If your life is not in jeopardy
for what you believe, you’re probably on the wrong side!
If you don’t believe Genesis 1-11,
how can you possibly believe John 3:16?
“Indeed, all who want to live a godly
life united with the Messiah Yeshua will be persecuted.” (2Tim 3:12)
It is what you actually believe that determines how you walk out your faith,
“but avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, quarrels and fights
about the Torah; because they are worthless and futile.” (Titus 3:9)
Please Note: Absolutely nothing on this website should be taken as anti-Church or anti-Rabbinic. I am not anti-anything or anti-anyone. I am only pro-Torah and pro-Truth (see “Philosophy”), but sometimes the Truth upsets our long-held beliefs. I know it certainly upset mine! For example, see “Why Isn’t My Theology Consistent Throughout the Website?”
Developing a
Systematic Messianic Theology
“The purpose of careful theological formulations is not to put barriers in the way of people who are seeking salvation, but to define clearly the truths upon which genuine [Biblical] faith rests, so that people will not be misled by false doctrines.” [Bowman]
“It must be clearly and unequivocally stated that theology cannot save you. Only faith in Messiah Yeshua can save you. Theology can only give you sound doctrine.” [RLS]
Unless otherwise specified, throughout the Theology section of my website I use the term “Torah” in the wider sense of including the entire body of inspired Scripture: both the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings. No other so-called “sacred writings” are considered inspired by God or authoritative for the Believe’s walk of faith.
[Explanations of rabbinic citations are HERE]
Some of the Reasons I do not Trust
The King James Translation
|
In This Article: |
A Source of Doctrinal Error
I believe that much of the error being taught
by the Church is due in large part to the popular use of the KJV.
Please understand that this is just my personal opinion; feel free to disagree.
Of all the English translations in popular use today, I personally rank it as probably the third least reliable, narrowly beaten out of first place by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s New World Translation and Zondervan’s New International Version (or, as I call it, the Non-Inspired Version). For this reason, I do not trust the accuracy of the KJV.
Translation Bias and Sinister Motive
The King James Version, or so-called Authorized Version (because it was authorized to be used by the Church of England) was created primarily as a tool against the theology of the Puritans, and was required by King James to be carefully worded to support the doctrine and organization of the Church of England, not to create an accurate translation of the Scriptures.
“James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.” [Wikipedia, accessed 11 April 2016.]
Limited Scholarship
“The most highly regarded English scholar on the Hebrew language, Hugh Broughton, was not included among the clergy who translated the books of the Hebrew Bible using Tyndale as their guide. When the KJV appeared, Broughton condemned both the method of translation (the translators had rejected a word-for-word approach) and the resulting text. Broughton called the translation ‘abominable’ and protested that the work should not be ‘foisted upon the English people’.
Broughton argued that the KJV was not a translation from the original languages as much as it was an adaptation of the portions of previous translations, focused on contextual changes rather than a faithful reproduction in the English language.” [historycollection.co, accessed 30 March 2020, my emphasis]
“Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled ‘Why So Many Versions?’ Wallace makes the following statement - ‘...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!’” [“Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration” bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration, accessed 30 March 2020]
Inaccurate Source Text
Another significant problem that I have with the KJV is that is it based on the Textus Receptus (frequently referred to simply as the “TR”), which is the work of a single individual, Erasmus, who used only three manuscripts for his work.
The problem with Erasmus was that he only used really three manuscripts. In fact, the manuscript Erasmus used for the book of Revelation lacked the last leaf. He was in a rush to get his Greek New Testament published, because he knew there were others trying to get their editions out. Consequently, he back translated from his defective copy of the Latin Vulgate into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation. In the process, he created twenty new textual variants that have not been found in any other manuscripts — except a few that were based on what he did several years later.
Textus Receptus is the Greek text that stands behind the King James Bible. Contrary to what its name suggests, it is not the text received by all. Even Erasmus wasn’t pleased with the production. He never liked it. He admitted it was rushed, that it was precipitated rather than produced. He put in eight years of work. By the end, he was tired.
In the late 1800s, Frederick Scrivener said there was no book he had ever seen with as many errors as the first edition of Erasmus's Greek New Testament. (zondervanacademic.com/blog/textus-receptus, accessed 11 June 2023)
I find it rather curious that many who criticize The Complete Jewish Bible because it was the work of a single individual, and not a committee of scholars, robustly defend the reliability of the KJV and other TR translations which are ultimately based on the work of a single individual. Again, this is my personal opinion and you are certainly under no obligation to agree.
Archaic Vocabulary
According to the Preface of the Revised Standard Version,
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. … A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. … The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. Thus, the King James Version uses the word ‘let’ in the sense of ‘hinder,’ ‘prevent’ to mean ‘precede,’ ‘allow’ in the sense of ‘approve,’ ‘communicate’ for ‘share,’ ‘conversation’ for ‘conduct,’ ‘comprehend’ for ‘overcome,’ ‘ghost’ for ‘spirit,’ ‘wealth’ for ‘well-being,’ ‘allege’ for ‘prove,’ ‘demand’ for ‘ask,’ ‘take no thought’ for ‘be not anxious,’ etc.”
According to amazingbibletimeline.com, the King James Bible has 8,674 different Hebrew words, 5,624 different Greek words, and 12,143 different English words, which should produce an English vocabulary of approximately 26,441 unique words. Of that total vocabulary, approximately 300 words can be considered archaic or obscure in meaning, and some 750 words are not commonly used in modern English. So about 4% of the total vocabulary of the modern KJV does not mean what it meant in 1611. That’s a lot of error if the KJV text is being preached literally.
A youth pastor of a church I once served preached an entire sermon based on the archaic meaning of one word in the KJV. His entire sermon was in error because the meaning of that word was significantly different that it had been in 1611.
See HERE for a short list of some of the words of the King James that are archaic and/or obsolete, and therefore confusing for modern English speakers.
|
|
|
