In this article I want to help every Cornerstone member and other Christians to see for himself the truth that our old Bible- the KJV (King James Version) is greatly different from modern versions. I intend to discuss these differences on the level of every Christian seating on the mono - block. I wish every one will look at it with the attitude of faith upon our God of providence. Not so recently, some fundamental Christians were unashamedly using or endorsing one of these modern versions. They claimed that these versions were equally as good as our KJV Bible. They further stated with confidence that if differences occur then they were not substantial to destroy the essential doctrines of the faith. Scholars said it is only roughly 1% of the entire word of God.
Others have even shifted to these versions for their academic usage, i.e., memorization in Christian and Bible schools, still others for professed clarity in reading. Bible college professors are now slowly recommending the use of NASV (New American Standard Version) or NKJV (New King James Version). In one of the graduate seminaries I went to, even the elderly fundamental professors have often used NIV in their devotions in our classes as well as in their lectures. Such were the results of their graduate studies for various post-graduate degrees at new evangelical schools. Still others are zealous to declare that our time tested KJV Bible is quite antiquated because of its words usage which need revisions to jibe with the modern times. Thus they recommend the NKJV or NASV. To some quite radical Christians in a sense they already moved into the use of NIV (New International Version). They just loved this NIV and declared its great advantage of readability due to its modernity.
However, there are some things common among these modern versions which are unknown if not slightly hidden to the average Christians. Some Christians as spiritual infants are quite less informed about the real issues and the great dangers of using these modern versions. Tradition is not necessarily wrong if it has scriptural warrant. For the biblical reasons concerning our disuse and rejection of these modern versions please refer to other relevant articles written on this matter. Concerning the difference between these modern versions and our Authorized KJV Bible is my concern in this treatise.
First, all these modern versions were translated from the less trusted and inferior Greek text copies which were first published in 1881. The NKJV claimed in its preface that it has used the superior Greek text copies but at the same time it has also used the inferior text copies in many controversial occasions (See Watts 2008, p.13) We reject these modern versions not on their modern word usages but on their origin from inferior if not corrupt texts. It will be hard to produce a godly translation product out of a corrupt text. This reason is less disclosed to average church people.
Second, all these modern versions have not stood the test of time and can not claim providential care as compared with the KJV. I believe this is not a matter of accident but an evidence of divine care to preserve His word. The KJV Bible has been universally used by Christians for almost four centuries. This was the version used in almost all missionary endeavors and educational pursuits. Incidentally, it will be celebrating its 400th anniversary in 2011. These modern versions were published very recently, NASV in 1960s, NIV in 1970s, and NKJV in 1980s. If these modern versions indeed in totality were the preserved words of God (indicates eclecticism or dialecticism?) then God’s people were kept quite away from the words of God for almost four centuries.
Third, new evangelical Christians were dominantly involved in the production of these modern versions, unlike the KJV translators who subscribed to the fundamental doctrines of the faith. If we believe separation from new evangelicals is scripturally right then we must not have anything to do with them even in translation work. Could the fundamentalists who used these modern versions be contaminated by its non-separatists attitude?
Fourth, there are ministerial consequences brought about by tolerating the use of these modern versions. One, there will be difficulty in uniform memorization work. Two, there will be a need for many concordances which is now evident in the market. Three, there will be difficulty in congregational Bible reading and teaching as well as due to varied versions. Four, perverting the truth would be easier as there are varied versions. Last, there are now confusions among Christians as to which of these is the best version. This was absent prior to these modern versions arrival. Our children are slowly being subjected into this conflict.
Finally, if we compare these modern versions with our KJV Bible then we shall arrive at the following observations made by David Sorenson (2001) as quoted by George Skariah (2005) in p. 348-352.
One, when compared with KJV, NIV suggests doubt upon some passages about its reliability (see Mk. 16:9-20; Jn. 7:53-8:11; Mt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43-44). NIV also deleted 17 entire verses from the NT of KJV and its Greek text Textus Receptus (see Mt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Lk. 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Ac. 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; 1Jn.5:7). By these NIV translators with their scholarship have lowered the word of God to the level of an ordinary ancient literature.
Two, when compared with KJV, NASV has passages where references to Jesus by name, Him as Lord, or Christ has been deleted. There is a total of 178 places of these in the Bible. (See Mt. 13:51; Mk. 11:10; Lk. 22:31; Ac. 8:37; 9:29; Rom. 1:3; 16:24; 1 Cor. 10:28; 12:3; Eph. 3:14; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Tim. 4:22). By these, NASV has diminished the number of passages supporting the doctrine of Christ as a person.
Three, when compared with KJV, NKJV has deleted words and replaced others. (See Jn. 10:6; Ac. 15:23; 19:39; 27:14; 2 Cor. 4:14 2 Jn. 7; Rev. 6:11). It has also some serious mistranslations. (See Mt. 15:32; 22:10; Lk. 11:34, 54; 22:53; Ac. 18:6; 2 Cor.7:2; 11:29; Gal. 5:4; Phil. 3:8; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 3:16; Rev. 2:22; 16:16). At best it is double speak for it affirmed the use of Textus Receptus yet in some instances has shown sympathy and reliance upon the Greek texts used by the modern versions. So it is a very good bridge to move from strong KJV to NASV or NIV usage.
Therefore, we are not to abandon either partially or entirely the use of the KJV Bible. It was the Bible of the reformers, of our Baptist forefathers, and our brethren here in the Philippines. It is the preserved word of God through the centuries where our doctrines have been based. We are not to yield to the acclaim for eclecticism in the name of scholarship as that is also evil if not hypocrisy. If we claim KJV use in our pulpit and home and yet allow the same to be weakened and distrusted at the classrooms then we are hypocrites! Settle not for doctrinally diminished and historically corrupt modern versions! When did pragmatism become right at the expense of diminishing the words of God or creating doubts in our mind on the issue of veracity? There is no wisdom and discernment in the thought of rejecting the validity of KJV for the last 400 years in exchange for very new modern versions due to scholarship. Amen!
References:
Skariah, George. 2005. The Biblical Doctrine of Perfect Preservation of the Holy Scriptures. Singapore: FEBC Press.
Sorenson, David. 2001. Touch not the Unclean Thing: Text, Issue and Separation. USA: Northstar Baptist Ministries.
Watts, Malcolm. 2008. The New King James Version: A Critique. London: Trinitarian Bible Society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment