Saturday, 29 December 2012

The King James Bible.

I have recently become annoyed at myself for having so many different bible translations. I must have 40 bibles, various translations. But I really seem to struggle at holding to one. I know this sounds trivial. But how am I to hold scripture to a high value, and believe that it is true, if every translation I read is different, has verses omitted, and footnotes that say "or:...".

Now, I have decided to prioritize one translation over the rest, permanently. This doesn't mean I won't consult other translations, but it does mean I won't be using lots of others all the time. I want to basically jump in full time to one translation, work all my doctrine and beliefs from it, ignore anyone that says its inferior, and most of all call it the word of God (I am not calling my bible Jesus, although he would be the author he is THE Word).

I have chosen the King James. Its taken much soul searching, and I have expressed a lot of discontent with the translation in the past, there are things in there I disagree with, which has made it difficult for me to adjust to using it, but it has been good enough for people like Henry Morris, and Spurgeon - why not good enough for me. It's a translation that hasn't had a revision (not counting the RV, thats essentially a new translation, nor the NKJV) in 250 years, and isn't going anywhere soon. Yet the ESV has had 2 revisions in 10 years, the NIV 2 in 25 years, the NLT probably 3 or 4 since 1996..and so on.

 I need something stable. I also need something eloquent and elegant whilst accurate. This was where temptation struck, and I considered using the Matthew Bible as my primary. Its a temptation that still stands. If it were in Roman text it would be a no-brainer, but my facsimile has gothic font, but it does still have advantages over the KJV, such as 'love' instead of 'charity' in 1 Corinthians 13. But it also came about prior to the Geneva Bible, and thus isn't versified. Now this is in some ways an advantage over the KJV, but it makes searching for verses quite lengthy.

So why not the Geneva Bible? Well...it doesn't read as well as the KJV, and often uses the word 'that' instead of 'the' which is quite jarring. It also has some footnotes that I dislike, such as calling behemoth an elephant - which is understandable, but still nonsensical considering the tail difference between a (undiscovered at the time) brachiosaurus and an elephant. (okay I'm biased - but so are they).

I could use the NKJV, its quite similar to the KJV, but - it doesn't have the word flow, thee and thou makes the KJV text flow so much better, and rather than sounding American (as all bibles do to me nowadays) it sounds thunderous, and Shakespearean - lighteth, cometh, shineth - its amazing!

So, the KJV is my main translation. I suggest you grab one translation, and believe it to be the inerrant word of God, I would recommend an older translation, preferably the KJV (the most popular old translation, which is still used by a lot of churches) and just use it. The propaganda which says that its hard to understand isn't true. If you have used a new translation, you will decipher the older language quite easily, many verses are actually identical to the KJV.

Not only will you free yourself from a system that seems to require a guru to teach truth, declares bible verses to be false and nonauthentic, you also take yourself away from bias - the KJV is the original ecumenical translation, its been used by every church denomination and cult in existence, from baptists, episcopalian, catholic, presbyterian, pentecostal, Jehovah's witnesses, mormons and so many more. Yet it stands up against the denomination specific translations that we seem to have today. If it is THAT good, why abandon it for a translation that will require a revision in less than a decade? Get the KJV in a great binding, and it will last you your entire life. Can you say that about the ESV legacy bible? or the NIV 2011? A church I watch online, the pastor uses the ESV 2001, and I will be reading along with my ESV 2011, and it's different.

Yet I watch Sanderson1611's sermons, and he uses the KJV and so do I!

Again I am not KJVO, I see the need in many quarters for new translations, but I wouldn't be so quick to push the KJV aside, it may have it's faults - but I can be a post-trib, conditionalist and use the KJV and still believe it to be the word of God, and believe literally that every verse is true. Sure, if I used the ESV or NIV I would find conditionalism better supported - but why should that be the case? Can both translations be right, or is one wrong? Well, it was a translational choice of the KJV to translate Sheol and Hades as Hell, I know the words behind them, so I know when it says Hell in OT its not Gehenna. Same with Hell in the NT. I'm not going to be a snob though. I can simply write Sheol in if I am that picky.

So yes, this is a confusing, fatigue-written post. Just an update *yawn*. I will probably be using another translation in a month.

Peace out brethren
God bless.

No comments: