Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .4
My first few ‘blogs’ on the subject of ‘Why I use the AV have focused in on the questionable translation of the Hebrew & Greek texts. In this ‘blog’ I want to focus on some words that have not been translated at all. I want to look at a word that on nine occasions has been omitted from the modern translations even thought it is in the Greek text.
Do you have a Holy Bible?
Most Bibles carry the title ‘Holy Bible’ on the cover and the modern versions are no exception. However, it would appear that the translators of the modern versions have an aversion to the word ‘holy’.
The quotation below are the words of the Lord Jesus speaking of His second advent.
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Matt 25 v31
The word translated ‘holy’ in the passage is from the Greek: -
ἅγιος = hagios = holy
This word ‘hagios’ is in the Greek text and is correctly translated ‘holy’ in the AV. However, if we look at the same verse the New International Version (NIV) the word ‘holy’ has disappeared.
‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.’ Matt 25 v31 NIV
The angels are no longer ‘holy’ angels, just angels. The NCV, ESV, NLT & NASB all do this. Below is a list of 8 other verses in which this identical practice of dropping the word ‘holy’ occurs.
2 Pet 1v21 Holy Men
1 Thess 5 v27 Holy Brethren
Rev 22 v6 Holy prophets
Rev 18 v20 Holy Apostles & prophets
John 7 v39 Holy Ghost
1 Cor 2 v13 Holy Ghost
Acts 6 v3 Holy Ghost
Acts 8 v18 Holy Ghost
The New International Version (NIV), The New Living Translation (NLT), New American Standard Version (NASB), The English Standard Version (ESV) and the New Century Version (NCV) all drop the word ‘holy’ in these verses with the exception of the NCV, which includes the word in Revelation 18 v20 & John 7 v39.
So why does this really matter? It matters because God inspired the writers of the New Testament to use the word ‘holy’ when they were writing, who has given these people the right to ignore a word that He has seen fit to include? If the author sees fit to use a word the translator ought to respect that and include it in the translation. God puts a lot of emphasis on His very words, did Jesus not say, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.’ Mark 13 v31 The Bible also has grave warnings for those who would dare diminish from His revealed word.
‘Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.’ Deuteronomy 4 v 1-2
This is only one of many such warnings in scripture; we would do well to heed it. Perhaps we shall explore others as we develop this study further.
PS
No doubt some may point out that all of these things I have been blogging about depend on which Greek Text you are using. Can I assure those who say this that I intend to address that topic as part of this series of blogs.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Did God Have a Daddy?
Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .3
Who was Jesus’ Father?
This blogs title question is one that a child may ask and it may seem like a very stupid question on the surface, all Christians worth their salt affirm the truth of the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus did not have a physical earthly father like you and I He was born by the miraculous intervention of God’s Holy Spirit. Joseph may have been one of His earthly parents but he was by no means His father. So why ask the question?
Well, the truth that I have just outlined becomes somewhat blurred by the modern translations of the Bible. A quick study of two incidents as recorded in Luke chapter 2 will illustrate what I mean.
In Luke Gospel chapter 2 verses 22-40 we read of how Mary and Joseph took the infant Lord Jesus to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord as commanded by Moses. In verse 27 of this passage in the King James Version Mary and Joseph are described as the Parents and this is correct, the Greek word correctly translated parents is the word ‘goneus’, the modern versions also translate this as parents. However, in verse 33 the Holy Spirit makes a distinction. The AV describes Mary and Joseph in the following terms ‘Joseph and his mother’. This is the correct rendering of four Greek words that mean exactly what the AV says. But this is not how the modern versions translate this phrase. The NIV, ESV, NCV and NASB all render the word Joseph as ‘father’ and the NLT continues to refer to them simply as the ‘parents’.
Now it must be said most clearly that Joseph was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he may have been His parent, he may have performed the role of an earthly father but he was not the actual father and when the Holy Spirit makes that distinction clear in the Greek text then the translators should reflect it as such. This is a clear attack on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. If Christ is not Virgin born then He was born in sin like the rest of us and how then could He have been a spotless sacrifice. The notion is blasphemous and these translation errors need to be exposed.
