I was watching the above video by Dr Michael Brown in which, while acknowledging some value to the KJV, nevertheless he finds various faults with it which, on further examination, turn out to be unfounded, and reveal that he has an issue with the English language rather than with the KJV. While one or two of his criticisms may be valid (and inconsequential), the rest show an extraordinary lack of understanding plain English. For example at around 24:30 minutes into the video he finds fault with the translation of a Greek word in Luke, referring to Jesus as “master,” whereas in his judgement it should be translated “teacher”. Well, the word “master” (in British English at least) actually means “teacher”. That is one of the meanings of it. That is where the word “headmaster” comes from. It means “headteacher,” or the “principal” of a school. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary lists 14 different definitions for the word “master” in English. Definition #9 is given as: “a male teacher at a school, especially a private school;” and then it gives as an example the phrase: “the physics master;” by which is meant the guy who teaches physics in a school, or the “physics teacher”. I went to a private English school as a kid, and all our “teachers” there were then called “masters”. The guy who taught physics was called the “physics master,” the guy who taught history was called the “history master,” the guy who taught English was called the “English master” etc. And the guy who was in charge of the whole school was called the “headmaster”. Americans did not invent English; the English people did; and they were the ones who gave us the KJV.
Another example he gives after 34:30 minutes is the translation of a Greek word which in the Corinthian epistles is translated mostly as “weakness;” but in 2 Cor. 12 it is also translated as “infirmity;” which he again concludes to be “incorrect,” because he thinks that the word “infirmity” literally means “sickness,” whereas the original Greek word means “weakness,” and therefore should always be translated as such in the KJV. He is wrong about that too. The word “infirmity” also means “weakness”. That is one of the definitions of it—if not the primary definition. In some dictionaries it is listed as the primary definition. Google is your friend. A Google search for “infirmity, meaning” will quickly provide many dictionary definitions which confirms the above. So it looks like Dr Brown has an issue with the English language rather than with the KJV.
Another criticism that he makes of the KJV is that the meanings of many of the words have changed over time, and therefore they need to be “modernized”. But that is true of any great literature of the past. It is equally true of the writings of William Shakespeare or John Milton. We don’t try to “modernize” their writings just because the meanings of the words have changed; so why the KJV? The KJV is a great piece of English literature, like Shakespeare or Milton—as well as being scripture. If somebody prefers to read a more modern translation, there is nothing wrong with that, and there are plenty of them to choose from. I am not a “KJV-only” guy. But if you are going to find fault with the KJV, you had better know what you are talking about. To suggest that you need to “modernize” the KJV just because the meanings of the words have changed would like saying that you need to modernize Shakespear just because the meanings of the words have changed. So it looks like Dr. Michael Brown has an issue with English literature as well as with the language—rather than with the KJV.
There is nothing wrong with making modern translations of the Bible. If somebody thinks that they can make a better translation of the Bible in modern English, good luck to them, let them try. But I also reserve the right to compare it with the KJV, and decide for myself which one I like best; and so far I haven’t found one that beats the KJV.
I was initially introduced to the Bible through modern translations, because I found the KJV too heavy going at first. I read two modern translations of the Bible before feeling confident enough to tackle the KJV. The modern translations served as stepping stones to introduce me to the KJV. Had it not been for those, I might not have felt confident enough to venture into the KJV when I did. But now that I have, and am able to compare them, I find no other translation that matches the KJV, especially in capturing and conveying the spiritual intent of the biblical message. Verbal accuracy is not the only thing that makes a good translation. The KJV may not be verbally accurate in every instance; but it captures and conveys the spiritual intent of the biblical message better than any modern translation does, in my opinion. And I believe there are reasons for that. It did not happen by accident. Paul says that the things of God are “spiritual,” and are “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The KJV conveys that spiritual message of the Bible better than any other translation does.
So the bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with making modern translations of the Bible; although the KJV still remains the best attempt so far; and Dr Michael Brown appears to have an issue with the English language and literature rather than with the KJV.
After writing the above, I found another video by Dr Michael Brown on the subject of Bible translation and the KJV, in which he continues the same theme as before, which can seen here:
I don’t intend to comment on everything he has said in it, but just briefly mention a couple of points. Skipping the initial introductory remarks, starting at 01:18 minutes into the video he says the following:
“No translation is perfect; and I am quite sure, I have no doubt whatsoever, especially having reread the preface of the King James translators, which I hadn’t looked at in many years, I have no question whatsoever, but if those men were alive today—take those same individuals, same background, same heart, same training—take those people, put them as Christian men today, they absolutely would be working on a new translation. There is no way under the Sun that they would be telling everyone, ‘Use the King James.’ They would be the first to say, ‘Ah, we know the Hebrew better now, we know the Greek better now, we have more manuscript evidence, more archaeological finds, the English language has changed dramatically, let us improve on the older translation, and do something like that,’ or, ‘let’s work on one of the modern translations to get it even better.’ I have no question, no question whatsoever, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that if the King James translators were alive today, they would not be ‘King James only’. They would not be saying, ‘use the King James’. I have no question about that whatsoever.”
