Bible Translations: Why I like the King James Version
By Liaf
Whenever you hear the phrase "inspired word of God", what do you think of? Exactly how was the Bible we have inspired? I’m sure you have your beliefs and theologians have theirs. If you have one of the many study Bibles that I have, there are theories galore as to what the nature of inspiration means. For example, there is the "mystical" theory. The writer was Spirit-filled and wrote as the Spirit directed. They perhaps were allowed to put things in their own words so that the "personalities of the writers are apparent". Another theory is "conceptual" where ideas but not words are inspired. Again, the person would be free to interject their own language and show their own personalities. Yet another theory is "fallible inspiration". The crux of the inspiration is by God, but because men record what God is saying (or think he is saying), they make mistakes. These little mistakes, we are told, are the nuances of such inspiration and they can be disregarded without scrapping the "whole idea". People that believe this way may take the approach, "It’s not perfect, but the main point is____" and they will elaborate on the BIG picture and let the erroneous little details alone. That does not bother them. And there are many other theories about inspiration as well. I take a rather unique approach to inspiration. And this approach is why I like the King James Version. The method of inspiration I hold to is the mathematical method. "What? What do you mean, Liaf?" For a long time now, it has been well know that certain words or phrases in the Bible have a numerical value that relates to the text or some concept in the text. Such numerical values can be referenced to other passages of scripture. Yet, the face-value meaning of the text is still applicable and means exactly what it says. These numerical values of text are called gematrias. We used to play games with gematrias as kids whether we knew it or not. You know the old game where A=1, B=2, C=3 and so forth. Then another kid would write out numbers and we would transliterate them to intelligible words. The same is applicable to the Hebrew and Greek. In essence, the numerical assignments were not increments of one, but one through nine, and then increments of tens, and then hundreds. Therefore, numerical values of our English alphabet looks like this:
A=1 B=2 C=3 D=4 E=5 F=6 G=7 H=8 I=9 J=10 K=20 L=30 M=40 N=50 O=60 P=70
Q=80 R=90 S=100 T=200 U=300 V=400 W=500 X=600 Y=700 AND Z=800.
Actually, our language has the ability to use the "Q" by itself (although it is not common) and another letter "Qu" as a hybrid of two. In that case, "Qu" can have the value of 90 and "Z" would therefore end at 900. The Hebrew has 22 letters, and the mathematical values range from 1 to 400. I will not give specific examples of gematrias, but I did make mention of one important gematria in the message about the Great Pyramid.
If indeed there is a mathematical dimension to Biblical passages, what does that imply? In order for it to work, every letter and word must be in proper order. That means that inspiration must be dictated in a letter-by-letter and word-by-word transmission from God to man. If man simply "put things into his own words" then gematrias could not occur (except for a few coincidences by normal statistical chance). In other words, God gave man letter-by-letter and word-by-word "raw data" as with a computer program. Corrupt the program a little and it will not work. A similar concept is the recent discovery of the Bible Code that was discovered in the Torah (the first five books of Moses). The difference between the Bible Code and gematrias is that the Code has encrypted messages at a certain "skip" sequence. For example, if we take every 8th Hebrew letter of a passage and note each letter, they will spell out new words or phrases that relate to the passage. Proof of the Bible Code lies with statistical analysis although the actual mechanism is lingual in nature. Gematrias on the other hand have numerical and mathematical significance and the phenomenon is much easier to detect. This is the first reason I like the King James. The King James is not a perfect translation, but was painstakingly and honestly done without a denominational ax to grind (although there are a few human biases). If we look to the original translations (which were generally uncorrupted due to the "Code" and "gematria" phenomenon), the King James was translated from them to what we have today. Instead, theologians today feel that we need a better translation and disregard the mathematical phenomenon as hogwash. If we translate linguistically only, there is that possibility that the translators hold the "fallible inspiration" doctrine and thus needs to be "improved" (as though they have a better idea what God was really trying to say). But mathematics says it all. The exact nature of this phenomenon blows all to hell any idea that paraphrases are acceptable. Indeed, the precise nature of this assures us that this is one more piece of circumstantial evidence that the Bible is God’s Word. In addition, that makes Jesus’ statement more understandable when he said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The entire universal "computer program" must run until all is executed. Any change in a jot or tittle may crash the program. No wonder over the generations Jews had this obsession with recording every jot and tittle of the Torah precisely lest the fabric of the universe would be changed if the transcription was corrupt. (That’s what they believed).