Just to prove that this was not a one-time mistake by the translators of the ‘New Bibles’ I want to show you how they did it again later on in the passage. You could maybe see past one mistake but to do it again tells me there is an agenda.
From verses 41-51 of Luke we find the record of how Mary and Joseph took the then 12 year-old Lord Jesus up to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. As in the previous story the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use the word ‘goneus’ which is rightly translated by all versions as ‘parents’ in verse 41. However, once again we see a divergence from the Greek text. In verse 43 the same four Greek words are used as were in verse 33 and are rightly translated as ‘Joseph and his mother’ in the AV but the NIV translates the phrase as ‘his parents’ as does the ESV, NCV, NLT & NASB.
For my part I would rather have a Bible that is faithful to the original text. If the Holy Spirit puts a phrase a certain way there is clearly an important reason for it. I hope the modern translators are not trying to undermine belief in the virgin birth, for me that is how it appears and for that reason I’m sticking with the AV!
Who was Jesus’ Father?
This blogs title question is one that a child may ask and it may seem like a very stupid question on the surface, all Christians worth their salt affirm the truth of the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus did not have a physical earthly father like you and I He was born by the miraculous intervention of God’s Holy Spirit. Joseph may have been one of His earthly parents but he was by no means His father. So why ask the question?
Well, the truth that I have just outlined becomes somewhat blurred by the modern translations of the Bible. A quick study of two incidents as recorded in Luke chapter 2 will illustrate what I mean.
In Luke Gospel chapter 2 verses 22-40 we read of how Mary and Joseph took the infant Lord Jesus to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord as commanded by Moses. In verse 27 of this passage in the King James Version Mary and Joseph are described as the Parents and this is correct, the Greek word correctly translated parents is the word ‘goneus’, the modern versions also translate this as parents. However, in verse 33 the Holy Spirit makes a distinction. The AV describes Mary and Joseph in the following terms ‘Joseph and his mother’. This is the correct rendering of four Greek words that mean exactly what the AV says. But this is not how the modern versions translate this phrase. The NIV, ESV, NCV and NASB all render the word Joseph as ‘father’ and the NLT continues to refer to them simply as the ‘parents’.
Now it must be said most clearly that Joseph was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he may have been His parent, he may have performed the role of an earthly father but he was not the actual father and when the Holy Spirit makes that distinction clear in the Greek text then the translators should reflect it as such. This is a clear attack on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. If Christ is not Virgin born then He was born in sin like the rest of us and how then could He have been a spotless sacrifice. The notion is blasphemous and these translation errors need to be exposed.
Just to prove that this was not a one-time mistake by the translators of the ‘New Bibles’ I want to show you how they did it again later on in the passage. You could maybe see past one mistake but to do it again tells me there is an agenda.
From verses 41-51 of Luke we find the record of how Mary and Joseph took the then 12 year-old Lord Jesus up to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. As in the previous story the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use the word ‘goneus’ which is rightly translated by all versions as ‘parents’ in verse 41. However, once again we see a divergence from the Greek text. In verse 43 the same four Greek words are used as were in verse 33 and are rightly translated as ‘Joseph and his mother’ in the AV but the NIV translates the phrase as ‘his parents’ as does the ESV, NCV, NLT & NASB.
For my part I would rather have a Bible that is faithful to the original text. If the Holy Spirit puts a phrase a certain way there is clearly an important reason for it. I hope the modern translators are not trying to undermine belief in the virgin birth, for me that is how it appears and for that reason I’m sticking with the AV!
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Worshipping Jesus
Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .2
In Matthew chapter 15 we find the record of the Lord Jesus Christ’s journey into the region of Tyre and Sidon. This was a mainly gentile area and while there a local gentile woman approached the Saviour seeking help for her daughter who was vexed by a demon. Verses 22 – 25 record:-
22 ’And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.’
It is clear that although a pagan woman, she understood that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah for she refers to Him as Lord and as Son of David. In verse 25 we see that she in fact ‘worshipped’ the Lord Jesus as she besought His help for her daughter. The Greek word translated worship in this passage is:-
προσκυνέω = proskyneō = worship
This particular Greek word is consistently translated as ‘Worship’ in the text of the Authorised Version of the Bible, however, the same cannot be said for the modern versions of the Bible. The very same word is translated as ‘bowed before Him’ in the New Century Version (NCV) and as ‘knelt before Him’ in both the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV).
