'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part 1)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

This post is sent in answer to those who ask my reasons for using the KJV
over modern translations. It is in three parts (thanks Farrell), and is
edited to reduce its size. I would of course appreciate any comments on 
the content. 

Thanks
Matt Bell

THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
By Dr. D.A. Waite

'Dr. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of
the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean Burgon
Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in
classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek
Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors
in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher
certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible,
Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced
more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects.The following study
is a summary of Waite's book Defending the King James Bible, which is
available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey
08108. Waite presents a four-fold superiority of the King James Bible: (1)
SUPERIOR TEXTS (HEBREW ANDGREEK); (2) SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS; (3) SUPERIOR
TECHNIQUE; and (4)
SUPERIOR THEOLOGY.

<snip>

Now we move to the fourfold superiority of the King James Bible:

#1: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS. The first
reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior texts, both Hebrew
and Greek. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions
of the Bible have inferior texts, both Hebrew and Greek.

THE KJV HAS A SUPERIOR O.T. HEBREW TEXT. There are two basic textsin
existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one,
edited by Ben Chayyim. The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA
HEBRAICA (BHK) (1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well
as in the Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHS) (1967-77) with all of
their suggested footnote changes. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which our
KJV is based is also available. It is called the Daniel Bomberg
edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). We carry this Hebrew
Bible in the Bible for Today ministry. It is the Letteris text, printed in
1866. It has the Masoretic Hebrew text in the center and the King James
Bible in the margins. This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text was the fact,
Rudolf Kittel, in his first two editions of 1906 and 1912, used that texts
and substituted the spurious and inferior text which uses the Leningrad
Manuscript (B19a or "L"). He used this because he claimed it was the oldest
single Hebrew manuscript, dating from about 1008 A.D.

Both of these false Biblia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their
footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page. This adds up
to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text.
One or the other of these false Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used
as the basis for the O.T. in all modern versions, as can be shown by
reading their introductory pages. How many of these changes in the Hebrew
text are you ready to accept? Do you want to accept 30,000? How about
20,000? 10,000? How about 5,000? How about 1,000? How many of you would
like to accept 500 changes?

If you do not start with an absolute, where there is no doubt, you're going
to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you
stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We
don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must
have an absolute.

My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that
underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but
that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to
anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have
the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every
Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He
would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand
generations."

The New Versions attempt to "CORRECT" The Hebrew Text in at Least 19
different ways. The NIV uses all nineteen of these, by the way.In effect,
the new version "translators/paraphrasers" might say,   "Oh, I don't want
to take this Hebrew word here. I want to take the Septuagint (LXX) reading
instead." But the Septuagint (LXX) version for the most part is worse than
a Living Version. It is the Old Testament written in Greek. It is rotten.
Its text is corrupt. Even the ISBE article, (the International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia) on the Septuagint (LXX) states that it has a very
tattered and inferior Greek text. Remember, the ISBE is no friend of the
King James Bible's text. The use of the Septuagint (LXX) by these new
versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error.

Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at
all. It is pure conjecture. They might say, "I don't have any proof, but I
think it sounds better this way." When this is done, they often
print in the footnote an "L" which stands for "legendum," meaning in Latin,
"which read." I remember Dr. Merrill F. Unger, my Hebrew teacher at Dallas
Theological Seminary. He has written many books,
including Unger's Bible Dictionary. He was an apt and humble man, though he
reminded me of an "absent-minded professor" at times. He taught us Isaiah
in our second year Hebrew class. On one occasion, he read a verse in a way
that differed from the Hebrew text. I raised my hand and said, "Why did you
read it that way? It doesn't read that way in the Hebrew text?" Dr. Unger
replied, "Well, I just thought it sounded better that way, so I changed
it." Dr. Unger went to the Johns Hopkins University for his Ph.D. work. He
was taught by Dr. Albright who was far from sound in his theology. Perhaps
Dr. Unger learned this doubt of the Hebrew text from his professor. What
was Dr. Unger doing? He was "CORRECTING" the Hebrew text by conjecture.

Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Syriac Version. Some "CORRECT" the
Hebrew with just "a few Hebrew manuscripts" rather than the entire
Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text. Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Latin
Vulgate. Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the Dead
Sea Scrolls, there are a few problems. Problem #1: How do you know which
Hebrew manuscripts this
heretical cult (called the Essenes) took with them when they left the
temple of Jerusalem and went to the area of the Qumran caves? Problem
#2:How do you know the methods they used and the accuracy with which they
copied and recopied those manuscripts? It just so happens that the Dead Sea
Scrolls, probably 99% of the time, did concur with the Hebrew text that
underlies the King James Bible. But, in the places where they don't, we
should stick to the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.

Some, like the NIV, use "quotations from Jerome" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew
text. Some use Josephus, an unsaved Jew, to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some
use a "variant Hebrew Reading in the margin" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
Some use "words in the consonantal text divided differently" to "CORRECT"
the Hebrew text. Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, or Symmachus to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use the Hebrew
Targums, Theodotion, or the "Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms" to
"CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for
the Hebrew Word of God? Was he there? Still others use a "different set of
Hebrew Vowels" to   "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Some use "an ancient Hebrew
scribal tradition" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew. Some use the BIBLIA HEBRAICA of
Kittel or Stuttgartensia to "CORRECT" the Hebrew. These
are 19 of the different methods that other English versions have used to
"CORRECT" the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, thus
changing the very Words of God!

God authorized the Jews to be the exclusive guardians of His Words. The
Jews were to be the guardians of the O.T. Hebrew text. God did not give
that privilege and responsibility to any other race or people. "What
advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much
every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of
God" (Ro. 3:1,2).

It was the Hebrew O.T. text that God preserved, not some text in Greek,
Latin, or Syriac, or any of these other documents. It must be Hebrew. There
were eight or more important, strict rules that were followed by the Hebrew
scribes who copied and recopied the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text. These rules
were to insure that each letter, word, and sentence of the Hebrew text was
preserved exactly. The Jews were meticulous and reverent in the copying and
recopying of our Hebrew manuscripts. That's why I believe that we should
not change any of the Hebrew Words of God that underlie the KJV.'

<snip>
END OF PART ONE

• Previous message: 'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part 1)
• Next message: 'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part 1)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]