Preservation and the King James Bible
English is the closest thing there is today to a universal
language. Upwards of 350 million speak it as their first
language, with many more than that using it as a second language.
It has the largest vocabulary of any language (550,000 separate
entries in Webster's Third New International Dictionary). English
has become the diplomatic language of the United States, and the
standard language of science, technology, business and
communications. It has been the primary medium through which the
Word of God has spread during these last centuries of Church
History. Before giving several reasons why the English of 1611
was better suited as a vehicle for divine revelation, let us note
briefly the preparations which led to the AV's translation.
The Authorized Version was the culmination of some 100 years of
preparation. There was intensive study of the Greek Text ( not to
mention Hebrew). The five Greek editions of Erasmus, the four of
Stephanus, the nine of Beza provided the translators with a
refined text, representative of that which was in the majority of
manuscripts, and had been acknowledged (John 16:13) by God's
people through the centuries. There were no fewer than seven
"preparatory" English translations: Tyndale, Coverdale,
Matthews,Great, Taverners, Geneva and Bishops. The AV translators
themselves were men of unparalleled scholarship, representing the
combined intellectual might of Oxford and Cambridge. But far more
importantly, they were marked by a holy awe and deep reverence
for the Word of God. It is this latter that places them poles
apart from the translating teams of today.
Coming back now to the English in which our Authorized Bible was
written, it is an evidence of God's Providence that after nearly
four centuries, so little can be found to be archaic. Certainly
there are "profound differences" between current and
Elizabethan English. But, the AV is not Elizabethan English!
As a comparison will show, there is a great difference between AV
English and the wordy, affectatious Elizabethan style.
Far from our Bible being a product of that day's literary style,
the English language after 1611 owes its development to the
Authorized Version! "The King James Version was a landmark
in the development of English prose. Its elegant yet natural
style had enormous influence on English -speaking writers"
(World Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the AV is
ever fresh and lucid while most else from that period is quite
difficult to read.
Edward F. Hills speaks on the misconception that the English of
the AV is Elizabethan:
The English of the King James Version is not the English of the
early 17th century. To be exact,
it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is
biblical English, which was not used
on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the
King James Version. As H.
Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the
preface written by the trans-
lators with the text of their translation to feel the difference
in style. And the observations of W.A.
Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he
reminds us, owes its merit, not
to 17th-century English_ which was very difficult_ but to its
faithful translation of the original. Its
style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even
in their use of thee and thou
the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but
biblical usage, for at the time
these translators were doing their work these singular forms had
already been replaced by the
plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version
Defended, Des Moines: Christian
Research Press, 1984, pp.218).
In 1604 when James I authorized preparations for a new English
version of the Bible, a watershed was reached not only in the
history of Bible translation, but of the history of the English
language itself.
One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote: "If you and I
believe that the original writings of the
Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they
must have been providentially preserved through the ages."
This is the crux of the matter; does God preserve that Word which
he originally inspired? And if so, to what extent? Is it merely
the concepts and basic message that is kept intact; or does
preservation, as inspiration, extend to the words themselves?
That the Bible declares both the fact and extent of its
preservation is made abundantly clear in the
following:
"Know now that there shall fall unto the earth nothing of
the word of the LORD" (2Kings 10:10).
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O
LORD; thou shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever" (Psalm 12:6,7).
"For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting; and his
truth endureth to all generations" (Psalm 100:5).
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven"
(Psalm 119:89).
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth
it" (Psalm 119:140).
"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou
hast founded them for ever" (Psalm 119:152).
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy
righteous judgments endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:160).
"Every word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30:5).
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our
God shall stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:8).
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall
accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
whereto I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11).
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17).
"The scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for
ever" (1 Peter 1:23).
"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever" (1 Peter
1:25).
We have a strange anomaly today; Christians claimed to believe
what the Bible says about it's own
inspiration but virtually ignore the equally direct statements
concerning preservation. To say that you
believe in the full inspiration of Scripture while at the same
time accepting the textual theories inherent in the modern
versions, is about as incongruous as taking Genesis one literally
while holding to the theories of Darwin.
The questioning of the Bible's preservation is the starting point
of all other kinds of apostasy. Satan in Genesis 3 did not begin
his attack by questioning whether there was a God,or whether
god created, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true. Nor
did it begin with the question of whether God's Word was inspired
in the originals. Apostasy began when Satan asked Eve, "Yea
hath God said"?
"Eve, are you certain that you presently have a full
recollection of what God said"? When doubt was given a
bridgehead at this point, the other defenses soon fell. The same
principles applies today: Has God preserved His word and kept
intact His original word of inspiration or has He not? It is a
fact, that the one common denominator in all the varied errors,
deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first
criticize the standard received edition or translation of
Scripture.
Like all other Bible truths, the Scripture's teaching on its own
preservation is to be in the first instance accepted by faith.
Edward F.Hills in his book, The King James Version Defended calls
it " the logic of faith". The facts and evidence of
such preservation will then follow.
The Bible's preservation is rooted in the eternal counsels of
God. The Scriptures are as eternal as God Himself.
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven"
(Psalm 119:89).
The Old Testament text was preserved by the Aaronic priests and
the scribes who grouped around them.
"Unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Romans
3:2).
In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest
under Christ. Hence, the NT text has been preserved by faithful
Christians in every walk of life. "Howbeit, when he, the
Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you in all truth"
(John 16:13).
It was not the pronouncements of church fathers or counsels that
determined the text and canon of the New Testament. Rather, the
Holy Spirit guided His own into the acceptance of the true word
of God. Such copies proliferated, while defective ones were
ignored. The Holy Spirit continues this work today in the
questions that arise over the wording in the modern versions.
Preservation has to do with the actual words of Scripture, not
merely the general teaching or concepts.
This is made clear in the list of verses just given. Advocates of
the modern versions commonly say: "There is not a single
doctrine missing." But what they fail to tell you is that
the words which support and develop these doctrines are
frequently missing. Thus, the force of the doctrine is
diminished. As inspiration of the Scriptures is verbal so also
Preservation must be verbal.
Preservation has taken place in the diffusion of God's word, not
in its being hidden or stored. Stewart Custer in seeking to
somehow equate the use of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with the
doctrine of preservation said: "God has preserved His word
in the sands of Egypt" (stated in a debate at the Marquette
Manor Baptist Church in Chicago, 1984).
To take such a position, would mean that believers have had the
wrong text for 1800 years, and it has been only with the advent
of two liberal British churchmen, and the retrieval of two
disused Alexandrian manuscripts that we now have the "true
preserved" word of God. No! The miracle of preservation was
operative while the Scriptures were being disseminated. "The
Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published
it" (Psalm 68:11). "Have they not heard? Yes verily,
their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the
ends of the world" (Romans 10:18).
As so few can read the original languages, God's promise to
preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not
extend to translations. The Scripture frequently
affirms"...that we are born again by the Word of God"
James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Peter 1:23. If a translation
cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately
this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek
before they can be saved, or built up in the faith. Romans 10:17;
Matthew 4:4. Further, the Bible's use of the term
"preserved" demonstrates that it is an absolute and not
a relative term. To speak of the Bible, or in this discussion, a
translation as being "almost preserved" is a misnomer.
Either it is preserved or it isn't, either it has errors or it
doesn't. Either the flower fades and the grass withers or it does
not.