An Inspired Translation?

As boys we travelled by train more than 1000 miles each Christmas vacation (remember that is summertime in Australia), from our home city of Newcastle to the beautiful Barossa Valley of the state of South Australia. This valley was the ancestral home of our father, and was the home of hundreds of Reformed Lutheran Germans who emigrated to Australia between 1838 and 1850, fleeing persecution from the state Lutheran Church in Germany.

Our great-great-grandfather, Thomas Standish, migrated to Australia from Lancashire in England as a young man. On the boat, he met a young German lass and they married upon arrival in the new state. These Germans from the area of Germany known as Silesia (now part of Poland) had adhered to their primitive Lutheran faith despite the fact that the Prussian emperor adopted a course of persecution against them because they refused to accept his enforced form of State Lutheranism, which they judged to be apostate. Initially they sought refuge in the Ukraine, but their leader, Pastor Kruger, on a visit to England met Sir William Angus, who had devised a scheme to settle the state of South Australia and what became its capital city, Adelaide. This, the only Australian State which did not commence as a convict settlement, was first settled by Europeans in 1836.

In spite of the fact that our father was a fourth-generation Australian, and despite the fact that he was of partial English ancestry, German was his primary language. Following the failure of the German community of the Barossa Valley to support the Australian war efforts in the First World War, the German schools run by the Lutheran Church were closed and all children of the Barossa Valley, including our father, were required to study in English-medium schools. In a single generation the inhabitants of that valley thus became Australians rather than Germans living in Australia.

We were always intrigued by this "little Germany." In our grandmother’s home, we saw the primacy of the Martin Luther Bible. To fit our needs, the English King James Bible was dusted off for worship time during our visits. We still remember, however, the reverence with which our great-uncle Oscar held the Luther Bible. Occasionally, he would point to a passage, indicating his view that there was a deeper meaning in the German Bible as compared with the English translation. Clearly God spoke to him in German.

In the English-speaking world it is possible for us to forget that the Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages. Every one of these languages possesses words with slightly different shades of meaning—often unique to the cultural heritage of that language. It is not possible for one language to be translated into another language with perfect accuracy. Though the Hebrew scholars were among the finest in the world, nevertheless it is not difficult to detect the differences in expression in the Greek Septuagint translation of the pre-Christian era when compared with the original Hebrew. If anyone has doubts about translation difficulties, he should examine a Diaglot, which attempts to provide a word-by-word translation into English language from the Greek.

It hardly needs emphasis that we have none of the original writings, and that even manuscripts of the Byzantine (Eastern) text have in many cases been altered from the original at least slightly, either by accidental error of the scribe or by deliberate change. However, almost always these errors can be identified by comparison with other copies, with early translations into other languages, and with reference to scriptural quotations of the early church fathers. It must be remembered that the leaders of Christianity in the East followed very strict rules of copying. Most errors are simple misspellings or omissions of words in one manuscript which are correct in the vast majority of others. Thus the Textus Receptus, for all practical purposes, represents the original writings.

We now examine the problem of whether any translation is divinely inspired. Obviously, if no manuscript in the original language is a perfect reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect. Yet by comparing manuscript with manuscript and examining other ancient writings it is possible to discern the original writings with great accuracy.

Many textual critics greatly overstate the presence of errors in the Greek manuscripts. The lesson of the Hebrew manuscripts should not be lost. Textual critics had pontificated major copyists’ errors in this text. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls put such guesswork to rest. God had preserved His Word. That He has just as miraculously preserved the New Testament cannot be doubted.

Some, however, have been so bold as to assert that the King James Version of the Scripture is a divinely inspired translation. Such a claim must be doubtful. Every evidence we have indicates that, though the King James Version is an excellent translation, it is not a perfect translation, which presumably is what an inspired translation would be. Yet we do not doubt the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the work of these translators, a guidance that could hardly be expected to guide men deliberately bent on falsifying God’s Word.

Generally the exact-equivalence method of translation does not necessarily completely remove all bias in translation. For example, the Authorized Version, though giving many strong evidences of the doctrine of free will, nevertheless reflects the Calvinistic leanings of some of its translators with its heavy predestination emphasis in a number of New Testament passages. It is likely that the writings of the Dutch scholar Armenius, who died just about the time that the King James Version began to be translated, were known to the translators. It is possible that they were reacting against his free-will theology. Some have also felt that the King James Version reflects the pagan error of immediate life after death, with its emphasis on an everlasting burning hell. But, if these biases are present, they do not misdirect the Spirit-directed soul who is endeavoring to find the truth of the Bible by studying precept upon precept and comparing Scripture with Scripture. Overwhelmingly, the King James Version portrays a concept of free will through such texts as the following:

The King James Version portrays the sleep of death awaiting the resurrection through clearly translated texts:

Dr. D.A. Carson, in his book The King James Version Debate, gives a wide range of ways by which errors crept into the manuscripts of the New Testament. Most of these errors are readily detected. For example, if a scribe accidentally left out a word, that word is attested to by many other manuscripts. Overwhelmingly, the words of the New Testament are sure, and where scholars are unsure, there is in most circumstances, high probability of the words of the original. Where there is vigorous debate, it is over issues that do not touch the central truths of the Bible. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of God’s Word.

Problems arise, however, when translators seek to interpret Scripture according to their own biases. We can expect that as we come near the end of earth’s history, this bias will increasingly be the object of Satan’s efforts. The reason we uphold the King James Version of the Bible is not that it is an inspired or perfect translation. We recommend the King James Version not just because it is easier to memorize or its language more sacred, or its cadence superior to modern translations. We recommend the King James Version as the primary Bible for both the individual and the church, simply because it is still the most accurate and reliable translation available in the English language. Whenever a more accurate, unbiased translation comes out in good quality, contemporary English, the authors will quickly join those who endorse its primary usage. We had hoped that the New King James Version would provide just that, but it does not measure up to the King James Version, and seriously erodes some precious truths of Scripture.