A Creationist's Defense of the King James Bible
By Henry M.
Morris
Founder and President Emeritus,
Institute for Creation Research.
Institute for Creation Research
Copyright © 1996 All rights
reserved
No portion of this booklet may be
used in any form without written permission of the publishers, with the
exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles, reviews, etc. Printed in the
United States of America.
Used here by the gracious
permission of the Institute for Creation Research.
From the back cover of the booklet: “In this
day of rapid change,” the author writes, “when many Christians have suddenly
started using one of the many modern English translations of the Bible (NASB,
NIV, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, etc.), abandoning the long-used King James Version read
and loved by English-speaking people of all ages and walks of life for over ten
generations, it may be appropriate to review a few of the reasons why many
creationists, including this writer, still prefer to use the latter.” This
little booklet presents a solid defense for the Authorized Version of the Bible
from one of the foremost apologetic authorities of our day.
In this day of rapid change, when many Christians have suddenly started
using one of the many modern English translations of the Bible (NASB, NIV, NEB,
NRSV, NKJV, etc.), abandoning the long-used King James Version read and loved
by English-speaking people of all ages and walks of life for over ten
generations, it may be appropriate to review a few of the reasons why many
creationists, including this writer, still prefer to use the latter.
The King James Translators
One reason is that all the fifty or more translators who developed the
King James Bible were godly men who believed strongly in the inerrancy and full
authority of Scripture and who, therefore, believed in the literal historicity
of Genesis, with its record of six-day Creation and the worldwide flood. This
has not been true of many who have been involved in producing the modern
versions.
The spiritual motivations and convictions of the King James translators
are indicated by their fascinating preface, entitled "The Translators to
the Reader." The flavor of this impassioned essay can be illustrated by
the following brief excerpts:
The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and perfect, how can
we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we
be not content with them? . . . It is not only an armor, but also a whole
armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves
and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise
of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is
for meat, and the leaves for medicine. . . . a fountain of most pure water
springing up unto everlasting life, and what marvel? The original thereof being
from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the Editor, the
Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were
sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's Spirit;
the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's
testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the
effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead
works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end
and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of
the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that
shall never fade away; happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice
happy that meditateth in it day and night.
Furthermore, the King James translators were also great scholars, every
bit as proficient in the Biblical languages as any of those who have come after
them. They were very familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as
well as all the previous translations. They worked diligently on the project
(assigned to them by King James) for over seven years, completing it in the
year 1611.
The professional qualifications of the translators were all extremely
high. There were 54 scholars originally assigned to the project by King James,
though some died early in the project. There were evidently 47 who were active
throughout the project, all of whom were exceptionally well qualified both
academically and spiritually.
For example, John Bois, who kept the most complete account of the
proceedings of the translators, was extremely skilled in both Hebrew and Greek.
In fact, it is reported by his biographer that he was reading through the
Hebrew Old Testament when he was only five years old. He was expert in all
forms of Greek, including the Koine Greek of the New Testament, and compiled
one of the largest Greek libraries ever. Dr. Bois became Dean of Canterbury in
1619.
Lancelot Andrews, a leader of the Old Testament translators, had been
chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages, as well
as Hebrew, Greek, and the cognate Biblical languages. He served as Dean of
Westminster and later as Bishop of Winchester.
Dr. William Bedwell was expert in Latin, Arabic, and Persian, preparing
lexicons in these languages, as well as in the Biblical languages. Edward
Lively, who died after only a year, had been Regius Professor of Hebrew at
Cambridge and had an unequaled knowledge of the Oriental languages. Dr. John
Harding was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Miles Smith was a noted
Orientalist who became Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. He was the last man to
review the translation and was selected to write the Translators' Preface.
Dr. Andrew Downes spent forty years as Regius Professor of Greek at
Oxford University and was on the final checking committee of the translation.
George Abbott became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. Sir Henry Saville was
Provost of Eton and was a scientist as well as Bible scholar. His works
included an eight-volume edition of the works of Chrysostom. And on and on. All
the translators were great scholars, deeply fluent in the Biblical languages,
the cognate languages, the writings of the church fathers and other relevant materials,
as well as accomplished writers in English. It is almost certain that no group
of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their
task as was the King James Translation Team.
