May 1, 2002, Vol.2, No.9.
Two new articles every two weeks.
Bible Question? E-mail
us.
THIS ISSUE: "The
'King James Only' Controversy" (see below)
and "A New Heavens and
a New Earth?"
The "King James
Only" Controversy
by Keith Sharp
Please consider reading these previous articles
(part 1, part
2)
in conjuction with this article.
There is a popular movement to reject all English translations
except the King James Version.
Actually, the King James Version of today is
the latest of several revisions, made in 1762. Very few people
could understand the antiquated English of the 1611 version.
Even since 1762 the English language has changed immensely. Therefore,
most people find the King James Version hard to read.
 Many
knowledgeable scholars defend the Textus Receptus
upon which the King James Version (and New King James
Version) is based. But it is unreasonable to claim special
providence or inspiration for the scholars of the Church of England
in 1611 that would not also be claimed for textual critics and
translators today. The men who gave the world the King James
Version of the Bible certainly didn't claim inspiration!
Some people contend the "Thees" and "Thous""
of the King James Version are reverential rather than
archaic. Webster's Third New International Dictionary
of the English Language (Unabridged) calls the word "thee"
"archaic." (p. 2369) When Jesus commanded, "Get
thee hence, Satan" (Matthew 4:10), was he using reverential
language? Was he showing reverence to Peter when He said, "Get
thee behind me, Satan ...."? (Matthew 16:23)
Some argue for the beautiful Shakespearean language of the
King James Version. If that is their personal preference,
fine. I don't try to steer anyone away from the KJV. But
it is sinful to bind our personal preferences on others (Romans
14:1-3). I grant that scholars tell us that the Hebrew of the
Old Testament is classical and that the Hebrew of Isaiah is some
of the most elevated of all Hebrew literature. But it is very
revealing that, when the New Testament was written, the inspired
writers could have used the beautiful, classical Greek that learned
authors used even in their day. Instead, with a few exceptions,
they used "koine," "common," Greek,
the language of the common people. If we follow the example of
the apostles and prophets of the Lord, we will use a translation
that is in the common language of ordinary people of our day.
Some lump all the modern translations together and charge
that they deny the deity of Christ. First, it is blatantly unfair
to lump the New American Standard Bible with Good News
for Modern Man. Second, it is simply a slander to charge
that all the modern translations undermine the deity of Jesus
Christ. There are nine New Testament passages that in some or
all Greek manuscripts expressly call Jesus "God." (John
1:1,18; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 1 Timothy
3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1) The King James
Version translates five of them (John 1:1; Acts 20:28; Romans
9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:8) so that Jesus is denoted as
God. Both the NASB and the NIV render seven of
the passages in such a way that they specifically indicate that
Jesus is a divine being.
Others, noting the liberalism of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A.
Hort and tying all modern versions to the Westcott and Hort
text, charge all newer translations with liberal bias. The only
American translation that closely follows the Westcott &
Hort text is the American Standard Version. The translators
of the New American Standard Bible, the New International
Version, and the New King James Version believe in
the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the virgin birth
of Christ (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:26-38).
The King James Version is by-and-large accurate. But
it does have notable weaknesses. Ecclesiastical (church) words
of the Church of England were sometimes used (e.g., "baptize"
rather than "immerse"; "bishop" rather than
"overseer" ). There are a few mistranslations (e.g.,
"Easter" in Acts 12:4). Some of these weaknesses have
been carried over into the standard modern English translations
(e.g., "baptize").
The chief weakness of the King James Version is its
age. Most people who did not grow up reading the Bible find the
King James Version hard if not virtually impossible to
read. The argument that, on average, the KJV uses shorter
words than modern translations completely misses the point. The
word "eschew" (1 Peter 3:11, KJV) is shorter
than the phrase "turn away from" (NKJV), but
how many modern readers know what "eschew" means? Should
we require those we are teaching to learn Elizabethan English
so they might know God's will?
Many Christians are having opportunities in our day to study
with people who grew up Catholic or nothing at all religiously.
They are not at all familiar with Elizabethan English. We encounter
more and more to whom English is a second language. To demand
that they study from the King James Version is like asking
a country boy to read and understand Shakespeare. The refusal
to consider updated English versions of the Bible cripples efforts
to reach the lost.
If you prefer to use the King James Version, I have
no quarrel with you. I preached from it for thirty years. But
I switched to the New King James Version to make it easier
to preach to and teach those who cannot understand old English.
I use and recommend the New American Standard Bible because
of its accuracy. All I ask is that you grant me the liberty of
using an accurate translation of the Bible in modern English.
Is that asking too much?
~ ~ ~
|