I think that he has got that partly right, but mostly wrong! I think that if the original translators of the KJV were alive today, or were miraculously brought back to life in our time; and were miraculously endowed with a perfect knowledge of all the changes that have taken place in English since their time; as well as being made aware of all the linguistic, archaeological, and manuscript discoveries that have been made since; and they were also made miraculously aware of all the modern translations of the Bible that have been made since then; they wouldn’t have been terribly impressed by any of them. I think that their response to us today would still have been, “Stick with the KJV for now until we have made our revision, and after that you can use our revised version of the KJV.” And when they had made their revision, the end result would still be substantially the same as the KJV, with only small variations. The language, vocabulary, and idiomatic usage of their revised version would still be the same as the KJV, with minor variations. Dr Brown then proceeds to supply us with another ridiculous example of a supposed “mistranslation” in the KJV. At 2.30 minutes into the video he says the following (emphasis added):
“So one of the examples I gave of a wrong translation was in Acts chapter 12 verse 3. And it says this in the King James: ‘And because he [Herod] saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)’ So what is wrong there? Nothing. So it is telling us it is the days of ‘unleavened bread,’ right? And then it goes on to say this: after arresting him, verse 4, and I am reading King James: ‘And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.’ That shouldn’t say, ‘Easter’. It is the one time only in the King James where it says ‘Easter’. It is a mistranslation. It shouldn’t say Easter. And in fact the New King James, and basically every English translation since then has said, ‘Passover,’ which is what the Greek says; and whenever that Greek word, pascha, the Passover occurs in Greek, it is translated as Passover in English. The same in the King James, except for this one verse. Now defenders of King James, in thinking that there are no errors in the King James, said no, they can explain why it says Easter there, and you have to read the history of the translation, and go back to William Tyndale, and so on, and in Hebrew. Okay, we are going to do that on the other side of the break. … So, let’s go back to the King James Version of Acts chapter 12 verse 4, where it translates the Greek word for Passover, it translates that with Easter. Now elsewhere in the New Testament it is rightly translated with ‘Passover,’ so why did it get it wrong there? …”
This required some exploration; so I did a search, and found that the word “Passover” occurs 26 times in the New Testament in the KJV; and the word “Easter” occurs only once, in Acts 12:4, like he says. So if the translators of the KJV managed to “get it right” 26 times out of 27, how did they “get it wrong” this one time only? Did they go crazy, lose their minds, or have a brain seizure? Or could it be there was some logic behind their thinking? Is it not more reasonable to at least give them some benefit of the doubt, and try to find out what their thinking behind it might have been, before concluding that they “got it wrong”? I find his cavalier attitude, and tendency to summarily dismiss, and readily accuse the translators of the KJV of “getting it wrong,” without giving them the slightest benefit of the doubt, or trying to explore what their rationale behind it could have been, to come across as very arrogant and presumptuous indeed. If they translated it 26 times out of 27 one way, and chose to do it differently on this one occasion only; you don’t just accuse them of “getting it wrong” without exploring what their possible motives for doing it that way might have been. Either they were mad, stupid, or brain-dead; or they had a reason for doing it that way which to their way of thinking gave them the justification for doing it. You don’t just accuse them of “getting it wrong” without exploring what their possible motive for doing it that way might have been. After doing more research into it, however, I found that this is something that has been commented on and discussed quite a bit in the past, with plenty of useful information on it available on the Internet. Some interesting quotes from a couple of articles in Wikipedia on the subject is a good place to start. The first quote is from an article on “Easter” as follows (emphasis added):
“Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as well as by its position in the calendar. In most European languages, the feast is called by the words for passover in those languages; and in the older English versions of the Bible the term Easter was the term used to translate passover.
• • •
“Easter is linked to Passover and the Exodus from Egypt recorded in the Old Testament through the Last Supper, sufferings, and crucifixion of Jesus that preceded the resurrection. According to the New Testament, Jesus gave the Passover meal a new meaning, as in the upper room during the Last Supper he prepared himself and his disciples for his death. He identified the matzah and cup of wine as his body soon to be sacrificed and his blood soon to be shed. Paul states, ‘Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed’ (1 Cor. 5:7 NIV); this refers to the Passover requirement to have no yeast in the house and to the allegory of Jesus as the Paschal lamb.” (link)
The following quote is from another article in Wikipedia titled “Names of Easter”:
“In Old English the form Pascan was used [for Easter] by Byrhtferth (c. 970 – c. 1020) and the form Pasches in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1122. Although now limited to specialized uses, the terms the Pasch or Pascha are sometimes used in Modern English. Pace, a dialect form of Pasch, is found in Scottish English and in the English of northeastern England, and used especially in combination with the word ‘egg’, as in ‘Pace Egg play’.
“In nearly all Romance languages, the name of the Easter festival is derived from the Latin Pascha. In Spanish, Easter is Pascua, in Italian and Catalan Pasqua, in Portuguese Páscoa and in Romanian Paşti. In French, the name of Easter is Pâques and also derives from the Latin word but the s following the a has been lost and the two letters have been transformed into an â with a circumflex accent by elision. In Romanian, the only Romance language of an Eastern church, the word Înviere (resurrection, cf. Greek Ἀνάστασις, [anástasis]) is also used.” (link)
Lots more interesting and informative discussion can be found on the subject online, of which this article: “Easter or Passover?” is one among many.
So we conclude that the KJV “gets it right” time and time again; while it is Dr Michael Brown who keeps “getting it wrong” over and over! If the message that he is trying to give is that making modern translations of the Bible is a good thing; or that there is nothing wrong with making modern translations; I am with him on that. I don’t have a problem with others attempting modern translations of the Bible. But that is not the same as finding fault with the KJV. He doesn’t need to find fault with the KJV to convey that message, or to justify making modern translations. If, however, his aim is to actually find fault with the KJV, then he had better know what he is talking about, and it is evident that he doesn’t. He hasn’t a clue! And it is very presumptuous of him to repeatedly accuse the translators of the KJV of “getting it wrong,” when in fact he is the one who keeps “getting it wrong,” and doesn’t even know it. He is projecting his own limitations and failures on to the eminent translators of the KJV. The KJV still remains the best translation of the Bible into English that has been attempted so far, in spite of its limitations; and it is unlikely to be supplanted by anything else anytime soon.
