Questions about the KJV versus modern versions

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 2010

Thank you for your email. I shall endeavour to answer your questions.

If you are critical of the KJV, why do you sometimes use it when teaching?

I use it because the vast majority of certain audiences do not possess any other version than the KJV. Now, I have on occasion criticized the KJV, both publicly and in private. For instance, in Revelation 22:14 the KJV follows manuscripts that make eternal salvation dependent on keeping God's commandments; whereas the better manuscripts make it dependent on washing our robes in the blood of the Lamb (see Revelation 7:14). But I do not want to undermine an audience's confidence in the only version they have, or are likely to have.

Sometimes it uses mistaken and misleading antiquated language; for example, in Romans 6:6 it uses 'is crucified' instead of 'was crucified'; in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 it uses 'letteth' instead of 'hinders'; in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it uses 'prevent' instead of 'go before'. But in spite of these, the KJV has led thousands to Christ, and has guided untold numbers of believers on their way home to glory. I could cite J. N. Darby's already existent translation, which is more accurate than the KJV, but its English is poor and difficult, and some in an audience may not possess a copy.

But now there are many different translations, and among them some are more accurate than the KJV.

Aren't modern versions based on corrupt manuscripts?

You write that 'some are opposing most modern versions because they say they are based upon corrupt manuscripts, such as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Greek Manuscript C and Manuscript B.' (Please note that Manuscript B and Vaticanus are one and the same manuscript.)

While it is claimed that the early manuscripts that do not belong to the Byzantine tradition have been systematically revised by early heretics like Origen, so as to make them deny—openly or by implication—the deity, eternality and virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, this claim is false and without foundation.

Nowadays, we have a large number of very early papyri, such as the Chester Beatty Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, written circa. 200 AD. Early papyri, often written by not very good scribes, abound in scribal errors: yet these are genuine mistakes. There is no evidence whatever of any systematic revision of the text to corrupt the fundamental doctrines of the faith. The evangelical scholar, Gordon Fee, has demonstrated this conclusively by the most painstaking and detailed study of these papyri. My advice would be: don't let yourself be scared by these unfounded rumours about 'corrupt manuscripts'.

You also cite five verses where changes in the NIV and NKJV seem, to you, 'to put a question over the deity, eternality and virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ'.

Luke 2:33

KJV: And Joseph and his mother marvelled.

NIV: The child's father and mother marvelled.

You feel that the NIV in this verse puts a question over the virgin birth of Christ, by referring to Joseph as 'the child's father'.

But now I must ask you: how valid is this 'feeling'? Consider the following: in 2:27 and again in 2:41, Luke refers to Joseph and Mary as Christ's 'parents'. Notice the plural. Joseph, and not just Mary, is referred to as the child's parent. All the manuscripts agree; there are no variant readings. Even the KJV in Luke 2:27 and Luke 2:41 is faithful to the Greek, and uses the term 'parents' in both verses. The Greek word is goneis and, strictly speaking, means 'those who begat and gave birth to'.

So what do you feel about this? Has Luke himself made a terrible mistake and put a question mark over the virgin birth of Christ? Or is Luke speaking naturally, as we do today? Suppose a woman bears a child, and a month later the husband is killed in a car crash. Nine months later, she marries again. The man who is now her husband is not the child's physical father. How then will she teach the child to refer to him? Will she strictly forbid the growing child to call him 'daddy' or 'father' because he is not the child's physical father? And will not the school authorities naturally refer to the woman and her present husband as the child's parents? Though Joseph was not the child's physical father, he doubtless acted as a father to the growing boy.

Or consider Luke 2:48 where Mary, addressing the child, refers to Joseph and then to herself as 'Your father and I'. All versions rightly use the phrase 'Your father and I'; there are no variants in the manuscripts. Do you feel that here both Mary and Luke are 'putting a question over the virgin birth of Christ', which is so explicitly written about in chapter 1? If you felt that, you would be yourself questioning the inspiration and divine authority of Scripture.

At Luke 2:33—which is the verse you quote—the Greek manuscripts divide. Some have 'and his father and his mother marvelled'. Others, feeling like you, have 'and Joseph and his mother marvelled'. Faced with these differences, how would you decide which was original? Would you think that 'his father and his mother' was original; but that someone like yourself felt that this might be misunderstood to imply that Joseph was Christ's physical father, and therefore played safe and changed it from 'his father' to 'Joseph'? Or would you think that 'Joseph' was original, and some scribe changed it to 'his father'?

You might be interested to know that J. N. Darby felt that 'his father' was original. But no one in his right mind would imagine that Darby was putting a question over the virgin birth.

