02A.06. Criticism of the KJV
VI. Criticism of the KJV
Foy E. Wallace says that "the objections and criticism flung at the old version center on (1) archaisms, obsolete words and archaic phrases; (2) the word Easter in Acts 12:4; (3) on Matthew 28:19, the translation of the Greek preposition eis by the English preposition "in" (Wallace p. xxiii). When critics claim there are "hundreds of errors in the King James Bible" it impresses a class room of students but honest scholars agree that these alleged errors relate only to syntax, consisting of variations in grammar, sentence structure, punctuation and ancient spellings, all of which means "there are no errors in teaching and doctrine" (Wallace, p. xxiv).
Some have criticized the KJV for being biased toward Calvinism. But as Wallace points out "...it is the Authorized King James Version with which we have refuted Calvinism at every point and turn in the polemics of oral debate and written discussion. That charge is another senseless assertion. These assaults on the Authorized Version are actually attacks on the Bible itself under the pretense and disguise of rejecting ’that old version’--" (Wallace, p. xxvi).
Some of the scholars working on new, modern versions complain that the KJV is too difficult for people to understand. But as one preacher pointed out in a class room, his grandfather, and many other great preachers with him, never completed a formal education and they had no difficulty understanding the KJV. Strange that modern educated scholars can’t understand it! Of course, the reason they can’t understand it is that it doesn’t read the way they want it to read. And the modern way to do things is to publish a new, sectarian Bible that has your creed in it. (Note the tract Putting the Creed in the Bible.)
Some preachers, giving ear to the ASV and RSV and other modern versions, assert that the term church (te ekklesia) is not in the Greek New Testament in Acts 2:47 and that the KJV is incorrect in placing it there. This is a misleading statement. The term te ekklesia is in the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated; it is in the Greek New Testament of the Expositor’s Greek New Testament by W. Nicoll Robertson; in the Greek New Testament of Berry’s Interlinear, and in the Reviser’s Greek Text, by Whitney - - all this before the American Standard Version existed. Wallace says "The assertion that te ekklesia is not in the Greek New Testament has become entirely too prevalent among our own preachers-- it is an uninformed and incorrect statement..." (Wallace, p. xxii).
Some among us are now low-rating the KJV saying it was not the Bible of the Restoration movement. But Wallace challenges such to look at the quotes in Campbell’s book Christian Baptism and his defense of the Restoration principles in the Campbell-Rice Debate. The citations were from the KJV. Furthermore, the works of Campbell’s contemporaries show that the KJV was their Bible also. Finally, Wallace vigorously says "The statement that the King James Version was not the Bible of the Restoration is a stupid statement. It reveals a spirit of animosity toward the Bible as we have had it and known it that is inexplicable." (Wallace, p. xxv).