The result of their consecrated labor was that the so-called
"Authorized" version eventually displaced all those that had gone
before and then has withstood the test of wide usage in all English-speaking
countries ever since. To suddenly abandon it in just one over-stressed,
pseudo-intellectual, largely apostate generation may well prove to be a
decision with sad and entropic consequences.
Which New Translation Could Replace It?
This is not a new question. As a matter of fact, there have been no less
than 120 English translations of the complete Bible published since the King
James, as well as over 200 New Testaments. Even in my own lifetime there have
been at least 45 Bibles plus about 100 New Testaments, and I have tried to use
at least 20 of them.
My wife and I were given an American Standard Version for a wedding
present when we married in 1940, and I later bought a Berkeley Version, then a
Williams, and a Phillips-each time thinking the latest might be the best. I was
especially pleased when the Revised Standard Version was finally marketed in
1952 with great publicity. Each time I was disappointed, however, and soon went
back to the KJV. Later came the Amplified and the Expanded and the Basic
English and the Living Bible and many others. I even studied some of the older
translations (Afford, Weymouth, Goodspeed, etc.).
Each of these provided interesting variations in wording, as well as
updating the archaic expressions and old-style English, but something always
seemed missing, so I continued using the King James in my writing and speaking,
and God continued to bless its use, in spite of its Elizabethan-age English.
But other new translations kept on appearing. The New English Bible, Good
News for Modern Man, the Anchor Bible, New American Standard, New International
Version—even the New King James Version. There were numerous others, most
recently one called God's Word.
On one of these—the New King James Version—I was even a member of the
North America Overview Committee, reviewing the proposed translation of Genesis
in particular, even though I cannot read Hebrew. The men who worked on the NKJV
were, so far as I know, all godly men committed to Biblical inerrancy, and many
of them, at least, to literal creationism, and I do believe it is the best of
the modern translations. Even so, after trying to use it and endorse it, I
finally went back to the "old" King James, convinced that it is still
the best, in terms of poetic majesty, spiritual power, and over-all clarity and
reliability.
Therefore, even if one really feels keenly that he ought to switch to a
modern translation, how does he decide which? With apologies to Judges 9:25, it
seems today that "every man does that which is right in his own
eyes," as far as selecting a Bible is concerned. But how can he decide
which, if any, best preserved the inspired, authoritative Word of God? After
all, God did say that His Word had been "for ever settled in heaven"
(Psalm 119:89) and had given sober warning to any who would presume to
supplement, delete, or distort any of the words of Scripture (Revelation 22:18,19;
II Peter 3:16).
Is God the Author of Confusion?
For a long time, the "official" English version used in each
Bible-believing church was the King James, with the others used occasionally
for reference study by teachers and pastors. Now, however, confusion reigns.
Congregational unison reading is no longer possible, and church members often
don't even bring their Bibles to church. The pastor preaches from one version
and the people in the congregation each have their own, so they can't follow
the pastor anyway, and thus they just listen, and soon forget.
Scripture memorization, which has been an incalculable blessing in my own
Christian life, is almost a lost art these days. I remember back in 1943 when
Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, first got me and others in our
Gideon Camp back in Houston, to start memorizing Scripture, he used to stress
that the verses should be quoted "word perfect," with their
respective "addresses" cited fore and aft. But such meticulous
attention to the very words of a Scripture verse becomes anomalous when even
the supposed authorities all disagree on what it says, so why bother? In
addition, the musical phrasing in the King James makes it easier to memorize
than the more ponderous English of the modern versions.
And what becomes of our long-cherished belief in verbal inspiration? If
it's only the "thought" that counts, then the words are flexible.
Yes, but then the thoughts themselves easily become flexible also, and we can
adjust the words to make them convey whatever thought we prefer. We forget that
precise thoughts require precise words.
