King James Only?

Last Sunday during church many of our people at Redeemer received literature (from some people not associated with Redeemer) on their windshields comparing other versions of the bible to the King James Version (KJV). As well intentioned as the authors and distributors of that literature may have been, it was full of misinformation. All of the literature is written from the perspective of King James Onlyism, a belief that the KJV is the only true Bible with God's endorsement and all other translations are heretical.

Most of the literature criticized other translations of the bible for their inaccuracies by comparing them to the KJV. Seemingly anywhere a version differs from the KJV that proves it is flawed. Unfortunately, many of the claims made about the KJV were exaggerated or simply incorrect. I hope to briefly shed some light on the intent of the KJV translators and illuminate the history of the translation process.

The KJV was the eighth English Bible to be published. Here is the timeline of English Bibles published from 1525 - 1769.

1525 - Tyndale Bible (Tyndale was martyred in 1536 for this translation)
1535 - Coverdale Bible (first complete English Bible)
1537 - Matthews Bible
1539 - Great Bible (the first Authorized version)
1560 - Geneva Bible
1568 -Bishop's Bible
1582 -Douay-Rheims (1st Catholic version of the New Testament)
1611 - King James Version with apocrypha #1
1611 - King James Version with apocrypha revision
1611-1769 Many revisions and new publishings of The King JamesVersion
1769 - The Oxford Standard Edition King James Version (one still used today)

The KJV was a good version of the Bible for the time it was written. It was necessary for the bible to be put into language that could be read by the masses. The same need exists today. In the original preface of the 1611 version of the KJV the authors wrote, "So the church should always be ready with translations in order to avoid the same kind of emergencies [i.e., the inability to understand because of a language barrier.] Translation is what opens the window, to let the light in. It breaks the shell so we may eat the kernel." I wholeheartedly agree. It seems the authors of the 1611 preface would have been open to updating translations as language and culture changes.






Here are some historical facts about The Kings James Version:

As shown above there were seven English translations of the Bible prior to the KJV being printed.

In 1604 King James I commissioned English university scholars to create a new "authorized" translation of the Bible.

The KJV was finished and first published in 1611.

In order to create the thousands of copies desired, two different printers were used. This resulted in the creation of two separate editions with over 200 differences.

The 1611 KJV had 80 books as it included the Apocrypha, a group of Jewish books accepted by Catholics but not Protestants.

The KJV had many major revisions between 1611 and 1769.

The 1769 version revised by Benjamin Blayney is the one currently in publication.

There are thousands of differences between the 1611 and 1769 KJV editions.

The KJV used the Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text"), a Greek text published in the mid 1500's.

The KJV used some of the best resources available at the time of publication, however, thousands of older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts dating as far back as the second century are now available to modern Bible translators.

I think the KJV is a fine translation for people comfortable with the archaic english of the 17th century. I do not feel it is the best translation since it lacked the thousands of manuscripts and fragments that have been unearthed in the past four centuries.

I am thankful that we live in a time where it is possible to have many translations of the bible in our language. No matter which translation is read, a relationship to the Author is what is essential. May we abide in Him regardless of which acronym is on the binding.



Recommended for further study:
Grasping God's Word by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by W.W. Klein, C.L. Blomberg, and R.L. Hubbard
The King James Version Debate by D.A. Carson






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Thou Can't Be Serious

The following is one of the worst defenses I have ever heard for the superiority of The King James Version (I think the KJV is a fine translation by the way). Read on if you enjoy the inane. This is from av1611.com:


If we have a perfect Bible in English, don't we need one in every other language?






No. And I find it interesting that the same people who accuse me of putting God's word under a "linguistic padlock" are the same people who believe that God's inspired word only exists in "original autographs" that decayed into dust centuries ago. The same people who accuse me of being ethnocentric believe that only people who study Greek and Hebrew can possibly know what God "really said."

The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc.?

ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job--convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice.

EXPLANATION: This explanation comes in three parts: the Old Testament, the New Testament, the entire Bible.

