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 printed 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.