Another fast-vanishing form of Bible study is that of comparative word
studies, comparing the various usages and contexts of a given key word or
phrase as it occurs throughout the Bible. This has been a highly fruitful means
of obtaining many precious insights into the mind of the divine writer who
inspired all of them. A given word may have been rendered in various ways by
the King James translators, of course, but they have assured us (in their
preface) that this was always done very carefully and in accord with context
and the known range of meanings carried by the word itself. A Bible student may
easily discern and compare all of these—usually with real blessing to his mind
and heart—even without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, simply by using one of
the complete concordances based on the King James translation (Strong's or
Young's). But this type of study is far more difficult, if not practically
impossible, with most modern versions in which the translators have often
either resorted to paraphrasing the supposed thought of the writer, or even to
using their own interpretation of what they think he would have said if he were
aware of our modern scientific knowledge of things.
One can only wonder—and speculate—about why our ecclesiastical leaders
have felt it necessary to keep producing so many new English translations all
the time. The Bible, of course, is the best selling book of all time, but
surely publishing profits and translators' royalties don't have anything to do
with it. Anyway, in spite of the rising popularity of many modern versions,
there are still more King James Bibles and Testaments being printed and
distributed today than any other.
Which Version Best Renders the Original
Manuscripts?
Even many King James Bibles now have added footnotes referring to what
are said to be "better manuscripts" which indicate that certain
changes should be made in the King James text. The most famous such changes are
the omission of the last twelve verses of Mark and the first eleven verses of
John, chapter 8, but there are many other important omissions, as well as some
additions and many word changes that have been incorporated in these new
versions, with the implication that all these changes have been derived from
these "better" ancient manuscripts.
But what are these better manuscripts, and are they really better? The
whole subject of New Testament criticism is too complex to discuss here (or for
me to try to discuss anywhere!), but it is significant that almost all of the
new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the
Westcott-Hort Greek text, or some modification thereof (such as the
Nestle-Aland text), whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as
the Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine Greek
text). As far as the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is concerned, the King
James is based on the Masoretic text, while the modern versions rely somewhat
on the Masoretic but also on the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Dead Sea
Scrolls, and various others, especially the Kittel Hebrew reference text,
Biblia Hebreice, in its "Stuttgart" edition.
The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts of the Old
Testament by the Masoretes, who were groups of Hebrew scholars dedicated to
guarding and standardizing the traditional Hebrew text as "handed
down" (the basic meaning of "Masoretic") from the earlier Hebrew
scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts,
scrupulously guarding against error. There seems no good reason why the
Masoretic text as preserved and codified in its present form by about 600 A.D.,
which has served as the basis for the King James translation, should not
continue to be accepted as the most accurately preserved Old Testament portion
of the Bible.
Most scholars would agree that neither the Greek Septuagint nor the Latin
Vulgate are comparable to the Masoretic Text in accuracy or reliability. As far
as the Hebrew text changes proposed by Rudolf Kittel are concerned, it is worth
noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical
inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism. The Dead Sea Scrolls were
produced by a heretical Jewish sect called the Essenes, but for the most part
they do agree with the standard Masoretic Text.
The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament
text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has
largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries,
especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt
Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort,
although they were Anglican officials and nominally orthodox in theology, both
denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland,
like Kittel, were Gemman theological liberals.
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English
revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible,
published in 1881. The corresponding American revision committee which
developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal
evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the
same presuppositions as did those 19th century revisers. Schaff was twice tried
for heresy by his denomination and taught at the very liberal Union Seminary.
As chairman of the revision committee, Schaff not only was greatly influenced
by Westcott and Hort, but also by the Unitarians Ezra Abbot and Joseph Thayer,
of Harvard, as well as other liberals whom he placed on the committee.
Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland)
Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the
so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued
from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century. Since these are
both supposedly older than the more than 5000 manuscripts that support the
Textus Receptus, they were accepted as "better." This was in spite of
the fact that they frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the
Textus Receptus, and also contained many serious and obvious omissions. The
Vatican manuscript, for example, leaves out most of Genesis as well as all of
Revelation, in addition to the pastoral epistles of Paul, 33 psalms, and over a
third of Hebrews.
The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove
they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside and not used
because of their numerous gross errors. Thus they would naturally last longer
than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly and thus wore out
sooner.