OK. I stated my first reason that had to do with precision. After all, it’s hard to argue with the black and white nature of mathematics. The second reason is legal. Legal? Yes, by man’s own admission. I’ll state what I mean in a moment. Some churches have a Bible-thumping evangelist. They will thump on the pulpit saying, "Do you believe in the infallible, inerrant Word of God?" They will frantically wave that Bible to the horror of folks with saucer eyes. They will say that you must believe in the entire, inspired Word of God to make it to heaven. What Bible will they wave? Sometimes it’s the NIV or New King James, or the NRSV (no, I think the liberal preachers wave that version more often). However, it oftentimes is a newer translation. Let me get this straight. Is that supposed to be God’s Word to us? "Yes", they emphatically state. OK, then if it’s God’s Word, it must not be man’s word. Right? Makes sense to me. And what does God say? Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How can you possibly teach without quoting God’s Word? Agreed? Is there anything in the Bible that says I cannot quote Scripture to teach others? No. In fact, the Bible encourages that. Yet, if I quote the NIV for example here on the Internet in these messages, I must (by legal standards) give the translation and even at that, I must limit my quote to a specified length. Why do you think that is? "Because the translators deserve some credit", you may say. Why? According to the Bible, the workman is worthy of his meat Jesus said. If the translators are doing God’s work, I’m sure God already provided their provisions. Once that was done, then anybody should be able to quote God’s (not man’s) Word freely. In fact, they should be glad that God’s Word is getting out. I say the same thing. Freely copy these messages and give them out as your own if you want. I only ask one thing. Just don’t copyright them and then have the gall to turn around and sue me if I state the same message that God originally declared through me (unless you like the idea of dancing eternally on a lake of fire). It’s all from the same God. Likewise, the same should apply to translations. I’ll tell you why I am not allowed to quote other translations without legal hogwash. The reason is that people want to take credit for God’s Word. Therefore, by legal intimidation and admission, these translations are man’s words. They are corrupt. "Oooooh no! The Bible is still the Word of God." some may retort. (Some of my ‘roller’ friends may say "the We-erd of Gee-yod" in an attempt to scare the bejesus out of a doubter.) Well then, if that is God’s Word, why must anybody require permission from somebody else to quote God’s Word? What makes anybody more privileged to grant permission or require any royalties? We all have equal access to God’s Word. If it is really God’s Word, such a claim is blasphemy punishable by damnation. I don’t really think anybody is this abysmally ignorant enough to make such a bold claim without fear of divine retribution. Therefore, by such seemingly arrogant claims, the translators are in effect admitting these are man’s words. I believe this is the case. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt so as to save their souls from destruction. Therefore, if this is the case, these other translations are no more God’s Word than the book "War and Peace".
Thus, you can see why I like the King James Bible. This is an old "tried and true" translation that is public domain. "What if another newer translation becomes public domain?" you may ask. Is that any different than the King James? Or again, you may ask, "What of the time when that might not have been the case with the King James?" Tell ya what. I believe if any newer translation becomes public domain, it may be God’s Word. Perhaps he oversees newer translations to fruition by blowing away all the legal garbage. But as long as this legal stigma applies, it can’t be. God would not have the impertinence to have scholars translate his Word only to have them grant permission for another to use it. He would find a way so that the translators would humbly step aside without such a requirement --- otherwise, I can’t accept it as God’s Word. And that’s why I like the King James translation.