Claude Mariottini Weighs in on Some Aspects of the King James Version

Dr. Mariottini has posted some useful thoughts regarding the KJV in response to an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. I love the way he has a balanced approach of not bashing the KJV but objectively and systematically pointing out some of its shortcomings while still respecting its value and importance in Christian history. Have a read. Sounds like he will have more posts on the KJV in an upcoming post. I look forward to reading it.

I thought I would also point out how interesting it is that the King James labels itself a “Version” and yet so many think it is the ONLY one. The term version reflects that attitude of the translators, which can be found in what they wrote in the preface to the 1611 KJV (which, apparantly manyKJV only supporters have never read). This is ironic to me that people would hold their translation as sacrosanct and yet ignore their own views on exactly what they were doing and what it would mean for their to be additional translations after their own. Here is one excerpt they wanted the reader of the KJV to understand prior to reading the text,

“Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. ” [HT – Tim Archer]

In other words, translation is tough and arduous. This is not the only viable translation that exists or will exist but this is our best go at it. God’s grace will suffice for our shortcomings.