The question we need to ask ourselves is this, do these renderings convey the idea of worship as strongly as using the word worship? Personally I feel that they do not. In the unlikely event that I am ever invited to Buckingham Palace to be Knighted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, I would have to knell before my earthly monarch. Would that mean I am worshipping her? Certainly not! Part of the act of worship may be to knell, but knelling may not always reflect worship. The AV uses the correct word in this case and I fear the modern versions undermine the Deity of Christ by robbing Him of worship.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. In the story of the Demoniac of Gadara in Mark Chapter 5 v 6, the AV renders the Greek as worshipped. The NCV & ESV both render it as ‘fell down before’, the NIV says ‘fell on his knees’ and the New Living Translation (NLT) uses the phrase ‘bowed low before him’. All of these are doubtless descriptions of what was physically happening, but let us not forget that the Bible is a spiritual book and this man was worshipping before God the Son.
So have the translators of the New Bibles misunderstood the Greek word? Apparently not, for when they translate Revelation 7 v11 they render the very same word worshipped as does the AV.
‘And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,’ AV
Even more worrying is their combined willingness to translate the word correctly in Acts 10. In this portion of Scripture the Apostle Peter is meet by a man called Cornelius, on meeting Peter Cornelius begins to worship him. Peter quickly puts Cornelius right explaining that he is a man just like him.
’And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.’ V 25-26 When it comes to this portion the ESV, NCV and NLT all use the word worship and the NIV uses the phrase ‘fell at his feet in reverence’. It is strange to me how these New Translations are not prepared to render the Greek as worship when Jesus is being worshipped but they are prepared to do it when Peter is being worshipped.
There seems to be a pattern of undermining the Deity of Christ in the New Bibles, perhaps there are Unitarians involved in the process. This trend worries me greatly, that is why I’m sticking with the AV.
In Matthew chapter 15 we find the record of the Lord Jesus Christ’s journey into the region of Tyre and Sidon. This was a mainly gentile area and while there a local gentile woman approached the Saviour seeking help for her daughter who was vexed by a demon. Verses 22 – 25 record:-
22 ’And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.’
It is clear that although a pagan woman, she understood that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah for she refers to Him as Lord and as Son of David. In verse 25 we see that she in fact ‘worshipped’ the Lord Jesus as she besought His help for her daughter. The Greek word translated worship in this passage is:-
προσκυνέω = proskyneō = worship
This particular Greek word is consistently translated as ‘Worship’ in the text of the Authorised Version of the Bible, however, the same cannot be said for the modern versions of the Bible. The very same word is translated as ‘bowed before Him’ in the New Century Version (NCV) and as ‘knelt before Him’ in both the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV).
The question we need to ask ourselves is this, do these renderings convey the idea of worship as strongly as using the word worship? Personally I feel that they do not. In the unlikely event that I am ever invited to Buckingham Palace to be Knighted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, I would have to knell before my earthly monarch. Would that mean I am worshipping her? Certainly not! Part of the act of worship may be to knell, but knelling may not always reflect worship. The AV uses the correct word in this case and I fear the modern versions undermine the Deity of Christ by robbing Him of worship.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. In the story of the Demoniac of Gadara in Mark Chapter 5 v 6, the AV renders the Greek as worshipped. The NCV & ESV both render it as ‘fell down before’, the NIV says ‘fell on his knees’ and the New Living Translation (NLT) uses the phrase ‘bowed low before him’. All of these are doubtless descriptions of what was physically happening, but let us not forget that the Bible is a spiritual book and this man was worshipping before God the Son.
So have the translators of the New Bibles misunderstood the Greek word? Apparently not, for when they translate Revelation 7 v11 they render the very same word worshipped as does the AV.
‘And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,’ AV
Even more worrying is their combined willingness to translate the word correctly in Acts 10. In this portion of Scripture the Apostle Peter is meet by a man called Cornelius, on meeting Peter Cornelius begins to worship him. Peter quickly puts Cornelius right explaining that he is a man just like him.