The Sinaitic manuscript was reportedly rescued from a wastebasket in a
monastery on Mount Sinai by another German evolutionist theologian, Friedrich
Tischendorf. The Orthodox monks evidently had long since decided that the
numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript had rendered it useless
and had stored it away in some closet where it had remained unused for
centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and vigorously as representing a
more accurate text than the thousands of manuscripts supporting the traditional
Byzantine text. Furthermore, he assumed that it came from about the fourth
century, but he never found any actual proof that it dated earlier than the
12th century.
A similar mystery applies to the famous Vatican manuscript, which had
been kept in seclusion in the Vatican Library since 1480 or earlier, though no
one seemingly knows for sure when it was originally written or how it was
acquired by the Vatican. Again, it was only conjectured to date from around the
fourth century. Tischendorf learned of its existence and again was instrumental
in promoting its antiquity and superiority to the Textus Receptus.
There are a few other old manuscripts, even including fragmentary Greek
papyri, whose textual character seems to conform more to the Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus readings than to the Textus Receptus. These all have been traced, by
liberal and conservative scholars alike, to a probable source in Alexandria,
Egypt, in the second or third century. At that time, Alexandria was a great
center of both philosophical and theological scholarship, including a
relatively large population of both Jews and Christians.
The most influential man among the Christian community of Alexandria was
the learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental
in developing the so-called "Alexandrian" text of the New Testament,
of which the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative, in contrast to
the "Byzantine" text, from which the Textus Receptus has largely
come. It is barely possible, some think, that Origen may also have been
involved in developing the final form of the Septuagint translation of the Old
Testament.
With all his immense learning and zeal, however, it is sad that Origen's
views of theology and Biblical interpretation were heretical in respect to
numerous key doctrines. Like modern theistic evolutionists, he felt constrained
to harmonize Christianity with pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato and
the Stoics. This led him into excessive allegorization of Scripture, especially
Genesis, and into denigrating the actual historical records of the Bible, even
that of the bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the literal creation of
the world.
Whether or not Origen and his associates were first responsible for the
differences in the Alexandrian text from the Byzantine, the fact remains that
significant differences do exist, and that practically all modern English
translations have been heavily influenced (via Westcott/Hort, etc.) in favor of
the former, whereas the King James translation has its basis primarily in the
latter.
In many cases, the differences are minor, but it is true that far too
many do involve significant watering down of even such basic doctrines as Biblical
inerrancy, the perfect divine/human nature of Christ, and the Trinity. On the
other hand, they certainly do not eliminate these doctrines, so it is still
happily possible to discern these doctrines and to find the true gospel and way
of salvation in almost any of the new texts or translations.
In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English
translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the
Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom
believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Are we to believe that God would entrust the preservation of His eternal
Word to men such as these? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars
who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?
What About the Archaic Language in the King
James?
The beautifully poetic prose of the King James is a great treasure which
should not be lost or forgotten. It has been acclaimed widely as the greatest
example of English literature ever written. Apart from a few archaic words or
words whose meaning has changed, which can easily be clarified in footnotes, it
is as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago. That is why
the common people today, especially those without higher education, still use
and love it. It is usually the "intelligentsia" who tend to favor the
modern versions. These modern translations commonly tend to use long words and
pedantic rhetoric, but the King James uses mostly one and two-syllable words.
Formal studies have always shown its readability index to be 10th grade or
lower. There is nothing hard to understand about John 3:16, for example, or
Genesis 1:1, or the Ten Commandments, in the King James.
There are some sections of the Bible, of course, that are quite complex
in the original language and thus a faithful translation should preserve that
same complexity (after all God inspired it that way), but all the basic
histories, doctrines, and precepts are easy to follow by anyone who can read at
high school level. Many sections can easily be read by children as soon as they
learn to read at all. In fact, in earlier times here in America, children were
actually taught to read by means of the King James Bible.
It is also noteworthy that the King James was produced during the period
when the English language and literature (as well as knowledge of other
languages by English-speaking people) had reached their zenith of power and
expressiveness. That was the age of Shakespeare, for example. Modern English, on
the other hand, has become merely a decadent remnant of its former beauty and
clarity.
