1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
So many Protestants of a certain theological bent talk about the King James version. The claim by those groups is that the King James contains the most accurate version of the Bible possible. In fact the argument is that the Textus Receptus is to be considered the most accurate because it is the version that survived entire through the ages into modern times. I find the arguments for the King James both ironic and humorous on several levels.
First, in order to make the argument for the King James, those who believe in that text make an argument for Holy Tradition. That is, the argument is not simply that the Textus Receptus is a manuscript that survived entire and supposedly unchanged. Read the sites and you will see that the argument goes further and claims that the Holy Spirit preserved this particular version to ensure the purity of God’s word. As you can imagine, I have no problem with arguments from Holy Tradition. I love arguments from Holy Tradition. I agree that the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church the Truth that was passed down from the Apostles. I simply do not agree that the Textus Receptus is part of that Holy Tradition, though the Bible itself is. But, I find it humorous that fundamentalists argue from Holy Tradition about a particular Greek text while denying that God could have preserved anything else by his Holy Spirit. In fact, the King James only people are, in just about every case, radically against any type of tradition, liturgy, church structure, etc. That is, in every case but this one.
Second, the original King James version had the entire Apocrypha. In fact, the King James regularly included the Apocrypha until the 1800’s. So, when was the Apocrypha excluded from the King James? Well, the Apocrypha began to be excluded from most King James Bibles after 1824. What happened in 1824? Well, there was a deliberate decision by “Evangelical” Protestants to force the removal of the Apocrypha from the King James. [In passing, the term Evangelical, in its modern usage, comes from England from close to the mid 1700’s.] The British and Foreign Bible Society resolved in 1824, “that no pecuniary grants be made by the Committee of this Society for the purpose of aiding the printing or publishing of any edition of the Bible, in which the Apocrypha shall be mixed and interspersed with the Canonical Books of Holy Scriptures.” But, this was a deliberate act of theological editing, always helpful if something is present that you do not like.
Third, the original King James version is quite helpful in making an argument for Holy Tradition because its translation of a certain Greek word is more honest and more consistent than in several modern Protestant English translations. That Greek word is paradosis. If you look it up, it is the word commonly translated “tradition.” Except for one verse, the King James faithfully translates it “tradition.” That one exception is corrected in the New King James version. But, in several modern Protestant versions, there is an unfaithful switcheroo pulled. In them, the word paradosis is translated as “tradition” only when either Our Lord Jesus or one of the apostles is speaking against the practice. If they speak positively of the practice, then paradosis is translated as anything but “tradition.” Let me give you a couple of examples:
King James Version
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 2 Thessalonians 3:6 — Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
New King James Version
1 Corinthians 11:2 — Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
Compare with the New International Version
1 Corinthians 11:2 — I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.
Compare with The Message
2 Thessalonians 2: 15 — Keep a tight grip on what you were taught, whether in personal conversation or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you.
You see, one good way to destroy Orthodox and Catholic arguments about Holy Tradition is simply to deliberately mistranslate a word when it is found in a context that could give “aid and comfort” to the people with whom you disagree. Nevertheless, I find it humorous that the Bible most often used by hard-core KJV-only people contains translations that are accurate with respect to Holy Tradition and help us make our case.
King James? Which version is the right one? 1611? 1789? Are the maps in the back inspired? hehehe
I’ve heard some KJ’ers call the NIV the “New International Perversion.” Watch those red letter editions, too. 🙂
THis is what happens when textual inerrancy advocates do not understand the doctrine of the Word.
They place text, or tradition above the Word(Christ Himself)
Text and tradition are important but ought be subservant to the Word.
Otherwise you end up with legalism, or a “playing church” type of functionality.
Deacon Michael Hyatt has a pretty compelling discussion about scripture and history over at Ancient Faith Radio (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/eastwest). Also, Father John Whiteford, the ex-Nazarene pastor, wrote extensively about “sola scriptura” and KJV.
I love the KJV: its language is beautiful (the Elizabethans — whose English the translators still spoke and wrote, for the most part) had a way of communicating which is memorable and poetic. Why say something in five words when 20 would do? Something majestic about it. Of course, I don’t read it myself… 🙂
There is no doubt that for linguistic beauty the King James Version set a standard that has yet to be matched by the translations that came after. They may be more readable and use modern vocabulary and grammar, but their rendering is often so prosaic and dull.