Finally, the third reason for changing from the King James Version of the Bible, is due to the versatility of many translations. It may surprise the reader of these blogs for me say that I am not trying to get rid of the KJV. To the contrary, I am seeking the best way to preach, teach, and mostly communicate the bible.
One reason there are so many bibles is not because they all want to dilute, dissolve, or destroy the Word of God. The reason for the many is that there are many people and uses for each translation.
The best way to explain this is by describing the different methods of translating. One is to translate from one language to another in a word for word fashion. This is called formal equivalence. This way would get into technical word usage. If in English we say you are pulling my leg, then that is exactly how that is translated in another language.
Another method of translation is a thought for thought fashion. This is called dynamic equivalence. This way is more interested in sentence meaning. Again if we say in English you are pulling my leg, then in the other language the thought or meaning would be translated in different words.
Because of this bibles are being translated in both methods making for different version but still the same Word of God. For example the most common formal equivalence bible version happens to be the New American Standard Bible or NASB. This bible because of it's word accuracy has become the favorite of theologians, bible scholars, and pastors. They like the ability to see as close to the original in word form as possible. This however is not the best for beginner reading or study.
The best example right now of a dynamic equivalence version is the New Living Translation or NLT. This version is accurate for meditation, and enjoyable reading. This version has become one the fastest growing in popularity because of its ease of reading without sacrificing accuracy.
To some this all up, it is our intention to not just replace the KJV with another more modern version. Instead we will seek a plurality of version. Meaning we will have a primary version that is considered church wide with the freedom to preach, teach, or reference other versions as well.
We believe this is the best course for two reason: 1) to avoid any future fighting over preferential versions; 2) to leave the door open to any future version and updates that will enhance the ministry of Portage Avenue Baptist Church.
12 comments:
Why change? Yep, good question. The question still remains to be answered.
Saltyjeff, I understand your point. But you must now give a logical, biblical reason as to why you shouldn't switch rather than just saying you shouldn't.
Anonymous, I never said that you shouldn't change! I just simply left a comment stating that Pastor Bob didn't answer the question completely. He leaves it open for questions.
Fair enough. What do you see as the unanswered questions then?
You ask me to Biblically and logically defend a position of mono-translation versus poly-translation. You’re asking me to do what “Pastor Bob” has negated to do in his three part blog. Half of what you are requesting has been accomplished. He has waxed eloquently (Barring grammatical errors; but, however, there seems to be no reason to have a basis for proper usage of a language. If God can use a multiplicity of versions, I suppose I must accept that there is no longer a standard for spelling, grammar, etc.) to propose a purpose for following the current trend. No doubt, he has given quite a logical explanation. If one were looking for an excuse to migrate to trust all Bible versions, he has done so very logically. But Biblically is quite another story. When one chips away at the foundation for all truth, an explanation ought to be Biblically substantiated.
John 8:44 states, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” One should be wary of those who attempt to destroy truth. From the very beginning of time, Satan’s ploy has been to cause man to doubt God’s word. In the garden of Eden, Eve misquotes God’s instruction regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:17) God was quite clear when He said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Eve embellishes God’s instruction by adding, “neither shall ye touch it.” Satan immediately contradicts the truth, “Ye shall not surely die.”
This is not a contest of semantics. I have chosen to believe what I believe is truth; you have made a choice as well. There is a greater issue at hand: Satan wants to put doubt in the minds of believers and unbelievers as to the authenticity of God’s Word. Scripture quite clearly instructs us to not make additions or deletions to the Bible (Deut. 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19). When doing a study of all the translations, one would easily discover that additions and deletions have been made from version to version. Which translation is correct? One must draw conclusions for himself. But is it safe to say that all translations, including future ones, are endorsable? Woe be to the believer who follows Satan’s trend of asking, “Yea, hath God said?”
I want to thank all who have contributed to this subject. Clearly this is a controversy with thoughts and beliefs on both side. So, in case there is any doubt, I do believe strongly (to the death) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God in the original manuscripts it is forever settled in Heaven. There is also great debate as to how God preserves His Word from those originals to each generation. There are many books and websites on the subject. One good source would be http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=117.
I realize that this will not change the minds of those who are settled, but maybe for those who are seeking this could be a help.
Dear Anonymous,
I still hold to my position, the question is unanswered.
No Scripture has been used as refutation. To lead an entire congregation in a path of such drastic change, demands a Scriptural foundation and not a link to somebody's website.
The expectations of leadership ought to be higher than replicating the beliefs and expressions of merely another author. A Heavenly author should be quoted instead, but once again we are no longer certain of what God really said.
The following are some examples of how words in the KJV are either used completely different or not at all. Also listed are corresponding verses from "modern" versions, without changing the means. This is biblical proof that we do not need to burden a generation of Christians and non-Christians who do not talk or write in 1611 or 1769 kinglish language.
This was one of the major reason the 1611 translators fought the same criticism in their day to come out with a "modern" translation.
Amos 4:1 Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink.KJV
Amos 4:1 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria, you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy and say to your husbands, "Bring us some drinks!"NIV
Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.KJV
Philippians 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved.NLT
Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.KJV
Hebrews 2:18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.NIV
1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.KJV
1 Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.NIV
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:KJV
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.NIV
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you–ward.KJV
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our proud confidence is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you.NASB
Philippians 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;KJV
Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:KJV
Philippians 1:27 Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ. Then, whether I come and see you again or only hear about you, I will know that you are standing side by side, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News.NLT
Philippians 3:20 But we are citizens of heaven, where the Lord Jesus Christ lives. And we are eagerly waiting for him to return as our Savior.NLT
Saltyjeff, I think you're right, the question isn't answered for you because you're not looking for an answer. But Kudos to "Pastor Bob" who is giving evidence that supports his point.
I'm not looking for an answer? My, my, quite a judgement call there, and a missed one at that. Thank you "Pastor Bob" for the scriptural comparisons; however, you're making an assumption that I adhere to the King James.
Yes, there are many verses that the King James has left out words. There are a myriad of examples on the flip side.
That's the confusing effect of a decision to accept all versions. Shouldn't there be a line drawn somewhere?
Interesting saltyjeff. If you're looking for an answer, why are you so quick to jump on "Pastor Bob" for quoting a true scholar in this field. I found that section very helpful. I looked up the verses you used and they really didn't fit the context of what this discussion is dealing with. The KJV wasn't around when those things were written so why does it stop there. Daniel Wallace's material "Pastor Bob" linked to on the history of version shed so much light on that subject for me.
I'm not trying to be mean, harsh or attacking you in any way but I honestly would like some true answers from whatever position you are trying to defend rather than just poking poor holes at "Pastor Bob's" article that seem to be a help to the subject.
But I would like to know from "Pastor Bob", you don't spell out that ALL translations are good. But saltyjeff seems to think you are saying that. Where do you think one draw the line with translations? Are they all good to use? I think you've brought some great thinking to the subject but how do we know what a really bad translation that takes things away from the original languages might look like.
I want to thank all of you for taking the time to read and comment on this blog. I also want thank you for the balance of candor and courtesy in your comments.
I must also ask your forgiveness for the latest of any response. I want to invite you to the next posting, which is my meager attempt to answer the question of which are good or bad translations. I hope this will be helpful.
Post a Comment