’And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.’ V 25-26 When it comes to this portion the ESV, NCV and NLT all use the word worship and the NIV uses the phrase ‘fell at his feet in reverence’. It is strange to me how these New Translations are not prepared to render the Greek as worship when Jesus is being worshipped but they are prepared to do it when Peter is being worshipped.
There seems to be a pattern of undermining the Deity of Christ in the New Bibles, perhaps there are Unitarians involved in the process. This trend worries me greatly, that is why I’m sticking with the AV.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
How Old is God?
Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .1
As I mentioned in my introductory ‘blog’ this year 2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James (Authorised) Version of the Scriptures of 1611. Up until the late 19th Century the KJV was the common and standard version for the English-speaking world until it came under attack from Textual Criticism and the explosion of modern version.
For me this has been a sad development. As I look at the modern versions I can see the fingerprints of Satan all over them. There seems to be a trend within the modern versions to render the original in such a way that weakens the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. The first example that I wish to discuss relates to a verse where we find evidence of the Eternal existence of Christ.
We have just come through the Christmas season and I am sure you have heard the following verse quoted at a Carole service or printed on a Christmas card.
‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.’ Micah 5 v2
This verse of Scripture was penned by the Prophet Micah some 700 years before the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and foretold the very place that He would be born. You will remember that when the ‘Wise men’ came seeking Him that should be born King of the Jews’ it was to Bethlehem that they were sent. The Jewish Scribes confidently sent them that way knowing what the Prophet Micah had written.
It is to the closing phrase of the verse that I want to turn our thoughts. The verse closes saying that this promised one, who we know to be Jesus Christ, was to be from old, from everlasting. This is a clear reference to the fact that the promised Messiah, spoken of in this verse had eternal origins, he was very God indeed. The word everlasting in the verse is the translation of the following two Hebrew words.
יוֹם = yowm = Day
עוֹלָם = `owlam = Perpetual
To render the passage literally we could say that His origins were from a perpetual day. When we use the word perpetual we normally think in terms of the future. A perpetual trophy is a trophy that is award ever year, year after year. However, the perpetuity talked about here is not so much future focused, although the prophecy is of a future event, but rather He is from Perpetuity, in other words He has always existed. No doubt that is why the KJV translators rendered the word ‘everlasting’ and they were right to do so.
The same cannot be said for the modern translations of the Bible. The New International Version (NIV) renders the words ‘ancient times’, the English Standard Version (ESV) says ‘ancient days’ and the New Century Version (NCV) reads ‘days long ago’. Each of these translations although slightly different have one thing in common, they remove the theme of ‘Eternality’. When I was a kid I thought my great aunt was ancient but I knew she was not eternal, I knew she had a birthday just like me. Old does not equal eternal. As far as I am concerned this is an attack on the eternality of Christ and I don’t want a Bible that does that.
It’s not as if the translators of these modern versions do not understand the correct rendering of the Hebrew word עוֹלָם = `owlam. When they translate the very same word in Psalm 93 they get it right.
‘Thy throne is established of old, thou art from everlasting.’ Pslm 93 v2 KJV
Both the ESV and NCV render the above as everlasting and the NIV says Eternity. Another example where the modern versions get the translation right for this word is in Genesis 9 where God makes a promise to Noah.
‘And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.’
On this occasion both the NIV and ESV have the same rendering as the KJV while the NCV translates it as forever. So it is not as if these people are stupid and don’t know their Hebrew, doubtless they know it a lot better than this poor blogger. There are the above and many more examples of where they get it right. The question has to be why did they get it wrong in Micah 5 v2 and Is there something sinister going on here?
Now it must be said that the word in question can be translated, old or ancient and there are examples of this is scripture, however, when choosing a suitable word for translation the translator must take into account the context of what is being described. In the case of Micah 5 v2 God’s Messiah is being described, if the passage had been about a mere man then clearly to bring an eternal dimension into the translation would be wrong. But it must be stated that this verse is talking about God’s Messiah, about Jesus Christ the Eternal Son, how dare these people bring him down to the level of the finite by removing the eternal dimension from the phrase.
That is my first reason for rejecting the modern versions. I look forward to sharing another one with you soon.
