The Life Foundations
Nexus
IS THE KING JAMES
VERSION OF THE BIBLE PERFECT?
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.
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.”