Micah 5:2

KJV: '. . . whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

NIV: '. . . whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.'

This is an Old Testament passage. The manuscripts are in Hebrew, and they existed centuries before the New Testament was written. The idea that certain Christian heretics corrupted the Hebrew manuscripts would be nonsensical.

Here, moreover, it is not a question of some Hebrew manuscripts saying one thing and other Hebrew manuscripts saying something else. It is solely a matter of deciding what the Hebrew means, and then how best to translate it into English.

For instance, what does the Hebrew word 'goings forth', or 'goings out' mean? Is it to be understood literally? Does it imply that the Son of God came out of heaven many times in the course of the centuries? And how should the last phrase in the verse be translated?

You should notice that the NIV translators confess their uncertainty as to what is the correct translation. In their study edition, they have 'origins' for 'goings out' in their text; but in their footnote, they point out that the Hebrew has 'goings out'.

Similarly, they have 'from ancient times' in their text; but in their footnote they have 'from days of eternity', which is a possible, literal translation of the Hebrew. This in fact is close to Darby's translation, 'from the days of eternity'.

Do you still feel that the NIV translators were men who deliberately put a question over our Lord's eternality?

Acts 13:33

KJV: 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.'

NIV: 'You are my Son, today I have become your Father.'

This has nothing to do with a choice between different manuscripts. The original Hebrew in Psalm 2:7, and the original Greek in Acts 13:33, are both undisputed. It is simply that the translation given in NIV is bad—very bad.

One may guess how the NIV arrived at this rendering. They everywhere try to bring old-fashioned English up to date. So in Matthew 9:15, while KJV has 'the children of the bridechamber'—which in modern English means 'wedding guests'—the NIV has 'guests of the bridegroom'. Likewise here in Acts 13:33: the term 'beget' or 'begotten' has largely gone out of modern English. Instead of saying 'Our dear friend, John Smith, has begotten a child', we are more likely to say 'Our dear friend, John Smith, has become a father'.

But when in Scripture the verb 'beget' is used of God, then it carries far more profound implications than the same verb does in modern English; and it is these implications that are lost if you substitute the modern English phrase 'have become your Father'.

Moreover, the original Hebrew of Psalm 2:7 and the Greek of Acts 13:33 stress what God has done: 'I have begotten thee'. The NIV's translation, by contrast, stresses what has happened to God: 'I have become Your Father'. It is a bad, and most unfortunate, translation, and altogether unnecessary. The ESV, which likewise aims to use up-to-date English, is happy to translate Acts 13:33 as 'I have begotten you'.

1 Timothy 3:16

KJV: God was manifested . . .

ASV: He who was manifested . . .

NIV: He appeared . . .

Darby Translation: Text: God has been manifested. . .
Footnote: It very likely should be read . . . 'He who has . . .'

This particular point has been endlessly discussed in many commentaries and articles. Why do you have the feeling that the change from the KJV found in the NIV would seem to put a question over the deity of Christ? Would you say the same about Darby's footnote, as quoted above? Obviously, Darby himself didn't think he was putting a question over the deity of Christ. It is true that some modern versions have been produced by liberal scholars who were unsound on the question of our Lord's deity. The translators of the NIV, however, were not unsound on that question.

Let me try to demonstrate this to you by citing Titus 2:13:

KJV: 'the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ'.

You will notice that this translation distinguishes between the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

NIV: 'the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ'.

In this translation, Jesus Christ is our great God and Saviour.

There are eight such passages in the New Testament where, rightly translated, they call Jesus God. In only four of these does the KJV call Jesus God. By contrast, the NIV calls Jesus God in seven out of these eight passages. I take these statistics from a chart to be found on page 64 of the book by D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1979, tenth printing July 1992.

The NIV is far from perfect. I don't know of any version that is perfect. But why do some believers so readily accuse the NIV of being disloyal to Christ?

Acts 2:30

KJV: . . . that of the fruit of his loins . . . he [God] would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

NIV: . . . that he [God] would place one of his descendants on his throne.

The chief difference here is that the KJV states that God had promised David that he would raise up Christ to sit on David's throne. But the NIV omits 'Christ' and simply says that God would place one of David's descendants on his throne.

And this makes you feel that the NIV seems to put a question over the deity, eternality and virgin birth of Christ. However, in the first place we must distinguish between:

1. God's original promise to David, mentioned in Psalm 132:11–12 and 2 Samuel 7:11–16;

2. The fulfilment of that promise announced by Peter in Acts 2:30.

God's original promise to David

In both these Old Testament passages, God promises to raise up one of David's descendants to sit on his throne. But in neither of them does God so much as mention that this descendant will be the Christ, the Messiah. In Acts 2:30, Peter is citing these prophecies. At this point some Greek New Testament manuscripts do not mention 'the Christ'. Other manuscripts add 'the Christ'. Which manuscripts are citing the Old Testament prophecies more exactly? The answer is, those manuscripts that do not add 'the Christ'. These manuscripts that add 'the Christ' are adding to Scripture.

