IS THE KING JAMES VERSION, HOLY?

The story was told about a preacher who said, "If the old King James Version was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me". I used to think that it was a joke, but the more I talk with religious leaders, the more I wonder if was a true story or not. It is difficult for us to imagine such a lack of knowledge in our enlightened age, but it does exist; and some will no doubt be disappointed to learn that the Kings James version didn't fall directly from heaven, gilt-edged, even thumb indexed. When John Wycliffe translated the Latin Vulgate into the English language in 1382 he was later excommunicated for his efforts, and 40 yrs. after his death his bones were dug up and burned.

 When William Tyndale then made the first translation from the Greek language in 1525 and was forced to flee to Germany where he smuggled copies of his new bible back into his own land, England. Betrayed by a friend, he was strangled and then burned at the stake. When the KJV of 1611 was first made public, a Church official wrote to the King, "I had rather be trampled asunder by wild horses than to have this bible in the hands of the public." The same thing is happening today. We see such about the NIV, RSV, TEV, NEB, LB, with charges as "perversions', 'Atheistic scheme', 'Liberals', 'Communists', etc.... First of all if the truth were known, the burr under the saddle is simply, some of our favorite doctrines don't teach the same thing in plain English. The language of the KJV is simply not the language of the 20th century. The KJV is not the standard by which all versions should be measured, only the oldest Greek manuscript are the real standard of comparison.

He who would say anything uncomplimentary about the KJV, does invite criticism and is not likely to win any popularity awards. Just being critical is unworthy of fairness and objective reasoning. Without question, the KJV is one of the most popular versions and is one of the greatest literary classics of our times. It's unlikely that any version will surpass it's beauty and eloquence in style and language in it's period of history; BUT, in spite of all this we cannot allow our sentiments to distort common sense. The KJV has its multitude of faults. God never intended that the written revelation of himself be confined within an 'archaic' language. There is nothing sacred about the 17th century that demands its preservation. The King's English of the 17th century is not the spoken vernacular of the 20th century English speaking world. Also a storehouse of biblical documents are available today that weren't available back then. Some dangers, as I see; To 'not' understand, means only that the reader is deprived of knowledge, and that's not good, but to 'mis'understand, can very well lead unto apostasy when that which is 'mis'understood is taught as gospel truth. This is one of the reasons we have over 500 different denominational churches. Wm. S. LaSor, prof. of O.T., Fuller Seminary said, "While no one wants to shoot 'mother', still it is foolish to refuse to give her decent burial when her days are finished". (op cit).

A serious bible student will not trust his/her understanding of the scriptures on one version only, especially if many other versions are contradictory to what you might want it to say. Study ALL Versions!!!

             B I B I C A L    T R A N S L A T I O N

Matters such as NT Canon or early-Century letters, articles, etc. are of interest to me personally only from the viewpoint of history. I do not consider them of spiritual importance because:

"If God has information in which he wants humans to trust (and I trust that he does), and if God intends to evaluate (judge) humans on the basis  of that information (and I trust that he does), and if he is a just God (and I trust that he is), then it would seem to be God's responsibility to provide us humans with that information; and I trust that he has, in the form of the Ancient Hebrew writings commonly described as the Old Testament and the First Century Greek writings commonly described as the New Testament.

"In providing that information to humans, I further trust that it was God's responsibility, to assure that the text of those Hebrew and Greek writings not only accurately revealed that information he intended for humans to know, but that said text was also limited to the information contained in said Hebrew and Greek writings commonly described as the Old and New Testaments.

"Accordingly, we presently have exactly the information God intended, in the form of said Hebrew and Greek writings and he was the one who decided which writings were to be included or excluded; this thus not being a mere human decision."

Inasmuch as the original said Hebrew and Greek writings apparently no longer exist, and inasmuch as most humans cannot understand the original-language writings, it has been necessary to translate the existing copies of these writings into contemporary languages.

For the most part, the word-for-word translations of these writings have been sufficiently accurate to enable hearer or reader thereof to achieve trust in God and his Anointed Son Jesus.

However, inasmuch as these translations were made by uninspired humans, it was inevitable that errors in translation occurred. The King James Version (KJV), being the best known translation, it is usually the one criticized, but the other translations have errors too. So any criticism usually applies to other translations as well.

In summary: The Hebrew and Greek texts of the writings commonly described as the Old and New testaments respectively, though perhaps compiled from various ancient copies thereof, accurately contain all of the information God has provided for mankind. Any errors occur in the translations thereof.

Yours for Truth and Freedom .... Horace Hooper..