I grew up in the 80's and 90's, probably the last generation of kids to grow up memorizing verses out of the King James Version (aside from those who grow up at King James Only churches--also, I don't say this as a blanket statement. I have met some my age who grew up memorizing out of the NIV). I went to Sunday school, AWANA, youth group, Bible camp, and, as a teen was a summer missionary with Child Evangelism Fellowship (the ministry we currently serve with). Even though most of these groups and ministries were not of a King James Only persuasion, the scriptures we memorized and taught others to memorize were King James. It was just the norm. Tradition. Even though people hadn't spoken 1611 English for centuries, it was kind of accepted that it was Bible-speak. While people I knew spoke everyday English, God had chosen to speak to me in thee's and thou's. Most of the pastors we had preached out of other versions, such as the NASB or NIV, but memory verses were still King James. That was just kind of normal. In a way, the poetic language made it easier to memorize than just everyday English sentences, so I'm glad I had that growing up.
Around the turn of the century (when I was a young adult), many of these ministries started offering alternative versions of the Bible for memorization. Child Evangelism Fellowship began offering an NIV option, and now offers English Standard. AWANA started having a New King James option, and added others. Suffice it to say, most people I meet who grew up in the 21st century didn't have God speak to them in thee's and thou's the way many of us 20th century folks did.
The truth is, though, even though children's memory verses seemed to be the last thing to change to other versions (at least in my experience), different Bible translations are nothing new. Back in the 19th century, children and teenagers complained that the Bible was too old-fashioned and hard to understand, and this gave way to some attempts at newer versions. In 1885, the English Revised Version was published. The motive of this translation was to adapt the King James Bible to the current state of the English language (as language had evolved since 1611), and also to adapt to the present standard of scholarship. By that point in time, manuscripts had been discovered that many held to be older and more accurate than those used to publish the original King James. Throughout the 20th century, many versions were published. So, it is almost unusual to consider that I grew up in the late 20th century still memorizing out of the King James.
 |
| 1990, I am pictured receiving an Awana award. All the verses I learned to get that award were in the King James Version, and that's how I still know them today. |
But, really, why the change? Why did we need new versions?
When I was in high school, I sat under a pastor who was King James Only (strictly speaking, he was probably more King James preferred. I'll explain that more in-depth later). This pastor really invested in me. He took our youth group out witnessing, and when I would get involved in ministry, he would tell me he was proud of me. He once told me I was his hero, and that really, really ministered to me in a deep way as a teenager. Because this man was the real deal, I considered that maybe King James was the right Bible, since this pastor's life exemplified Jesus. Maybe, I reasoned, it was because he read the "right" Bible.
Because of this pastor's loving influence, I dipped my toe into the waters of the King James Only position for a little while. I tried it on for size. But the truth was, I didn't have an educated reason behind it. I liked what some people said, that the King James Version had served the English-speaking world for centuries. It was proven. Tried and true. So why not stick with it? And that's not a bad reason to use it. I support anyone who wants to use the King James Bible. I often use it now. But that's still not a good argument against other versions.
I have seen some extremism in the King James Only camp. As I said, the pastor who influenced me as a teen and young adult was more King James preferred. I once visited a true King James Only church. I was just out of high school, and wanted to visit a church that had a college-aged Bible study. I called all the churches in the phone book, (that's how long ago this was!), and when I came to this particular church, their ad in the Yellow Pages said they were King James Only. I thought, "Oh good, they're like my pastor. I'll love this one!" I found out they did, indeed, have a college Bible study, and I decided to visit. When I arrived, the pastor was waiting outside and greeting people as they came in. Seeing me as a visitor, he asked me flat out, "Do you own a King James Bible?" I felt like I was being quizzed. "Yes, sir," I replied, a bit nervously. "Then you're probably saved. You can come in." I thought, Huh? He didn't even ask me about my beliefs in Jesus. He didn't even ask my name! I also found myself wondering if I had said no, I didn't own a King James Bible, would I have been admitted entrance into their service? I knew that Mormons also used the King James Bible, and they weren't saved. This pastor had a weird priority. I knew my beloved pastor at my home church would never, ever greet a newcomer like this.