J. N. Darby follows those manuscripts which are truer to the Old Testament passages and do not add 'the Christ'.

The fulfilment of that promise announced by Peter

In Acts 2:31, Peter explains to the crowd how God has fulfilled his promise to David: by sending Christ and then raising him from the dead. In this verse, the Greek manuscripts have not merely 'Christ' but 'the Christ', i.e. the Messiah. Here, the KJV has merely 'the resurrection of Christ'. The NIV has 'the resurrection of the Christ'. Which of the two, the KJV or the NIV, is here truer to the Greek of the New Testament and to the Hebrew of the Old Testament?

Why then do you feel that the NIV of these verses puts a question over the person of Christ?

Yours sincerely, You write in your letter that the completed Bible superseded 'bit by bit' prophecy (see 1 Corinthians 13:9–10). To back home this interpretation, you cite Numbers 12:6–8, where God's self-revelation through the prophets, though infallible, was partial, fleeting, and somewhat obscure, as distinct from God's revelation to Moses that was face to face, not in any ainigma.

Perhaps I am here combining your words in a way which you never intended, but this worries me a little, and I will tell you why. Our Lord himself, in his revelation of the Father when he was here on earth, used paroimiai, which he contrasts with speaking parrhesia—that is, openly, clearly; cf. God speaking to Moses openly.

He promised his disciples that the hour would come when he would no longer speak in paroimiai, but would speak openly to them of the Father. That hour has surely long since come. We have that full, open revelation of the Father in the completed Bible.

However, our Lord, then used the bit by bit method of communication. He did not communicate everything at once, nor the initial revelations with the same clarity as the subsequent revelations. The initial revelations were partial. Would you really wish to say that now God's revelation to us is perfect—that is, completed, the completed Bible supersedes the revelations which our Lord expressed bit by bit in paroimiais? Paul and the other apostles also used the bit by bit method; he did not teach the Thessalonians all that they subsequently taught the Ephesians. Do you therefore deduce:

1. that God revealed 1 and 2 Thessalonians to Paul, not face to face, but partially; Ephesians, on the other hand, was communicated to him face to face? Or,

2. that God's revelations to the apostles, right from the start—Galatians to Thessalonians, right up to Ephesians and Revelation—were all face to face? But if the Corinthians had read 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Galatians—or even had listened to Paul preaching by word of mouth the doctrines contained in those epistles—would it have seemed to them like looking in a mirror in a riddle? Then, when the Bible was complete, as they read 1 Thessalonians would they see its message face to face?

My own understanding is this:

1. I believe in the progress of revelation.
2. I believe that the Bible is God's completed revelation until the Lord comes.
3. I believe that Christ is God's final message to the world, as distinct from the partial messages in the Prophets (see Hebrews 1:1–2).
4. I believe we see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
5. I believe that for God's revelation, the Bible, to be complete, it needs to include and retain all the bit by bit revelations that God has seen fit to record in written form by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Christ's teachings on earth, for example, are not superseded—if that means supplanted and done away with—by 'that which is perfect'.

6. God's revelations through Ezekiel, obscure as some of them are, partial and 'through a mirror, in ainigmata', are not done away with, put out of operation or rendered obsolete by the completed Bible. They are an essential part of the completed revelation.

7. I believe that some of God's disciplines with Israel, e.g. 'under the law', belonged to Israel's spiritual childhood, and have given way to disciplines more suited to adulthood. But all such things are specified in the New Testament.

8. I believe that a great deal of the full and complete revelation that we now have in the Bible is unambiguously clear and direct. But the completed New Testament itself contains revelations that are to some extent through visions—for example, the Apocalypse—not direct, but in a mirror in ainigmati.

9. And it is part of the completed Bible, the perfect revelation of God's truth for the moment until the Lord comes. We do not yet see the Lord face to face, but we know 'in part'. We know that we shall one day be like the Lord, but we do not know what we shall be; and that is because we do not see him as he is.

10. I also believe that the vast majority of what are claimed as tongues today are not the biblical gift of tongues at all; and that 1 Corinthians 13 and 14 discourage the use of even biblical tongues, and absolutely forbid it in church if there is no translator.

If you have persevered all through this, your patience is phenomenal. Bear with the fact that one man, at least, still sees some things through a glass darkly.

Affectionately in Christ,