Bibles. A considerable percentage of King James Bibles that were put into the hands of consumers in 2012 were used rather than new, but not a single of those Bibles were counted as sales. Secondly, there is a growing demand for digital Bibles today. Many people have Bibles on their phones, computers, and tablets. In most cases, modern versions that are downloaded to electronic devices are sold because they are copyrighted. Digital copies of the King James Version, however, are often free, because the King James text is not copyrighted. The free downloads of the King James Version are not included in the number of sales for 2012. Third, the Gideons International exists for the distribution of Bibles. They do not sell Bibles, but distribute an incredible number of Bibles in the United States annually. Because these Bibles are not sold, they are not counted as sales. The Gideons International publishes the King James Version and the New King James Version, but they do not publish the New International Version.

I am simply pointing out that, though the King James Bible ranked #2 in sales in 2012, it may actually be more popular than what is reported. But for the sake of discussion, let us take for granted that the King James Bible is #2 in terms of sales. This is remarkably amazing! For well over 100 years, the King James Version has been ruthlessly attacked by theological professors in Christian universities. For over 100 years, we have heard the common propaganda that the King James Bible is hard to understand; the King James Bible needs to be updated; the King James Bible is inaccurate and needs to be corrected; the King James Bible is obsolete. The modernist in the pulpit and the professor in the classroom would like nothing more than to push the King James Bible out of existence. But after more than 100 years of their efforts to do just that, they can’t even push the King James Bible off the top ten list, let alone out of existence!

In the midst of many Bible versions today, the King James Version is remarkably popular. But let us return to the turn of the twentieth century, when the American Standard Version was first published in the United States. It was realized very quickly that the ASV would not replace the KJV. The ASV would become, at best, a reference tool that would sit on the shelf of the pastor. It never made it into the hands of the common people. Its unpopularity was very promptly realized.

C.I. Scofield believed the RV and the ASV to be authoritative. However, when expounding upon why he chose the King James text as the text for his reference Bible, Scofield says:

After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version [King James Version]. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people’s Bible of the English-speaking world.

Why Was the ASV Unpopular?

Besides the KJV, the first English version of the Bible available to Americans was the American Standard Version. It never became popular. A question that is provoked at this point is “Why?”

I have thumbed through the American Standard Version, and I see a few characteristics that may have contributed to the growing unpopularity of the American Standard Version.

First, the ASV simply does not have the majesty in its words that is present in the King James Version. In other words, the King James Version has a “ring to it” that is absent from the ASV, and all modern versions for that matter.

Noel Smith, who commended the ASV for being an accurate and authoritative translation, admits:

The American Standard Version has not been generally accepted because it doesn’t have in it the music of cadence and rhythm that the majestic King James Version has. And the King James Version has been here for more than 300 years. Its long history with all its associations with the mighty events that have transpired among English-speaking peoples during the time, have given the King James Version a vast authority and dignity. And justly so. (Noel Smith, “Translations of our English Bible,” Baptist Bible Tribune, December 13, 1968)

I believe that any literary critic who will critique the King James Version will testify to the literary beauty of the KJV. The individual who cannot see the literary beauty of the King James Bible is illiterate, dishonest, or unqualified to critique literature. Anyone who can read and comprehend at a second grade level can notice the majestic tone in the words of the King James Bible.

Another characteristic of the ASV that, I believe, contributed to its eventual departure into obscurity is in its removal of familiarity. In 1901, when the ASV was published, most of the English-speaking world was familiar with phrases found in the KJV. The ASV took away some of these familiarities. For example, the revisers of the ASV replaced the KJV “LORD” with the word “Jehovah.” Most likely, this translation is not inaccurate. But do you know how many verses in the KJV contain the phrase “the LORD”? Most of my readers are probably familiar with Psalm 100:1, which states, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD.” Can you imagine, after being familiar with that phrase, opening an ASV Bible, and finding, “Make a joyful noise unto Jehovah”? There are many verses that people located in the ASV, only to find the familiarity taken away.

Another characteristic that contributed to the fall of the ASV is that the text was printed in paragraph form. This is all right for casual reading, but it is very inconvenient for looking up references. The King James Bible lists verses in a column. It makes it very easy to look up a particular verse. If you are sitting in a church, however, with an ASV Bible, and the minister says, “Turn to Acts chapter 20 and verse 4,” you will soon find that verse 4 is in the middle of a paragraph. I can see where, even though this is a small inconvenience, people would lay their ASV aside and stick with their King James. It is noteworthy that many of the modern versions print the text of their Bibles in paragraph form.

Another characteristic that made the ASV unpopular, in my opinion, is its failure as an English translation. There are some words in the ASV that, instead of being translated, are transliterated. For example, in the ASV, Psalm 9:17 says, “The wicked shall be turned back into Sheol.” Now, the average American, in 1901 as well as now, does not know what “sheol” is. “Sheol” is a Hebrew word. The purpose of an English translation is to give us the English meanings of words in the original language(s). Leaving words in the original Hebrew language instead of translating it causes the ASV to fail as a translation. In the ASV, Psalm 9:17 is virtually unintelligible. In the KJV, however, Psalm 9:17 is understandable to a first grader – “The wicked shall be turned into hell.”

The ASV furthermore leaves the Greek word “hades” in the text, as well as the Greek word “anathema.” This would make the ASV an unpopular translation, in my opinion.

Closing Thoughts

The King James Version has a majesty about it that is missing in the RV, ASV, and other modern versions. In addition to this, the King James Bible has contributed more to the English language than any literary work anywhere. In December 2011, the National Geographic published a tribute to the King James Bible. In it, the National Geographic indicated how much the King James Bible has contributed to the English language:

The King James translation introduced 18 classic phrases into the English language and made famous some 240 more from earlier English translations.

No other Bible translation, no other holy book of any kind, and no other literary work, whether prose or poetry, has contributed to the English language as has the King James Bible. In this regard and many others, they all take a back seat to the King James Bible.

In terms of accomplishments, the King James Bible is superior to all others. Charles Spurgeon, who used the King James Bible in his sermons, built one of the largest churches ever. D.L. Moody used it to shake two continents for Christ. With it, Dr. Jack Hyles built the world’s largest Sunday School. Using it as his textbook, Billy Sunday held citywide campaigns that literally shut taverns down. With the King James Bible at his side, Lester Roloff rescued juvenile delinquents, pointing them to Christ.

Robert L. Sumner said, “I have never even preached from the NKJV, although I consider it a superior product because I have not wanted my congregations to be distracted by word changes.” Mr. Sumner believes the NKJV to be a superior product to the KJV. I would be interested in asking him, “On what grounds?” Does it have the majesty of the KJV? No. Has it enjoyed the widespread popularity that the KJV has? No. Has it contributed anything whatsoever to the English language? No, not even a syllable’s worth! Has it produced citywide revivals? Not one.

You can have Saul’s shining armor. It is shiny. It is new. It looks great. But it doesn’t fit, and it has never won a battle. I’ll take the sling and the stone – the old, black-back book – the translation that has, for over 400 years, been tried, tested, and proven.