As I mentioned in my introductory ‘blog’ this year 2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James (Authorised) Version of the Scriptures of 1611. Up until the late 19th Century the KJV was the common and standard version for the English-speaking world until it came under attack from Textual Criticism and the explosion of modern version.
For me this has been a sad development. As I look at the modern versions I can see the fingerprints of Satan all over them. There seems to be a trend within the modern versions to render the original in such a way that weakens the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. The first example that I wish to discuss relates to a verse where we find evidence of the Eternal existence of Christ.
We have just come through the Christmas season and I am sure you have heard the following verse quoted at a Carole service or printed on a Christmas card.
‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.’ Micah 5 v2
This verse of Scripture was penned by the Prophet Micah some 700 years before the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and foretold the very place that He would be born. You will remember that when the ‘Wise men’ came seeking Him that should be born King of the Jews’ it was to Bethlehem that they were sent. The Jewish Scribes confidently sent them that way knowing what the Prophet Micah had written.
It is to the closing phrase of the verse that I want to turn our thoughts. The verse closes saying that this promised one, who we know to be Jesus Christ, was to be from old, from everlasting. This is a clear reference to the fact that the promised Messiah, spoken of in this verse had eternal origins, he was very God indeed. The word everlasting in the verse is the translation of the following two Hebrew words.
יוֹם = yowm = Day
עוֹלָם = `owlam = Perpetual
To render the passage literally we could say that His origins were from a perpetual day. When we use the word perpetual we normally think in terms of the future. A perpetual trophy is a trophy that is award ever year, year after year. However, the perpetuity talked about here is not so much future focused, although the prophecy is of a future event, but rather He is from Perpetuity, in other words He has always existed. No doubt that is why the KJV translators rendered the word ‘everlasting’ and they were right to do so.
The same cannot be said for the modern translations of the Bible. The New International Version (NIV) renders the words ‘ancient times’, the English Standard Version (ESV) says ‘ancient days’ and the New Century Version (NCV) reads ‘days long ago’. Each of these translations although slightly different have one thing in common, they remove the theme of ‘Eternality’. When I was a kid I thought my great aunt was ancient but I knew she was not eternal, I knew she had a birthday just like me. Old does not equal eternal. As far as I am concerned this is an attack on the eternality of Christ and I don’t want a Bible that does that.
It’s not as if the translators of these modern versions do not understand the correct rendering of the Hebrew word עוֹלָם = `owlam. When they translate the very same word in Psalm 93 they get it right.
‘Thy throne is established of old, thou art from everlasting.’ Pslm 93 v2 KJV
Both the ESV and NCV render the above as everlasting and the NIV says Eternity. Another example where the modern versions get the translation right for this word is in Genesis 9 where God makes a promise to Noah.
‘And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.’
On this occasion both the NIV and ESV have the same rendering as the KJV while the NCV translates it as forever. So it is not as if these people are stupid and don’t know their Hebrew, doubtless they know it a lot better than this poor blogger. There are the above and many more examples of where they get it right. The question has to be why did they get it wrong in Micah 5 v2 and Is there something sinister going on here?
Now it must be said that the word in question can be translated, old or ancient and there are examples of this is scripture, however, when choosing a suitable word for translation the translator must take into account the context of what is being described. In the case of Micah 5 v2 God’s Messiah is being described, if the passage had been about a mere man then clearly to bring an eternal dimension into the translation would be wrong. But it must be stated that this verse is talking about God’s Messiah, about Jesus Christ the Eternal Son, how dare these people bring him down to the level of the finite by removing the eternal dimension from the phrase.
That is my first reason for rejecting the modern versions. I look forward to sharing another one with you soon.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
An Anniversary Worth Marking
Why I use the Authorised Version, Introduction
I wonder have you ever stood at the Bible section in the Christian bookshop and wondered which Bible to purchase? Should I get a New International Version, or an English Standard Version, or a Revised Version, or a Revised Standard Version, or and American Standard Version, or a New American Standard Version, or a New Century Version, or the New Living Translation, or The Message, or The Good News Bible, the New King James Version or will I be old fashioned and get the Authorised (King James) Version? Confusing isn’t it!
