HOME PAGE

TOPICS PAGE

The Intelligent Person

The Life Foundations Nexus

 

 

IS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE PERFECT?

 

 

Copyright June 17, 2005 2:43 AM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

Updated June 17, 2005 6:32 PM CST

Copyright June 17, 2005 6:32 PM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

 

 

Before we begin, we must address the semantics of the word “perfect.”  No matter how you define the word “perfect,” the practical definition, the definition that is effectual in human thought is never more than “constituting what is flawless.”  The reason for this is that the human mind cannot conceive of perfection as anything more than flawlessness, even though we may believe otherwise (a happy fiction designed into our intellects by the Creator).  Therefore, when we ask, “Is the King James Version of the Bible perfect?” we are really asking, “Is the King James Version of the Bible flawless?”  To be clear, anytime we use the word “perfect,” we are really, in effect, using the word “flawless.”

 

 

Before we answer our question, we will ask a question.  What would make the King James Version of the Bible perfect?  The answer is:

 

The King James Version of the Bible would be perfect IF it were a perfect translation of the Bible from the original languages (the languages in which the Bible was written [ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and ancient Greek]).

 

Therefore, to prove that the King James Version of the Bible is perfect we must prove that it is a perfect translation of the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament.

 

Now, in order to prove that the King James Version of the Bible is a perfect translation of the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament we must first have copies of the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament.  Do we have such copies?  Yes.

 

The next step is to translate the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament into 1611 English.  (Note that we have also taken the reverse route and translated the King James Version of the Bible into ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and ancient Greek and proceeded in a fashion analogous to that we are describing…and with the same results.)  Translating the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament into 1611 English is necessary since we are not comparing the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament to a MODERN English translation.  Now, have we translated the ancient Hebrew (with some ancient Aramaic) Old Testament and the ancient Greek New Testament into 1611 English?  Yes.

 

The final question is:

 

Does our 1611 English translation agree perfectly with the King James Version of the Bible?

 

The answer to this question is a resounding YES!

 

Therefore, following the logic of “Sam is just as tall as Tom…Tom is just as tall as Hank…therefore, Sam is just as tall as Hank”:

 

The King James Version of the Bible is a perfect translation of the Bible from the original languages (the languages in which the Bible was written [ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and ancient Greek]).

 

In other words, “the original language Bible agrees perfectly with our 1611 English translation…our 1611 English translation agrees perfectly with the King James Version of the Bible…therefore, the original language Bible agrees perfectly with the King James Version of the Bible.”  The perfect agreement of the original language Bible with the King James Version of the Bible means, again:

 

The King James Version of the Bible is a perfect translation of the Bible from the original languages (the languages in which the Bible was written [ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and ancient Greek]).

 

Now we asked at the beginning of our article, “What would make the King James Version of the Bible perfect?”  Our answer was:

 

The King James Version of the Bible would be perfect IF it were a perfect translation of the Bible from the original languages (the languages in which the Bible was written [ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and ancient Greek]).

 

AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE PROVEN!  THEREFORE:

 

THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS PERFECT!

 

 

ANSWERS TO ALL “INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLES”

(ANSWERS TO ALL OBJECTIONS)

 

But wait a minute.  Some will insist that there are insurmountable obstacles to our conclusion.  All of these “insurmountable obstacles” have been overcome.  We will explain.  These “insurmountable obstacles” are objections that are based on one or more of the following four premises:

 

1.      The original language text underlying the King James Version of the Bible is flawed.

 

2.      The King James Version of the Bible is an incorrect translation in a number of places no matter what original language text it is translated from.

 

3.      No one has been able to refute “Swizlinski’s Tigers.”  (“Swizlinski’s Tigers” covers all major, uncommon objections.)

 

4.      Projected Premises (These are premises that we have developed on our own.  After all, if you want to defeat your opponent, you must be able to think like your opponent.)

 

Premise 1

 

We have disproven premise 1.  Therefore, any objection based, in whole or in part, on this premise is invalid.

 

Premise 2

 

Now we get to the tricky stuff.  For you see, the issue here is not one of “the text being translated” but of “the translators of the text.”  The question then is:

 

Were the King James Version Bible translators “correct translators”; that is, did they translate correctly?

 

Now, to answer this question we need a standard of what constitutes “translational correctness.”  The only standard is the “Consensus Standard.”  The Consensus Standard is:

 

That translation of a word, phrase, clause, or sentence is correct that agrees with the greatest number of other, past and present translations of that word, phrase, clause, or sentence, respectively, or, then, if no such translations exist, that agrees with the greatest number of past and present translational templates of that word, phrase, clause, or sentence, respectively.

