THE KING JAMES VERSION - OUR VERSION AND GOD�S VERSION
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure... (Isaiah 46:10)
A little boy in a Sunday School class was asked, �What is a lie?� He thought for a while and then said, �A lie is an abomination before the Lord and a very pleasant help in a time of trouble.�
The Words, they are Important.
A certain T. V. Evangelist misquoted Paul by simply moving the period with his voice: �Let him that stole, steal. No more let him work with his hands.�
The Words, they are Instructive.
A preacher of long ago did not like the way that women were wearing their hair in his day. He did not like the �top knot,� or �bun�style. He thundered forth, alluding to Matthew 24:17, �Top Knot, come down!� He ignored the rest of the verse: �Let the man on the housetop not come down.�
The Words, they are Immutable.
Notice that each of these stories pervert the Scripture in a different way. In the first the words are misquoted because the child was unfamiliar with them but still wanted to sound �religious.� In the second the words are misquoted so as to teach something entirely foreign to what the original meaning would have been.. In the third the words are misused to rail against a temporal fashion rather than being allowed to speak of eternal values.
The Words of Scripture are important. The reason that God gave us a written Message was that we could understand what it was that He wanted to tell us.
By the way, you may note that the second story contains a misreading of Ephesians 4:28 on my own part! Sometimes the man trying to teach you will attempt to lead you astray from the Words of God. Beware! The real need today is for the Word which God has given us rather than the words that may fit our own preconceived need.
I heard a story about a preacher that announced, �There will be a meeting for all Board Members of the church immediately following the service.� As he was going into the meeting, the pastor noticed that there was a man in the room who was not a member of the Church Board. �I�m sorry,� the pastor told the man, �but this meeting is only for Board Members of the Church.� �Well,� the man replied, �I reckon that I�m about as bored as any member you got in this church.�
One final one: A candidate for the pastorate was asked by the pulpit committee why he had left his last church. �It was a combination of illness and fatigue that led to my leaving,� he said. What he did not say was that the �illness and fatigue� meant that his last church was �sick and tired� of him!
Sometimes words are twisted either intentionally or innocently, into a meaning which they were never intended to convey.
The best argument for the modern translations is that they make the Word of God more clearly understood by modern man. Why then, I would ask, when we might complain that vital doctrine is diluted in these versions, do their apologists say, �All the doctrines are in the new versions. You just have to search to find them.� If these new versions really do make the Word of God more clearly understood, why is it that we must �work harder� to find the doctrinal base which God has given?
I�d like to make three quick points about these �easier to understand� intentions.
First, we do not need to tone Scripture down. This is not simply another book. It is The Book - the Word of God! The Holy Spirit will go along with the one who reads the sacred page to help and to illumine.
It would be well for all who obey the Apostle Paul�s injunction to �study� the Word, from I Timothy 2:15, that we realize the fact that study requires effort. There is no reason that we should not improve our vocabulary as we improve our spiritual selves.
Besides being a means of expanding our knowledge of the English language, the language of the King James is an inspiring language. The �Thee�s and Thou�s� with which we are so familiar as to nearly ignore them in the reading are the brush with which the image of the Holy is painted on the canvas of the minds of men.
The Catholics well understand that preparing the heart for worship means preparing the outward senses of a person. Everything, from the architecture of the church building, to the robes of the priest, to the separated clergy, to the solemn and lonely confessional, and on and on and on, is designed to prepare her people to worship. And it works. Very few ever leave the Catholic Church even though she does not teach salvation through Christ, alone. How sad that we, in the name of making things easier, would give up that which so richly inspires.
Besides this, there is a real question as to whether or not the newer versions do make that word more clear. More clear would lead to better understood. Better understood would lead to a more complete knowledge of God. A more complete knowledge of God would lead to a closer walk with Him. A closer walk with Him would lead to a change in society to the better. Since the advent of, and the more general use of, the newer version began in the past thirty or so years, there have been great changes in society. Can any of us really argue that these changes have been for the better, or that society in general is more spiritual?
Can we even argue that the �church world� is better. Great denominations now argue whether or not to ignore the clear teaching of God about �lifestyles,� especially �gay� lifestyles, in matters even touching upon ordination of their leadership. Ministers, with small and great ministries - who do often preach the Gospel in its purity, are seen to have feet of clay in their own spiritual lives.
