Which Translation Do We Use?
by Pastor Richard W. Brosseau
In this age
when every Christian seems to be carrying a different translation of the Bible to church, let us share with you why we
still use the King James Version of the Bible in our teaching and preaching ministry, as well as in our own personal devotions.
Our reasons are three:
(1) First and foremost,
we believe the King James translation is based on the most accurate family of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550) and the Majority Text both are members of that family of manuscripts known as the Byzantine
Text, which I believe to be the most accurate Greek texts. While the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, and the New King
James Version more closely follows the Majority Text, BOTH are translated from the same family of Greek manuscripts known
as the Byzantine Text.
It is called the Byzantine Text because it is the text
that has been used for centuries by the Greek speaking church (the people who would have best understood the Greek language).
The amount of manuscripts and pieces conforming to this text have been found all over Europe and the Middle East and far outnumber
the manuscript evidence which forms the basis for the alternative family of manuscripts Western Text (a.k.a. Alexandrian Text,
Westcott & Hort Text, United Bible Societies Text, Nestles Text) from most of the modern language versions are translated.
The Western Text is based primarily on three
of the oldest manuscripts discovered or made public in the 19th century. While in enough agreement with one another to be
considered a "family" of manuscripts, they differ in many places from the Byzantine Text, and have numerous omissions, as
While no major doctrine of the Christian faith
is destroyed by these changes and omissions, often these variations chip away at the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This
certainly appeals to the Jehovahs Witnesses, who have used these changes in the Westcott and Hort Text to their advantage
in their infamous New World Translation of the Scriptures. The isolation of these manuscripts and their resulting
physical preservation, combined with their relatively small number would testify to the fact that these were recognized as
faulty manuscripts, by the early church, and laid aside.
of the King James Version promotes Scripture memorization and recall. The KJV was never intended to be put
in the most common English (or the least common denominator), but rather it was intended to be put into the best English of
the day. For this reason, its words have a timeless quality and are more easily memorized and hidden in the heart than any
other version (Psa. 119:11). On the other hand, the choppy language of the New American Standard Version is almost impossible
to memorize. It has been estimated that there is enough of the King James Bible hidden in peoples hearts that the whole text
could be reconstructed from memory. Use of the King James Version promotes Scripture memorization in the church and also prompts
the recall of Scripture previously hidden in hearts, when referred to during a message.
(3) The King James Version
is still the commonly accepted Bible of the English speaking people today. It has been so for almost 400 years,
and no other single translation has yet replaced it in the hearts of the people. The King James Version was the Bible of John
Bunyan and John and Charles Wesley. It was the Bible of the great missionary pioneers William Carey and Adonirum Judson, it
was the Bible of D. L. Moody and Billy Sunday. According to an article in the Citizen, dated February 11, 2001,
Americans still prefer the King James Version by 5 to 1. Although the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture extends
only to the original manuscripts, the Lord has promised to preserve and bless His Word (1 Pet. 1:24, 25). He has blessed
and used the King James Version as he has no other translation, and it is still "the Bible" for the majority of English speaking
people in our country today.