 

A few technical notes:  if you are new to the concept of “translational template,” a translational template is a linguistic element – word, phrase, clause, or sentence – that approximates in form (substance) and/or meaning another linguistic element more than 75% on the FMA (Form-Meaning Approximation) Scale.  For example, the word “you” registers 75.7% on the FMA Scale relative to the word “your.”  Therefore, the word “you” is a translational template for the word “your.”  The phrase “in the beginning” registers 50% on the FMA Scale relative to the phrase “at the start.”  Therefore, the phrase “in the beginning” is NOT a translational template for the phrase “at the start.”  The value of 75% is not arbitrary (picked out of a hat).  Rather, it was determined by a statistical, computer analysis of over one billion citations in all fields of human study (we will address this a bit in our seminar.).  To get some concept of what we are talking about, on a technical level, see the University of Hawai`i’s (that’s not a typo) article titled “Making form-meaning connections while reading: A qualitative analysis of word processing” and, no, they are not talking about Microsoft Word when they say “word processing”; they are talking about the processing of words by the human mind.  Also, see their page Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension:  An exploratory study and, no, they are not talking about extrasensory perception; “ESP” stands for “English for Specific Purposes.”  For more information on ESP, see Aspects of Learning ESP at University.

 

Now, notice that translational correctness is not determined BY THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU ARE TRANSLATING FROM.  It is determined BY THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE TRANSLATING TO.  In other words, translational correctness is NOT translational correctness at all.  Rather, it is “paratranslational” correctness.  In plain English, it is bibliographic correctness.  In plainer English, it is library correctness.  A translation is correct solely on the basis that it “occurs in more books than any other translation.”  To put it another way, that translation is correct that has the greatest number of citations (quotations) in literary works and other documenting sources.  In the case of the Bible, the only documenting sources are literary works and…things, including people, that reference those literary works, as well as verbal tradition.

 

Therefore, the real question is:

 

Did the King James Bible translators “use those translations that occurred most frequently in literary works and other documenting sources”?

 

The answer to this question is YES.  Therefore:

 

The King James Version Bible translators were “correct translators”; that is, they translated correctly.

 

Therefore:

 

The King James Version of the Bible is a correct translation throughout no matter what original language text it is translated from.

 

THE HAGTEC LEXICON

 

In order to establish once and for all that the KJV translators used “those translations that occurred most frequently in literary works and other documenting sources,” we have compiled the HAGTEC Lexicon, aka the Hebrew Aramaic Greek To English Citation Lexicon.  The HAGTEC Lexicon contains every word, phrase, clause, and sentence used in the King James Version of the Bible AND IN ALL POPULAR, MODERN TRANSLATIONS, including the NIV and the NKJV, together with verifiably translator-utilized citations (quotations) from literary works, verbal tradition, and translator contemporaries and, where applicable, with FMA Scale entries.  A statistical, computer analysis of the HAGTEC Lexicon reveals that the King James Version of the Bible is more than 1000% more reliable than its closest “competitor,” which we shall not name…at this time.  Furthermore, all of the instances (verses/verse portions) of incorrect translation targeted by those who reject the KJV…all of those instances are easily disproven by the “citation index” for each of the instances in question.  The citation index tells you the “number of citations for all linguistic elements – words, phrases, and clauses – in a sentence, as well as for the sentence as a whole.”  The “replacement translations” proffered (presented for acceptance) by the anti KJV people do not have even 1% of 1% of the “citation index” that the KJV translations have, on an instance-by-instance basis.

 

Premise 3

 

This is my favorite objection.  It is promoted by an old nemesis of mine, Dr. William Swizlinski.  Dr. Swizlinski has spent the last ten years trying to disprove everything you have read on this page.  The result of his effort is what he calls “Swizlinski’s Tigers.”  These are twelve objections (or, as Dr. Swizlinski puts it, “…twelve ferocious tigers that will devour their logic and conclusions….”)…twelve objections to the data, information, conclusions, and positions presented on this page.  We are glad to report that we have refuted all of his objections…captured, killed, and stuffed all of his “tigers.”

 

With regard to reporting his objections on this page, our thought is that by doing so we would be strengthening those who attack the King James Version of the Bible.  At the same time, we know that others need to be informed of and instructed in how to refute these objections.  Therefore, we have decided that we will share his objections only with those that WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN ARE DEFENDERS OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE.  We have been seeking ten such defenders of the KJV for the past two years.  So far, we have found one.  We are looking for nine more.  Now, don’t come looking for us.  If you are a defender of the KJV that we need, we will find you.

 

Finally, we have affidavits on file with the appropriate parties that fully document our refutation of “Premise 3.”

 

Premise 4

 

We are treating these premises in the same way that we are treating “Swizlinski’s Tigers” (see “Premise 3”).  These have all been refuted and we have affidavits on file with the appropriate parties that fully document our refutation of “Premise 4.”