I quite like the K.J.V. I'm always happy to preach from it if a church askes me to do so. But I don't think I could join a church that used it exclusively. When one is preaching from it, one first has to explain what it means in modern English, before starting an exposition.
There are four main problems with the K.J.V. as I see it.
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the K.J.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the K.J.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the K.J.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the K.J.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Timothy 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the K.J.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, K.J.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, K.J.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the K.J.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the K.J.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2 Peter 1:11. Here the K.J.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves K.J.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the K.J.V. contains such serious errors.
4. There is also another place where the K.J.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the KJV would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
Let me be clear once again. I am not saying that the K.J.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. If the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the K.J.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. has recently made a new revision. Quite right! If the K.J.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.
