The 1611 King James doesn't seem to think that studying the scriptures in English alone is good enough. A footnote to the 1611 KJV at Mark 13:8 reads "The word in the originall, importeth.the paines of a woman in trauaile.". The KJV translated the word in question as "sorrows", but indicated with the footnote that this was not a deep enough of an understanding of what the text was saying.

 

So with the KJV testifying against itself as not better than the original language, it makes you wonder why some have claimed that the KJV is error-free. I do consider the KJV to be one of the better translations, but my primary concern is with the idea that one does not need to study the original languages because we have some perfect translation of it. Also, the two best selling English versions are the NIV and the KJV. Overall, the KJV is a better translation, but if you were to list the top 10 errors in both translations, the top 10 in the NIV are mild, while the top 10 in the KJV could shipwreck someone's faith if they felt like their only choice was to accept every word of the KJV or reject the faith altogether.

 

http://christianbeliefs.org/articles/englishbiblesurvey.html says that the KJV was the 13th English translation behind:

    Wycliffe's [1380]
    Tyndale's [1525/6]
    Coverdale's [1535]
    Matthew's by John Rogers [1537]
    1538 Coverdale's Latin-English NT,
    "The Great Bible" [1539 by Coverdale for Thomas Cranmer]
    Taverner's,
    Whittingham's,
    Geneva [1560] http://www.greatsite.com/engbibhis/ says it retained over 90% of Tynsdale's translations. The 1599 update to it: (Geneva Study Bible) is available online by clicking here (though it's been "modernized").
    Bishops' [1568]
    1551 Bishop Becke's Bible,
    1552 Richard Jugge's NT

I know of more .  For example, there was also

    Rheims New Testament in the 1580's was translated from the Vulgate.

Did G-d not love the English until 1611?

 

Well, why would G-d only love the English so much and not do the same for German speaking folks or French speaking folks?  Are English speaking people the new "chosen"?  And why do some societies not have the Scriptures in their own languages?  Does God not love those people? It's just another translation folks.

 

When the KJV first came out, it was the "modern" translation of its day and many Geneva Bible loving people attacked this "modern translation" of the KJV for all the places where it disagreed with the Geneva Bible, which many people at the time viewed as THE Word of God. People who think the same way today are now defending, not the Geneva Bible as they did then, but the KJV for no reason other than the fact it is the oldest Bible in wide circulation.

 

One of the favorite arguments of the KJV only crowd is "Don't you think God would have preserved His Word?" Well, yes He has preserved it for several thousand years, but English is not the chosen language for it's "preservation". Some societies have never had it in their language at all, let alone had it preserved in their language.

 

God did indeed preserve His word in a language OTHER than English.  Good thing, since English has changed quite a bit over the years.  Comparatively speaking, Hebrew hasn't changed much at all.  The fact that Elohim has preserved His Word has no relevancy as to whether the KJV is a good translation or not.  If every word of the KJV were wrong or right, it would not have affected whether He preserved His word because it's been preserved in ANOTHER LANGUAGE!!!!!!!    As hard as it is to convince the KJV only crowd, English has no special status with God!!! But the KJV only crowd would have you believe that the preservation of God's word rests solely on whether the KJV is error free!

 

I'm not writing this to promote any favorite translation, but more to encourage people to read out of the original languages and demonstrate that even a generally good translation can and does have errors. I consider the KJV to be superior to the NIV, RSV, etc., in most of its translations, but I consider the original manuscripts to be of better value to read than the KJV.

 

For those who don't know the original languages well enough, I'd encourage them to read from a different translation every year.  The KJV is better than most translations, in fact one of the best, but it has it's flaws.  If you read from a different translation every time you read through the Bible, you'll begin to get a more complete picture than you will when you read the KJV only, even if it is one of the better translations.  This page will detail some of those flaws.

 

Shalom, Joe