(1) The Old Testament:

It is an accepted fact that, with the exception of some portions of Ezra and Daniel, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It is also accepted that it was divinely given to the Jews.

Thus God initiates His pattern of operation. He gave His words to one people in only one language.

God, apparently unintimidated by modern scholarship, did not feel obligated to supply His words in Egyptian, Chaldean, Syrian, Ethiopian, or any other of the languages in use on the earth at the time the Old Testament was written.

(2) New Testament:

It is also an accepted fact that the New Testament was written in Greek, Koine Greek to be exact. Again, the Lord apparently saw no reason to inspire a perfect original in all of the languages of the world extant at that time.

Only this time, instead of giving His Book to a nation, such as Israel, He simply gave it to the Christians who were told to go out and convert the world (Matthew 28:19). His choice of Greek as the language of the New Testament was obvious in that it was the predominant language of the world at the time.

(3) The Entire Bible:

It is obvious that God now needed to get both His Old Testament and His New Testament welded together in a language that was common to the world. Only English can be considered such a language.

The English language had been developing for many centuries until the late sixteenth century. About that time it finally reached a state of excellence that no language on earth has ever attained. It would seem that God did the rest. He chose this perfect language for the consummation of His perfect Book.

First England and later the United States swept the globe as the most powerful nations on earth, establishing English in all corners of the globe as either a primary or secondary language.

Today nations who do not speak English must still teach English to many of their citizens. Even nations antagonistic to the West such as Russia and Red China must teach English to their business and military personnel.

Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, God chose the only language which the world would know. Just as He has shown in His choosing only one language for the Old Testament and only one language for the New Testament, He continued that practice by combining those two testaments in only one language.

But let us not forget the fact that, by choosing the English language, God has given us a mandate to carry out the great commission. He did not give us a perfect Bible to set placidly on the coffee table in our living room to let our guests know that we are "religious." He did not give it to us to press a flower from our first date, or to have a record of our family tree. He gave it to us to read! And to tuck under our arm and share with the lost world the good news of Jesus' payment for sin that is found inside.

Let's get busy!

Really? This mentality encourages one to elevate English as God's chosen language (absurd!) and looks at the world through a tiny peephole rather than from a global perspective.

Someone should let the people slaving over manuscripts at Wycliffe know that they are wasting their life trying to translate the bible into ALL the world's languages. They can stop now. No need to translate the Gospel into the tongues of those who haven't heard in the African bush areas. Rather, the real need is for all people to learn outdated Shakespearean English. Problem solved.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Counting Sheep

Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. - Albert Einstein

Each Sunday morning one of our ushers counts approximately how many people are at Redeemer. It's helpful information to have over time so that we can recognize what needs either are arising or may arise soon.

I have come to believe that attendance numbers are not necessarily indicative of a church's health. I don't know of any data that can. Much of what God does in people is like the seed growing secretly, invisibly underground. Then seemingly out of nowhere it pops up exposing the life that was unseen before. There is no way to tabulate and record that kind of growth. I do not know of a measurement that can chart the feeling of vitality in a room when God-filled people express their love to Him with abandon.

I am interested in Redeemer growing; growing more in love with Jesus. I assume that as we do more people will come into the kingdom and our attendance will increase. That will be a byproduct of God moving but not the proof that He has been moving. Attendance growth without God moving sounds horrible to me. That sounds like a curse rather than a blessing. I would rather have 50 people surrounding me that love Jesus with their whole being than 5,000 attendees looking at their watches waiting for noon to rescue them.

Leonard Ravenhill once said that you don't need to advertise a fire. Fires always draw crowds. The 50 Jesus-lovers I mentioned in the last paragraph would multiply even without trying. Real life with God is contagious and attractive. But every time I see a crowd that doesn't mean there is a fire nearby.

Are people abiding in Jesus? Are people being equipped for Kingdom service? Is God pleased with our gatherings? Is He given the praise and adoration He deserves? The answers to those questions count.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad