The Incomparable King James Version

  Let the reader not think that the differences between the texts are minimal, or insignificant! They are neither. The corrupt text is drawn primarily from two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. Let the reader comprehend something of the differences between the Received Text and the false text by a consideration of the following: it has been calculated that in the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received Text in the following particulars: it omits at least 2877 words, adds 536, substitutes 935, transposes 2098, and modifies 1132. This adds up to 7578 divergences. As for Codex Sinaiticus, it is even worse, with almost 9000 divergences.[1]

  And a great many of the differences are very serious indeed, affecting vital doctrines of the faith.

  Secondly, a Bible version, even if based on the true text as the King James Version is, must be an accurate translation of that text. If the translation itself is faulty, it matters not that it was based upon the true text! When the King James Version is closely examined, however, it is found to be an extremely accurate, faithful translation of the Word of God into English. This fact has even been recognised by its enemies. The King James Version translators were men of exceptional ability, among the most learned men of that age or of any other, expert in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and other ancient languages. One of them was well at home in twenty languages! They approached the Word of God with reverence, with fear and trembling, and with great care.

  They produced a word-for-word translation, a literal rendition of the Hebrew and Greek texts into English. And in addition, their translation was eminently readable, easily committed to memory, a melodious and graceful translation.

  They took the true text, and they translated it faithfully, carefully, lovingly and reverently. The result was a Bible version of unsurpassed accuracy and beauty.

  Thirdly, a Bible version may be an accurate translation of the true text, as indeed the King James Version is; but it must also be ascertained whether or not this version is the best translation of the true text available in English. If, after all, a more accurate version is available, it would make sense for Christians to use that version in preference to the King James Version; for it makes perfect sense to use the most accurate version available.

  It can safely be said, however, that a better English version of the Bible has never been produced. Of this version one declared: "If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent"[2]–and this testimony is true. Through the centuries its superiority has been acknowledged by many men well able to judge of such matters.

  The King James Version was not the first English version based on the Received Text. Before it made its appearance in 1611, other versions were published. Tyndale's Version, Coverdale's Version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible, were some of the versions that appeared in the sixteenth century. They were all based on the true text, and carefully translated; but without any doubt whatsoever the King James Version superseded them all.

%d bloggers like this: