God's word is a precious gift...a wonderful manifestation of divine grace. The gospel is the singular source of power from above that rescues the souls of men from eternal torment (Romans 1:16). Since this is the case, it is in the best interest of all mankind to preserve the accuracy and reliability of the Bible text.
Thousands upon thousands of sermons have been preached, debates have been waged, and articles have been penned with regard to the Bible translation question. Countless sincere souls have asked in some form or another, "Which Bible translation should I use?". Such a query is legitimate and should be considered in light of the fact that different versions have been produced to serve different purposes than others (e.g. translations versus paraphrases).
From time to time, however, one will come across individuals and organizations that staunchly hold up a singular translation as not only superior (a matter of opinion in itself), but also the only reliable translation in existence. Most of my dealings have been with those who advocated a "King James Version only" point of view.
I will personally laud the King James Version for the excellent translation it truly is, but to hold up any translation as the only true Bible is walking on thin ice, to say the least. Inasmuch as every translation is a product of fallible men, there are strengths and weaknesses to be found within each one. The "autographs" of every book in the Bible (i.e. the original documents penned by Paul, John, Peter, etc.) are indeed breathed out by God. However, when one makes the claim that a translator (or group of translators) was inspired by God, he makes an ignorant and unsustainable statement.
For those who take a "King James only" position, can you answer the following?
- The King James Version underwent many changes between 1611 and 1769 (with revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769). Which of these King James Version versions is to be taken as "the" Bible?
- Since the 1611 version of the King James Version included the Apocrypha, and since the book of Second Maccabees teaches the concept of "purgatory," are you saying the one and only true translation of the Bible teaches the erroneous concept of purgatory?
- What will be the fate of the non-English speaking world? If they cannot read the KJV, does this mean they cannot possibly have access to the Bible and will, therefore, be lost due to their inability to read English?
- Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on a half dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
- Did Paul use the KJV?
- Did Jesus speak in Old English?
Much as in many other areas, we must seek balance here. To say there is one and only one translation is just as unsustainable as saying any translation goes (even paraphrases, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation, and the like). The most rewarding study comes when one utilizes several reliable translations, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses that come with each one.
For those who make "King James only" conformity a test of fellowship, you have a heavy burden of proof laid upon you which no such advocate has been able to bear to this point. We all have our favorite and preferred translations, but let us lay ego aside as well as "what we heard so-and-so say" and use level-headed logic and reason to work toward a mutual understanding.
r2
