By Christian McShaffrey

Introduction

Wes Huff was recently asked to rank his preferred Bible translations and the King James Version ended up in the last place, even below The Message (which is more of a paraphrase than actual translation).

His stated reason for assigning the KJV so low a ranking is that there is just enough “archaic language” in it that there are “certain verses that will not be understandable no matter what.”

This, Mr. Huff says, is not due to the KJV translators being wrong, but simply due to the fact that “we do not speak 17^th century Elizabethan English anymore.”

To prove his claim of the KJV’s unintelligibility, 1 Chronicles 26:18 is offered as an example: “At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.”

He quoted the verse at 2X speed, and everyone had a good laugh, but let us evaluate the substance of his argument.

The Word Itself

I readily admit that the word “Parbar” is unfamiliar to many, but that it is not because it is 17^th century Elizabethan English. The word is actually much older than that. It is a transliteration of a Hebrew word that was in common use in the 10^th century B.C.

For those who do not know, a “transliteration” is when the letters of a word are carried directly over into another language. It is not a translation, but an effort to convey the pronunciation of the original word. A well-known example would be the word, “Hallelujah.” It is a Hebrew word transliterated into English script, allowing the original pronunciation to be preserved.

The word “Parbar” is a proper noun that designates a precinct or suburb of Jerusalem. The Hebrew consonants are PRBR (cf., Strong’s: 6503) and the King James translators decided to let it stand as a proper noun by transliterating it rather than translating it.

The main point here is this: Mr. Huff’s illustration fails to prove his point. The word “Parbar” may be archaic, but not in the way he intimates. In fact, and even more calamitous to his claim, is the fact that several modern English translations retain the KJV’s rendering.

Modern Translations

The chief aim of modern translations is to replace “archaic” or “Elizabethan” words with modern equivalents for greater ease of intelligibility. True, some modern versions translate “Parbar” as “road” or “colonnade,” but just as many retain it. Here are some examples:

1901 – American Standard Version: For Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

1977 – New American Standard Version: At the Parbar on the west there were four at the highway and two at the Parbar.

1982 – New King James Version: As for the Parbar on the west, there were four on the highway and two at the Parbar.

1995 – New American Standard Version: At the Parbar on the west there were four at the highway and two at the Parbar.

2001 – English Revised Version: For Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

2021 – Legacy Standard Bible : At the Parbar on the west there were four at the highway and two at the Parbar.

This list proves that there are professional Bible translators who are alive today who do not regard the word “Parbar” as archaic, Elizabethan, or unintelligible.

Conclusion

Mr. Huff is, no doubt, a very intelligent man and I regard him a true brother in Christ, but he simply did not speak the truth in this instance.

Christian charity calls us to give him the benefit of the doubt, so I will not impugn any evil motives. At the same time, I will invite you, my readers, to exercise greater discernment as you consume digital media. Sometimes, and as was definitely the case here, compelling apologetic arguments are simply erroneous.