Seminaries which were once great bastions of the faith are now questioning the basic structure of the Scriptures and the Message which They contain - not in an attitude of study but in an attitude of disagreement with the very �stuff� of faith. �Did Adam and Eve really exist?� �Was the Flood real?� �Is this Bible a rule of faith and life or is it a series of �sacred stories� for us to peruse as we make up our own search for meaning in this life?� These questions do not come as a result of a better understanding of God�s Message. They come as a result of a rejection of that Message.
Other institutions which remain great bastions of the fundamental faith, just ask them and they will tell you they are so! (Even if you don�t ask them they will tell you that they are so!) They will argue that the Message of God has been compromised. It has been mislaid. It has been lost. �Oh,� they will tell you, �We�ve managed to figure out pretty well what that word probably was.� Their great spiritual pride has allowed them to become the arbitrators of just what God is allowed to have said, or not said. They allow no Scripture that we can trust without first trusting them!
The unmitigated gall!, and pride of such as these to continue to call themselves, �Fundamentalist.� What among our belief system is more �fundamental� than the Scripture of God?
Second, the argument is made that the newer versions make the Word easier to understand. That is the job of the Holy Spirit of God, not a commercial venture in printing. Also, gentlemen, that job is in part delegated to us in our God-ordained job as ministers of the Cross of Jesus Christ. We are to so saturate ourselves in the Word that the Message which we preach is the Message of God. We are to be like a sponge. Soak up the Word and wring it out to a thirsty world! The more that we are content to do this, the more our people will get into the Word for themselves.
A church tends to take on the personality of its pastor. If we lead the people into the Word, they will follow. If we lead the people into a serious effort at soul-winning, they will follow. To lead does not mean to do everything for the other; it means to give an example. A guide on a mountain climbing expedition does not carry the climbers up the mountain; he shows them where they need to place their feet and equipment while they do the climbing, themselves. Our preaching must reinforce this example.
Preach from this Book. Display a trust in this Book. This will lead your people to do, and to show, the same. Conversely, to cast doubt upon this Book will lead our people to doubt the God Who gave us this Message!
Third, if we do the above we will solve the problem of, �But the unsaved won�t read the King James.�
When did it become a surprise that the unsaved would not want to read the Word of God?
Of course the unsaved won�t read the King James. God�s Word is anathema to them. They are a fallen and degenerate people. They are a sinful people and God is a Holy God. Give the General population a Bible they will want to read? Absurd! The general population does not care about the things of God. See Romans, Chapter one, for God�s insight into the mind and soul of sinful, unconverted mankind.
We need to take the Bible out to these people. That is where all of the above was leading. We need to make disciples who will want to read the Word of God. Indeed, until they are disciples - followers of Jesus, they will not want to read this Spiritual Book. That means that we need to pray and to lead our people into prayer.
Prayer comes from a heart that is spiritual and attuned to the things of God. I believe that the majesty of the King James Bible can turn our hearts and minds - and spirits - toward God, if we allow Him to use us.
But style, in and of itself, is no reason to cling to a majestic version such as the King James. The argument is valid that Paul did not write in 400 year old Greek. He wrote in the language of the day. Thus, even with the fact that the Elizabethan language of the King James will tend to inspire our hearts to praise, there must be more rational than this to continue to use the King James Bible.
Conversely, the fact that Paul wrote in the current language may not be used as an argument for the modern versions. To follow the example of Paul is fine as far as he followed God. But, we should not throw out our Sunday School programs and tract distribution simply because Paul did not use these methods.
The method that Paul did use, that we should emulate, was to rely on the Words of God rather than on the words of another.
Yes, the Words are important. We should also know that the Words are Instructive. We need to know that we have the very Words of God.
The story is told about a young draftee. He didn�t like the Army life. After a few weeks of Basic Training, he began to walk about picking up things and looking under them. Each time he would say, �It�s not there.� This continued for several more weeks until he was taken in for psychiatric examination. While in the examination he ignored the psychiatrist as he looked under everything on the desk and in the office. �It�s not there,� he kept repeating. Finally, the Army doctors decided that he was unfit for military service. He was given a medical discharge. When the discharge was handed to him, he said, �There it is!.� and left the post.
