The Politically (In)Correct Bible
There is a certain governmental entity that has decided to produce its own version of the Bible. While there are other fine Bible translations, someone has decided to produce a more “official” version that will enhance the opinions that it wants, perhaps at the expense of truth.
This entity has felt that previous Bible translations have cast an unfavorable light upon their intentions. Actually, there are 2 Bible translations that I am referring to.
There are Student Bibles, Women's Bibles with emphasis on female characters, and The Gay Bible, which changes/highlights things that it wants to bring forth while claiming some amount of authority. There is the Trump Bible, believe it or not. There are Men's devotional bibles, Children's and Animated Bibles, First Nations Bible, African Heritage Bible, The Sportsman's Bible, and probably others. These all try to emphasize some particular special interest.
In 2017 a certain eastern nation stated its intention to produce at least parts of the Bible that slant the text to favor this government's policies. This Bible, or portions of it, would be the only “authorized” Bible allowed. Any others would be illegal or highly discouraged. In my opinion, this authorized version of this modern nation is an abomination.
Someone else tried to produce an “authorized” version of the Bible. This one was completed in 1611. While there were other English translations available that were very popular, a certain governmental figure wanted to squelch these older translations because they were casting an unfavorable light on his positions. This man was King James I of England. Was he a good man or an evil man? Historians disagree. However, many scholars do agree that this translation that bears his name is a good translation. Some would say, “What do you mean, a good translation?” Many who appear to be cult followers of the KJV would state that this translation fell down from heaven bathed in light and so fresh and accurate that it even contains the accent and lisp of God in it.
A visitor to Mexico once asked me, “You do use the King James Bible, don't you?” I replied that I had to use a Spanish version in my work. “But it is the King James Bible, isn't it?” I said that it could not be any particular English translation since the people only understand Spanish. No amount of explanation would satisfy this man. I just had to leave the issue there.
I personally believe the King James Version is a good Bible. I use it for studying and personal reading. God has honored it for several centuries. Its impact upon the English speaking world, religious and secular, is far reaching. However, I do not bow down toward Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, Tennessee to pray. I do not worship the cover or the ink in it and kiss the binding calling it God. Enough good cannot be said about this fine work but it is not intended to be considered to be part of the Godhead. God can handle Himself quite well in English but I do not think that it is the language of heaven.
I like the KJV. I feel that its theology is sound and that it is well written in the sense of English meter and literary beauty. While I do not want to criticize this work, talking about it honestly should not do damage to Truth.
The KJV was the modern translation, at that time (1611). The Great Bible (1535), the Bishops' Bible (1568), and the Geneva Bible (1560) were already in place. This “new modern” version of the KJV probably received the same cold shoulder that some relatively recent versions do in our day. One of the present day complaints is that newer versions omit some key verses. That is quite a serious claim. It is just as viable a claim that the KJV adds some verses, which should not be there. Which text is correct? One needs to read several translations. Being conversant in several different translations brings you closer to “correct”.
When facing the idea that the KJV descended from heaven, one has to wonder, Which edition of the KJV is inspired? With several printers in the early days of the KJV, carefulness seemed to be less than ideal. Typos and misprints, from manually setting the type on such a huge book, should not be considered genuine errors. One printing edition omitted the word “not” from the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. This edition became known as the Wicked Bible (1631). I suspect that even God had to smile about that one.
The early editions of the KJV included the Apocrypha. Non-biblical books in the Bible? Interesting.
Whether history remembers the man, King James, as good or bad, the translators of the work that bears his name, were a remarkable group of 47 scholars. If their preface to the King James Bible is any indication of their character, these men had humility and grace. They had no delusions about their new translation being perfect. They did the best they could and they feared God. They feared God in the correct way. They may have feared the king in an unfortunate way.
KJV worshipers and KJV haters make big claims, many of which cannot be proven to the satisfaction of everyone. One claim is the following:
The reason we are stuck in continued arguments about what constitutes “baptism” with the denominational world is that the translators from the original Greek texts were afraid of offending the king. By the time the Bible was translated into the English in the 14th and 16th centuries A.D., too many powerful people, such as King James, had already been sprinkled under the practice of the Church of England as learned and approved from the Roman Catholic Church.
(https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/35262/why-are-forms-of-the-word-βάπτισμα-transliterated-as-baptism-baptize-inste)
Thus, the Greek word for baptism was not translated into English. A new word was coined, being transliterated. Therefore, You go figure out what it means. This means the translators did not offend the king and they did not do evil to the original text, either. Pretty clever. Several other “high church” words were also not to be changed.
Many years ago I had an “internet friend”. That means someone I have never met, yet we talked by email extensively. He told a very amazing story. He was thinking about the most important doctrine there is to the modern Western church, the Sovereignty of God. Basically, God is bigger than us so He does whatever He wants and I am not responsible for anything. Everything that happens, good or bad, is because God wants it that way, so I never have to resist anything (sin, sickness, demonic attacks, etc).
My friend decided to look up in a concordance to study every occasion of the word sovereign (in the KJV). He found no instances. He thought that maybe he needed to look up variations of that word, such as sovereignty. Again, it did not appear. He thought it was strange that the most important word in the Christian vocabulary (to many people) was not in the KJV Bible. Then he thought to himself that maybe this word, sovereign, was not in use in the 16th and 17th centuries.
God then spoke to him and said to turn to the first page in his Bible. He read Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning...”. “No, turn to the first page in your Bible.” He read again, In the beginning.... God told him, in effect, Close your Bible. Open the front cover. Read the FIRST page!!
Epistle and Dedicatorie
To
the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God
King
of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith ,
&c.
The translators of The Bible, wish Grace, Mercie, and
Peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Great and manifold were the blessings (most dread Soveraigne) which Almighty GOD, the Father of all Mercies, bestowed upon us the people of ENGLAND, when first he sent your Majesties Royall person to rule and raigne over us...
(Many editions of the KJV do not bother to include this preface. I have one KJV Bible that contains this. None of my others do.)
There it is. The word sovereign, in its old spelling, is in the first line of the preface. Therefore that word was in use in the 16th century. It is just that it was not God who was sovereign. It was King James.
Like all translations, the KJV was handled by men but the human contamination did not destroy the Divine inspiration. The translators were a good group of faithful men. They wanted to obey God and they maneuvered the political landscape of the day. Not an easy feat but God honored them.
Actually, the issue of a good translation being inspired or not is basically pointless. What is the good of reading it but not doing what it says? What is the point of arguing about the KJV if one does not believe what it says? The best scholars have no answer for that one.
June 16, 2024