The King James Version ONLY Fallacy

This is a touchy subject in many circles. There are many Christians, both within and without the SDA church who believe that the only Version of the Bible that can be trusted is the King James Version.

The following is just a few pages from my husband’s book, “Another Jesus, Even Among Conservative Adventists?” on this subject. The book itself is not about this subject, but he took the opportunity to share his thoughts on this topic in the book, and hopefully you will find it a blessing.

I think this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the benefit of using multiple translations; at the same time this would probably be a good opportunity to briefly examine the belief that the King James is the only translation that is safe to use.

There are a number of Bibles that I use occasionally, but there are two that I use all the time: the King James and the New Living. Ninety-five percent of the time the two translations are basically saying the same thing, only in different words. (That is pretty much the way it is with all translations.) But I must tell you, I have found that in many instances the New Living translates a passage, not in a way that contradicts the King James, but in a way that expresses more clearly to our minds exactly what it is that the Bible writer was intending to convey. Paul’s use of the

word tempted in those two verses from Galatians and First Thessalonians is a perfect example:

“Dear brothers and sisters, if another Christian is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.” {Galatians 6:1 NLT}

“That is why, when I could bear it no longer, I sent Timothy to find out whether your faith was still strong. I was afraid that the Tempter had gotten the best of you…” {I Thessalonians 3:5 NLT}

Even as I sit here examining and writing about these verses it continues to grow clearer that both translations are saying the same thing, only the New Living grasps and expresses the meaning better.

Take Galatians 6:1 for example: the King James starts out with the words - ‘Brethren, if a man be overtaken…’, and ends with the words - ‘lest thou also be tempted.’ The words ‘thou also’ can only be referring back to the man who was ‘overtaken’. Paul was clearly saying: ‘lest thou also be overtaken.’ The translators of the New Living realized that, and therefore translated the last portion of the verse in a way that clearly expresses that.

The same is true in the First Thessalonians passage. In verse one and verse five of First Thessalonians chapter three we read that Paul was so worried about the Thessalonians that he ‘could no longer forbear.’ All of the modern translations I have translate that portion more along the lines of: ‘when I could no longer stand it’, or, ‘when I could no longer bear it’, which is exactly what the King James is saying. What is it that Paul could no longer bear? It certainly wasn’t the fact that they might be exposed to ‘being tempted.’ Paul knew all too well that they were ‘being tempted’ (just read verses 3 & 4). It had to be that they might have ‘entered into temptation.’ And that is why in place of the King James saying: ‘lest by some means the tempter have tempted you’, the New Living says: ‘I was afraid that the Tempter had gotten the best of you.’ And that is also why Paul finishes with the words: ‘and our labor be in vain.’

Now I would like to take a brief look at the teaching that the King James is the only Bible that should be used. The first argument I would make, the argument that I feel should settle the whole question, is the fact that Ellen White often quoted from the Revised Version, as well as occasionally from other translations. Why do you think she did that? Do you think that she just randomly decided to quote from a different translation? Of course not! Obviously she felt that the other Bible translated some aspect of that particular verse in a way that expressed the truth that God wanted us to know in a better, or clearer, or more powerful way.

Along with that comes one of two unavoidable conclusions:

#1—Ellen White must have been fairly familiar with those different translations, otherwise how would she have had any idea when to substitute them for the King James; or

#2—She went looking through those other translations to see if they stated the verse in a way that was clearer or better. Either way, if God’s inspired prophet, who we know was led of the Spirit, made use of other translations, so should we. (Slowly flip through 8 Testimonies 262-285 and you will be convinced.)

Daniel 7:9 is a classic example, as well as an extremely important one for Seventh-day Adventists, of an instance where the modern translations undeniably translate the verse in a way that makes it much easier for the reader to come to a correct understanding of what the Bible writer was actually wanting to say.

Ellen White, in both the 1888 and 1911 editions of The Great Controversy quotes Daniel 7:9 from the Revised Version: “I beheld till thrones were placed.”

Stephen Haskell in his book, The Story of Daniel the Prophet uses two different translations. And Uriah Smith in his classic, Daniel and the Revelation says:

“By an unfortunate translation in verse 9, a wrong idea is almost sure to be conveyed. The words cast down are from a word which in the original signifies just the opposite, namely, to set up.” {Daniel and the Revelation; his comment on Daniel 7:9}