Then what about this scenario, you are sitting in a meeting, the speaker calls his text and you find the place. All is good so far but then he starts to read, you wonder have you turned up the wrong passage, perhaps it was 2nd Corinthians not 1st Corinthians, you have a frantic flick and browse up and down the page until you realise, he is using a different version. Confusing isn’t it!
‘God is not the author of confusion’ 1 Corinthians 14 v33
Bearing in mind that God is not the author of confusion I have come to the conclusion that Satan has got his fingers into the pie of Bible translation.
It is sad to think that there are many language groups around the world who are yet to see the scriptures in their own mother tongue whereas the English-speaking world has scores of translations to choose from. It looks like those with enough brains to do the job have no vision for those without the scriptures but have plenty of energy to work on more English translations.
Maybe it’s all about money, perhaps those poor tribes men up the Amazon don’t have enough buying power compared to the UK & USA. It is interesting to note that all of the New Bibles are copyrighted. If a Christian author wants to quote a significant number of words from a New Bible he must seek the publishers permission. Who do these people think they are? This is God’s book, He inspired every word in it and it should be made available to all without restriction.
If you have not already guessed I am not a fan of the new translations.
This year 2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James (Authorised) Version of the Scriptures of 1611. Up until the late 19th Century the KJV was the common and standard version for the English-speaking world until it came under attack from Textual Criticism and the explosion of modern version. It is my intention over the next few weeks and maybe even months to use this ‘blogspot’ to communicate why I believe that we should stick with this old faithful translation and reject the modern alternatives. No doubt I will be accused of being a ‘fuddy duddy’. However, my opposition to the new translations is not because they are ‘new’, but because they are not as faithful to the original.
Above I have questioned the emphasis and the motives of the modern ‘bible industry’. As these ‘blogs’ develop I shall look at an even more serious issue, the issue of important Christian doctrine being undermined by the new translations.
I wonder have you ever stood at the Bible section in the Christian bookshop and wondered which Bible to purchase? Should I get a New International Version, or an English Standard Version, or a Revised Version, or a Revised Standard Version, or and American Standard Version, or a New American Standard Version, or a New Century Version, or the New Living Translation, or The Message, or The Good News Bible, the New King James Version or will I be old fashioned and get the Authorised (King James) Version? Confusing isn’t it!
Then what about this scenario, you are sitting in a meeting, the speaker calls his text and you find the place. All is good so far but then he starts to read, you wonder have you turned up the wrong passage, perhaps it was 2nd Corinthians not 1st Corinthians, you have a frantic flick and browse up and down the page until you realise, he is using a different version. Confusing isn’t it!
‘God is not the author of confusion’ 1 Corinthians 14 v33
Bearing in mind that God is not the author of confusion I have come to the conclusion that Satan has got his fingers into the pie of Bible translation.
It is sad to think that there are many language groups around the world who are yet to see the scriptures in their own mother tongue whereas the English-speaking world has scores of translations to choose from. It looks like those with enough brains to do the job have no vision for those without the scriptures but have plenty of energy to work on more English translations.
Maybe it’s all about money, perhaps those poor tribes men up the Amazon don’t have enough buying power compared to the UK & USA. It is interesting to note that all of the New Bibles are copyrighted. If a Christian author wants to quote a significant number of words from a New Bible he must seek the publishers permission. Who do these people think they are? This is God’s book, He inspired every word in it and it should be made available to all without restriction.
If you have not already guessed I am not a fan of the new translations.
This year 2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James (Authorised) Version of the Scriptures of 1611. Up until the late 19th Century the KJV was the common and standard version for the English-speaking world until it came under attack from Textual Criticism and the explosion of modern version. It is my intention over the next few weeks and maybe even months to use this ‘blogspot’ to communicate why I believe that we should stick with this old faithful translation and reject the modern alternatives. No doubt I will be accused of being a ‘fuddy duddy’. However, my opposition to the new translations is not because they are ‘new’, but because they are not as faithful to the original.
Above I have questioned the emphasis and the motives of the modern ‘bible industry’. As these ‘blogs’ develop I shall look at an even more serious issue, the issue of important Christian doctrine being undermined by the new translations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
