# The KJV and Romans 5:18



## MichaelNZ (Sep 29, 2013)

I listen to Matt Slick's radio show (carm.org/radio). He uses the NASB and I remember him mentioning that the KJV wrongly translates Romans 5:18. 

The NASB reads "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

The KJV, however is as follows: "Therefore as by the offence of one _judgment came_ upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one _the free gift_ cameupon all men unto justification of life."

The words 'the free gift' are in italics because they are not found in the original text. I looked up the Greek and the phrase is δικαίωσιν ζωῆς (dikaiōsin zōēs) meaning 'justification of life'. 

I'm curious as to how those who use and prefer the KJV answer this supposed mistranslation.


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 29, 2013)

Does this answer help
i) they would have believed the passage implied it.
ii) that the analogy of faith taught it.
iii) that it didn't change the sense of the passage but amplified it.
iv) that the reading didn't introduce anything that was Heretical or contrary to the Faith.
v) that without it the passage makes no sense & sounds absurd - "even so by the righteousness of one upon all men unto justification of life". ?
vi) that they were writing a translation & not writing under Inspiration.
vii) that the Translators were competent Scholars & Godly Men for the most part who cherished The Scriptures.
viii) that the said Translation was Blessed in its Ministry as The Word of God to the English speaking world, to the private Christian as well as the pulpit.
ix) that the said Translation had the Seal of The Holy Spirit on it.
X) that you yourself have termed it a "supposed mistranslation".

Hope this answer helps you in keeping Faith in the competency of those who who use and prefer the KJB.

P.S. it's King James Bible not King James Version & definitely not a Per-Version.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2013)

MichaelNZ said:


> I'm curious as to how those who use and prefer the KJV answer this supposed mistranslation.



That it is not a mistranslation is evident from the fact that good orthodox commentators give good orthodox reasons for the translation. E.g., Charles Hodge in loc.: "It will be remarked, from the manner in which they are printed, that the words judgment came, in the first clause of this verse, and the free gift came, in the second, have nothing to answer to them in the original. That they are correctly and necessarily supplied, is obvious from a reference to ver. 16, where these elliptical phrases occur in full."

Hodge also explains why "our English translation" is also to be preferred in the interpretation of "one."


----------



## KMK (Sep 29, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> That they are correctly and necessarily supplied, is obvious from a reference to ver. 16, where these elliptical phrases occur in full.



Does the NASB supply ellipses in other places? Or does it avoid them universally?


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2013)

KMK said:


> Does the NASB supply ellipses in other places? Or does it avoid them universally?



It supplies them in this very place, does it regularly throughout the NT, and does it without italics in the two editions I own. Furthermore, "resulted" in this text is an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the preposition.


----------