This phenomenon seems to be a universal characteristic of languages—as
well as people, cities, and institutions of all kinds. A period of youthful
growth and vigor reaches a zenith and is then followed by a gradual decline and
eventual death. Albert Baugh, in a widely used textbook on this theme has said:
The evolution of languages, at least within the historical period, is a
story of progressive simplification.... Language may reintroduce previously
lost complexity but over-all the superfluous and redundant aspects are
systematically streamlined from the complex structure of language. (A History
of the English Language New York. Appleton Century-Crofts, 1957. p. 10.)
This trend is exactly opposite to any evolutionary concept of language
origins, but is analogous to the law of entropy in the physical realm.
With respect to the English language, the authors of a more recent study,
companion to a PBS television series, note the literary accomplishments of the
Elizabethan period in England as follows.
The achievements of these astonishing years [i.e., 1558-1625, the reigns
of Queen Elizabeth and King James I] are inescapably glorious. Elizabeth I came
to the throne in 1558 at the age of twenty-five. William Shakespeare, her most
famous subject, was born six years later in 1564. Her successor, James I, who
gave his name to another famous masterpiece, the Authorized Version of the
Bible, died in 1625. During their reigns, about seventy years, the English
language achieved a richness and vitality of expression that even
contemporaries marveled at. (Robert McCrum, William Cray and Robert MacNeil,
The Story of English New York, Viking. 1986. p. 91.)
These writers call the King James Bible "probably the single most
influential book ever published in the English language" (ibid., p. 109).
They also make an important observation concerning the beautiful simplicity of
the King James Language.
The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on
his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of
English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare
ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words-God's
teaching in homely English for every-man. From that day to this, the
Shakespearean cornucopia and the Biblical iron rations represent, as it were,
the North and South poles of the language, reference points for writers and
speakers throughout the world, from the Shakespearean splendor of a Joyce or a
Dickens to the Biblical rigor of a Bunyan or a Hemingway (ibid., p. 113).
It is no wonder that a Bible translation produced at that special time in
history has (except for changes in spelling and letter form) endured for almost
400 years, meeting the needs and guiding the culture of over ten generations of
English speaking peoples. In fact, it has been very instrumental in
standardizing the language itself, providing a common bond among its millions
of readers, and restraining what would otherwise have been a more rapid
deterioration of the language.
We have abandoned today many fine points of English grammar commonly used
in 1600. For example, we forget that "thee," "thou," and
"thine" were used to express the second person singular, with
"you," "ye," and "yours" reserved for second
person plural. Today we use "you" indiscriminately for both singular
and plural, thereby missing some of the precise meaning of many texts of
Scripture. The same applies to the "th" and "st" endings on
verbs associated with second-person pronouns; they also contribute
significantly to the musical quality of the language, especially as used in the
King James Bible.
The translators were not only Biblical scholars but accomplished writers,
and one of the deliberate goals—in fact, a part of their assignment—was to
produce a Bible that would "sing" with beauty and power, and would
also retain literal faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew texts, which had
themselves been written with majestic musical beauty.
This they did accomplish, most admirably, and modern versions are without
exception inferior to the King James Bible in this regard. The King James is
also the most reliably accurate of all translations, seeking to translate the
words of the original rather than "dynamically equivalent" thoughts.
This aspect allows detailed word study and comparisons which are hardly
possible in most other versions.
With all these factors in mind, do we not most honor the Lord and His
revealed Word by having it read and used in that form of our language which was
in use when the English language was at its best, instead of in our modern
jargon? So what if it does not sound like a modern newspaper or novel? The fact
is, it should not sound-like that, for God is speaking! His Word should be
distinctly different from that in some current novel or newspaper.
Conclusion
I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for
over 55 years, that Christians—especially creationists!—need to hang on to
their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it
in the history of England and America, in the great revivals, in the worldwide
missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers more than He has
through all the rest of the versions put together.
The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I
strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have,
until Christ returns.
Postscript
This brief article is only a very inadequate introduction to a large and
important subject. Many excellent books and journal articles have been written
on this vital theme and much of the discussion in this booklet is based on
material covered in these other more authoritative publications. I have no
training or experience personally with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and do
not wish to argue the subject with any who disagree with my reasons.
Many other Bible-believing creationist Christians also prefer to use the
King James, but we do not regard its use as a test of salvation or
spirituality. This essay is intended merely to answer questions as to why I, as
well as many others, will continue to use the time-tested King James Bible in
our writing and speaking.