What good is instruction if it is not proper instruction? Some time ago I worked in a factory. My habit was to do, well try!, at least one piece more than the person on the last shift had done. One night I did, on a metal punch press, over five thousand pieces. Only after I finished for the night did I realize that I had put the blue-print upside down. I had ruined over five thousand pieces because I did not have proper instruction. Proper instruction was available to me but I choose to ignore it and follow what I believed to be right. I was wrong!
We need to know that we have God�s Word and we have It right! Look how often the modern versions have footnotes, or even worse passages omitted because, �...the most ancient texts do not agree.�
By simple deduction this means that the text used by the Reformers was a flawed text. If these men had a flawed text, how do we know that we have the �correct� text today? According to the argument of most of the modern versions, we cannot know. Our �inspired� text is only as good as the next spade of the archaeologist. What a weak Word to trust with our eternal souls.
There is an argument that no two texts will agree in total. Not necessarily so. One of the stock arguments against the Traditional Text is that they are too closely alike. The argument is made that this gives evidence to a theory of collusion because they are too much alike.
The Alexandrian Text, from which most of the modern versions spring, disagrees strongly with the Traditional Text. It even disagrees within the few samples that make up its core. There are over three thousand differences in just the New Testament between the two most often quoted Alexandrian texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. These two are often called the �Oldest and best.� Why?
Still, they do, with a few others constitute a �family� of texts which disagree even more strongly with the Traditional Text. And, contrary to what many experts allege, many of these differences do touch upon doctrine. They touch often upon the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. But, they touch every single time upon the doctrine of Inspiration. The inspiration of God was given for the purpose of keeping a pure Message. If the message then be muddled it calls into question the very rational and existence of inspiration.
Most of the modern versions will say, as one of the rational for their existence, that the many discoveries of the past four centuries have made the text of the King James outdated. True, there have been many discoveries in the past few centuries. But, there have been no discoveries of new text �families.� Indeed, the Alexandrian family, which - again - is the basis for most of the newer translations, was represented in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Translation made several years before the King James.
The idea of these �families� of texts is not new.
Some may argue that Erasmus was an unGodly man and that this would make his Textus Receptus unreliable. This is also a �straw man.� First, his was only one of several editions of a �Textus Receptus.� The King James committee consulted all the copies of the texts which they could, not just a few, although their aim was to simply revise the Bishop�s Bible, and not to simply make an English Rendition of the Textus Receptus. If they did rely on any of these it was the work of Beza, not of Erasmus.
The King James Version was not a �new� translation from a �new� textual base. It was a revision of that which had gone on before back to the time of Tyndall in the English, and in the Greek to the time of the Apostles and the original autographs by means of the use of the Traditional Text.
The newer translation committees have thrown out the baby and the bath water, and the entire plumbing system! They seem to consider all tainted which has served God�s church in the past, and have dug new wells for the polluted water of their efforts.
There is also the argument made that, �This sort of thing happens every time there is a new translation. After all, the Pilgrims would not allow a copy of the King James Version on the Mayflower.� That, about the Pilgrims, is true as far as I know. However, the argument today is not over translation. The controversy of today is centered on the underlying text.
What is the Word of God? It is not the King James Version. I do believe that it is that from which the King James Version was translated into the English. To change this base, as have the newer versions, is to tamper with the Word of God.
I believe that this should not be done because the Words are Immutable. The Words are God�s Words. He would not have given a Word that was anything less than pure. He also would not have allowed His Message to man, since He felt it important enough to give in the first place, to be lost!
The Word of God resides in the Traditional Text, of which the various Received Texts are faithful copies. This has been available to His church down through the centuries as would be expected if His promise that �the gates of hell shall not prevail� against that church is true. The Word does not need to be corrected by new �discoveries� of texts which are polluted.
The ancient texts were a precious commodity. They cost much in time and money. They cost so much that they were used and reused until they, quite literally, fell apart. It was the polluted texts which the Christians of the day recognized as less than pure, which were laid aside. Many of the new discoveries owe their existence to the fact that they were polluted and not �used up.� The Word of God, once again, does not need to be corrected by new �discoveries� of texts which are polluted.
I do not mean to call them �polluted� in a mean sense. God�s Word is a pure Word. It has to be as it flows forth from Him. To add to, or to take away from, this purity is to pollute. This, in itself, is an argument for the continued use of the King James Bible.
God never lost control of His text. He allows us to hold this Bible aloft today and say, �Thus saith the Lord.� We can do this because He did say it, not because we believe He might have said something.
Praise God. We do have a true, and a pure, Word!