Know the Truth

A NOTE ON THE KING JAMES VERSION- PART I

There are some people who believe the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other English translations of the Bible. This movement is called the “King James Only”. Adherents of the King James Only Movement are largely Evangelicals who believe that the KJV is the most accurate English version of the Bible ever translated. They also believe that other English versions of the Bible produced after the KJV were corrupted.

Is this the true situation of things?

The KJV is by far the most popular English translation of the Bible. It is the 3rd Authorized English version, the 1st and 2nd been the Great Bible (1539) and the Bishops’ Bible (1568) respectively. The translation was commissioned in 1604 by King James VI & I primarily to correct the translational inaccuracies the Puritans observed in the Bishops’ Bible which was then in use in the Anglican Church. It was also noted that the Bishops’ Bible did not reflect the ecclesiology and the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about ordained clergy accurately. These observations gave birth to the new translation.

The new translation (KJV) was published in 1611 and became an instant success. Several editions were produced after the first edition. The popular KJV in circulation today is the Oxford standard edition of 1769. Since its first edition, the KJV dominated the landscape of the English-speaking world until the mid-20th century when newer translations began to challenge its dominance.

To an objective mind, the KJV which was first published in the early 17th century cannot be the most accurate English translation of the Bible. In reality, this version of the English Bible is plagued by certain shortcomings which the reader needs to be aware of to avoid interpretation errors.

The KJV was translated with fewer Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible compared to the volumes we now have. The Old Testament portion of the KJV was translated from a group of Hebrew texts (the Masoretic texts) that were transcribed between the 7th to the 10th century AD. Modern Bible scholars who seek to understand the Old Testament scriptures use a variety of sources apart from the Masoretic texts. These sources include early Greek translation (Septuagint), the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac translation (Pesh*tta), the Dead Sea Scrolls, and quotations from rabbinic manuscripts which are mostly older than the oldest surviving Masoretic texts and sometimes present significant differences.

The 3rd edition of the Erasmus version of the Greek New Testament (Textus receptus or the received text) was used in translating the New Testament portion of the KJV. Erasmus used seven partial late Greek manuscripts which were of Byzantine origin, except one, to compile the Textus receptus. Five of the manuscripts date the 12th century while two date the 15th century. Erasmus had three manuscripts for the Gospels, four for the Pauline epistles, two for the other epistles, and only one for the book of Revelation which was not complete. He translated the last six verses of Revelation out of a Latin version of the New Testament because they were not available in any of the manuscripts.

Also, Erasmus inserted the “Johannine Comma” (1 John 5:7) into the Textus receptus which is not in most of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He added this verse, which he found in a 16th-century minuscule Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus), to stop those who were accusing him of imbibing Arianism (the belief that Jesus is not God).

Many Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible have been discovered after the first translation of the KJV, which were used by the translators of more recent English translations. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls, a large catchment of Hebrew manuscripts, were discovered between 1946 to 1956. There are now over 5,800 New Testament manuscripts that have been categorized into four groups by text type. These include the Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean (the Gospels only), and Byzantine text types.

The Alexandrian text type is the basis of modern Bible translations. Most New Testament textual critics believe it is the closest representative of the autographs for some reasons. For example, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest found New Testament manuscripts to date. Some of the earliest Church Fathers’ scriptural quotations are found in them. Again, the Alexandrian texts are more often considered to be the ones that can best explain the source of the variant readings found in other text types.

Also, the English language used in the KJV is now archaic. The meanings of several of the words that were used have changed over time. These include words like "conversation" which now means "conduct," "study" which now means "diligence", "communication" which now means "sharing" etc. This outdated language may make it difficult for the modern English speaker to have a good understanding of Scripture. Moreover, the English vocabulary was limited at the time the translation was conducted. Hence, some of the keywords may not have been translated appropriately from the original language due to this constraint.

The other reality about the KJV we have to face is that the understanding of the Hebrew and Greek languages at the time it was translated was limited compared to what obtained at the time the more recent translations like the American Standard Version (1900) and the others that came after were translated. It is natural that the KJV would have some translational errors while these newer translations would be more accurate. The reader needs to be aware that several English translations after the KJV now reflect the contents of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible more accurately. Even the KJV now has a modern version (New King James Version) that reflects the contents of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible more accurately.

An excerpt from "Basic Principles of Biblical Interpretation" (to be published soon)

To be continued...

Do you know Martin Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church?

The selling of indulgences and other awkward practices prompted him to lead a reformation, which was not itself a violent protest.

The reformation movement was more of an attempt to help the church rediscover what it had lost to the prevailing Greek culture.

At the end, Martin Luther and other labeled protesters were excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. This was how the Lutheran church was birthed.