I got to the college class, and the teacher told me, "We've been doing a study about New Age Bibles, like the NIV." I expected everyone to laugh, because this sounded like a joke (my pastor jokingly used to say NIV stood for "Not Inspired Version"), but I realized after a second that he was serious. If someone doesn't like the NIV, that's not a big deal. It isn't my favorite version, but I definitely don't consider it to be New Age. That sounded so crazy. After the creepy greeting from the pastor, and then this weird introduction to the class, I wanted to leave, but I felt I was stuck. So I waited it out. The class was just spent comparing random verses in the King James and the NIV, and when they differed, the teacher would say, "See! They're different! That proves the King James is good and the NIV is bad!" But he didn't go to any of the original languages to show which one was really more accurate. He seemed to take as a given that the King James was right, and all others versions needed to conform to it. Even as a first-semester college student, I knew this was poor scholarship. And, even assuming the King James was more accurate in those verses, that still didn't prove the NIV was New Age! I believe it is wrong to make such bold claims and then not give the information to back up said claim. The teacher concluded the class by saying, "I think someone can own an NIV and still be saved [wasn't that big of him?], but I would hope that after he gets saved, God would convict him of using a false Bible."
Before I left that day, I was given a piece of paper that stated the church's beliefs (this was before the Internet, where you can now just look up that information on a church's website). As I read the paper, I found that most of what they believed was normal Christian teaching. However, they had a clause that they believed that the King James Bible was God's only inspired word for the English-speaking world. That struck a chord in me, and made me realize I could never be King James Only--at least not this brand of King James Only. The All-powerful God inspired a Bible just for the English-speaking world? What about the 85% of the world that didn't speak English as their first language? Of course, this church believed God had a Bible for them too. He just inspired different versions in their various languages. That seemed really off to me.
In James White's book The King James Only Controversy, he lists five types of King James Only proponents. From least to greatest extreme, they are as follows. The least extreme is probably what my pastor was, which is mainly just King James preferred. These people like the King James the best, believe it is the best Bible out there, and should be respected for their preference. The next position would be those who believe the King James was translated from superior Greek and Hebrew texts. They might be open to a better translation coming along in the future--they just don't believe that has happened yet. This position is also reasonable and respectable. The third position consists of those who are Texus Receptus Only--meaning they believe the Texus Receptus (the Greek New Testament from which the King James New Testament was translated) was divinely inspired, just like the original manuscripts were inspired by God. This is the point at which I get off the bus, so to speak. I think the Texus Receptus is accurate and worthy of respect, but I don't believe it was inspired the same way the originals were. The next step is the group that holds that the English King James Version was actually inspired in 1611. I don't agree with this either. The final step on this continuum is those who hold the King James Version to be a new revelation from God, beyond anything that came before. This sounds culty to me. I could happily go to a church or sit under a pastor who was in one of the first two camps, but not the latter three. My current pastor isn't in any of these camps, but preaches out of the ESV.
I went on to get my BA in biblical studies, and I did a senior project where I researched this very subject of Bible translations. I have come to believe that the Bible was divinely inspired of God in the original manuscripts. God spoke, those He spoke to wrote down what He told them to write, and that truth has been preserved, and translated into virtually every language (though there are still Bible translators working on some). God didn't re-inspire the King James Version in 1611, any more than He re-inspired the New American Standard Bible in 1971. I do believe He has been at work, guiding the scholars who did the work, but he didn't inspire it the same way He inspired Moses or Paul, who wrote the originals. In my studies at that time, I concluded that the most accurate Bible in English was probably the New American Standard (this was before the English Standard Version was published, which is now considered the most accurate by many).
In a nutshell, what I learned was that the King James was translated from the best and oldest manuscripts they had available at the time. Those translators would have loved to have the manuscripts discovered later (which many believe to be older and closer to the originals), but they worked with what they had then. Many of the "newer" translations are actually translated from what is believed to be older and better manuscripts, which means these "new" Bibles in English may be much older versions when you look at where they come from. Also, it must be considered that some of the English translations are word-for-word translations, while others are dynamic equivalence--meaning they are idea-for-idea. Sometimes word-for-word is better, but there are times when it is better to translate it as an idea, because that gets the point across better in English. All of this was taken into consideration when translations have been made. Admittedly, some translations are considered better than others. What I find amazing, though, is that God has truly preserved His message to us. No matter what English version you use--no matter what manuscripts were used to translate it--the message remains the same, and that is faith-building!
There are some versions I would advise avoiding, because those putting them together transposed their agenda onto it. Others are very loose paraphrases, and one should be careful straying too far from solid translations (though I admit that I love The Living Bible). Select a Bible that communicates God's truth through the ages.
These days, I tend to use the 1995 edition of the New American Standard, the English Standard Version (our church and ministry use that one), with the King James thrown in here and there. Maybe you're the same, or maybe you're like my husband and prefer the New King James. Or maybe you like another version out there. Learn all you can about your preferred version, and keep in mind that God is faithful to preserve His word!
No comments:
Post a Comment