Q: Pastor, I have a friend that is driving me crazy with his suggestion that those who do not read the King James Bible are decieved. His reasoning is that "the King James language has not been changed as all other Bibles have". He likes to quote from Revelation 22:18-19. What can I say to put an end to his acusation

A: The Bible was composed primarily of two languages. The Old Testament was written predominantly in Hebrew and some Aramaic and the New Testament was written in Greek. Jerome was one of the first to begin translating Scriptures into Latin in 410 and the first English translation (The Wycliffe Bible) was made available in 1382. In the early 1600s King James I of England commissioned 54 scholars to undertake a newer translation that utilized the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale's Bible, as well as the available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts at the time. It was completed in 1611. I say all of the above to elaborate the fact that the KJV is, in and of itself, a translation.

Since 1611 our access to biblical manuscripts has increased dramatically. Most notably was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 which further affirmed our existing texts. Additionally we simply don't communicate the way they did in England at 1611.

There are three primary methods for translating Scripture. The first is called the concordant. This method is a pure word for word translation in that the translators seek to stay as close as possible in the translation from Hebrew and Greek into English. The KJV, NKJV, and NAS are popular versions of this method. The second type is known as the Dynamic Equivalent. Here, the primary goal of the translators are to transfer the meaning of the manuscripts into modern day English that accurately translates the meaning of the text. The NIV and the Message are popular examples of this method. The third type is known as a Paraphrase. This, of course, is a much looser method of translating that may or may not access the oldest manuscripts. The Living Bible is perhaps the best example of this type of translating.

At SBC we use the NASB because as a Bible church we want to stay as close to the original meanings of the existing manuscripts as possible. Likewise, the English is contemporary enough not to confuse the average reader. From time to time in my personal use I may use the NIV or NKJV. I even served as a contributor to the NKJV Nelson Study Bible.

If your friend has an open mind about the subject one of the better books on this issue is "The King James Version Debate" by D.A. Carson. (I'm not sure if its still in print).

Alan Duthie's "How to Choose Your Bible Wisely" is also a very good resource.

May God bless you as you continue to study His Word

Other Questions...