Over time, the most prominent reformer in the person of John Calvin at some point disagreed with Martin Luther and broke away.

Before you knew it another division occurred which laid the foundation for the Presbyterian and reformed churches.

Subsequently, the AnaBaptists were yet another splinter group, resulting in the Amish, menonites amd Quakers, who now have many divisions within themselves as do the Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians.

In the mid-1500s, king Henry VIII of England wouldn’t accept the pope’s refusal to grant the marriage annulment he wanted, so he broke from Rome and started the Anglican Church. The puritans and the Methodists later broke away from the Anglicans.

Why am I digging up all of these?

It’s because of how men had become so divided despite claiming to be of the same Heavenly Father and all part of the commonwealth of the family of God in heaven.

If truth must be told, our lack of intimacy with our Heavenly Father is most times revealed by our inability to live in harmony with one another. Divisions are inevitable when that is the case.

This division thing have long being coming and in this modern times it’s almost accepted as normal.

The apostle Paul said:

“Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.”

Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not!”(1 Corinthians 1:12-13).

Christ is not divided, but the visible church has been and will continue to be divided as long as we find our identity in someone or something other than Christ.

ANOTHER THOUGHT on TITHES!!!!

If tithe is a law in the Old covenant, then the book of Hebrews clearly said the Law was abolished.

But the tithe was before the law?
In other words, your teaching on tithe is based on before the law?
That means in teaching tithe you should NEVER near Exodus to Malachi?

So who's your model for tithe before the law?

Abraham and Jacob!!

1. Since it was before the law, that means it is NO LAW for Believers to tithe. Because for it to be a law, that means it's compulsory!!

2. Scripture told us that Jacob made that as a vow (we aren't talking about "vow" now!!).
And he MADE the vow on his own. God didn't ask him to.

And he made the vow ONLY ONCE.

We don't even know whether he eventually fulfilled the vow.

3. Abraham also did his VOLUNTARILY. The God that asked him to sacrifice his son, would for sure had also commanded him to give tithe, for which He didn't.

4. Abraham gave tithe from spoils of war not even from his own income or wealth. And Scripture didn't even tell us that it ever happened again!!! And guess what, The New testament used this story not to teach tithe but to SHOW the GREATNESS of Christ!!!

Anyone who can't see the magnificence of Christ in the story of Abraham and Melchizedek (a type of Christ), can't see the Gospel any other place. And anyone who twists this story to "enforce " tithe on someone is an enemy of the Gospel.

5. And why do you want to make a law out of what Abraham did voluntarily, and why do you also ignore the one that Abraham was commanded to obey? Why haven't you carried your first son to go and slaughter for God?

Ohhh, you can't because that was a direct command from God to Abraham?

But people must pay tithe as Abraham did when God didn't even command Abraham to do that!!!

6. So what exactly are you teaching about tithe ?

Are you saying Abraham's example is worthy of emulation?

But are we at a loss in the New Testament as to what we should do with the resources God has given to us?

Why struggle with the story of Abraham and Jacob when we have clear instructions in the New Testament on giving?

Are we also safe to copy other things Abraham and Jacob did for which God didn't outrightly condemn?

If we do, will you not go to the New Testament to tell us, it is not good to sleep with your maid, that we must stay faithful to our spouses, you will tell us it is a sin to tell lies, you will tell us it is evil to cheat, etc.

7. Even if you are stubbornly going to teach tithe according to the law, why not teach it exactly as it was clearly taught?
Why adjust the law when you yourself are not the Law Giver?

Why demand for money, when it was STRICTLY food substances? Or you don't know there was money in that time, yet food was demanded ?

When you read "there may be food in my storehouse" in Malachi, don't you know it was FOOD literally?

Why not teach at least the three types of tithe clearly taught in the Old Testament?

Why receive the tithes when you're not a LEVITE but from a particular Tribe in Nigeria?

Why do you still receive them and still own inheritances even when those who received them owned NOTHING?

OHHH, you don't know you're sinning against God by owing a land?

8. If we probe further, you will see that you stand Guilty before God as a Law Breaker!!!

9. If you teach that as Believers, we must be FAITHFUL STEWARDS of the resources that God blesses us with, and that it might be a wise thing to do, if you DECIDE out of your CHEERFUL heart to set aside certain percentages of your income to SUPPORT the spread of the Gospel and the care of the needy, you are on track.

Whatever that percentage might be, leave that decision to the Believer in Christ to make.

1 to 100%

The abounding Grace in his heart will certainly work out the extent and frequency and nature of his giving!!!

Don't MANIPULATE.
Don't threaten.

Teach like Paul did in 2 Cor 8 and 9.

Then COMMAND them to Pay their TAXES. That is the ONLY MANDATORY giving, expressly taught by Jesus and the Apostles.