This is the last of three blogs on why I think using the King James, especially for Evangelistic purposes, is not wise.
This one is a week overdue and I apologise you aren't getting it sooner. What actually prompted me to write these blogs critical of the KJV/AV/NKJV was a poster (or two of the same poster really) in the vicinity of IBI and Footprints (so like Talbot Street and Foley Street, Dublin).
These posters had a scripture verse on them "And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?" (Mark 8:29)
This was followed by "Who saith thou that Jesus is" or something to that effect. Now...
I am sorry but even I, a Christian, looked at this and threw up in my mouth a little (slight over-exaggeration but only slight).
How on earth is using outdated, archaic language meant to reach people.
It's as if someone (and I am looking at you Gideon's refusing to give out NIVs in favour of KJVs to 1st years in Ireland [12 year olds]) sat around a table and said:
"Christianity's a little too easy to get into, what can we do to make it more difficult so it seems more, you know, religious?"
"Well, we could only use the King James, no one can relate to it, or even understand it so if we use that we'll only get intelligent people or English majors. It will work two-fold here; as well as making Christianity more difficult to get into it will help us shake the perception of Christians as idiots."
And so, henceforth Evangelical Christian organisations printed only the King James on their Evangelistic material and only gave out King James Bibles for free.
And instead of many being saved only very few were because the rest looked at the posters and thought 'wa?' or something to that effect.
So the third reason I don't like the King James, as ridiculously illustrated above, is because non-Christians cannot connect to it.
Now I get that some Christians find that using the King James adds a sense of reverence to your Scripture readings and ponderings and that is wonderful. However, what is wrong here is that you expect the same will be true for the average Joe Bloggs on the street who hasn't been to Church in years. Or Unchurched James who has never been to church in his life, he might see the poster and think "cool, there was a King James once" but that's it.
These posters are not cheap to put up. This means that, in essence, some poor Christian somewhere is paying for these posters in the good faith that they will be contemporary, eye-catching, understandable, brief and challenging. A Christian may look at them and think they are all these things but to the non-Christian they just make us look like out of touch idiots.
So for evangelistic free Bibles and posters can we take Fee and Stuart's advice with regard to studying the Bible here as well, "This is why for Evangelism you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or the NKJV." (for Evangelism added by me).
Wednesday 24 April 2013
Thursday 18 April 2013
Why we Shouldn't Use the King James 2
Part two of three posts on why using the King James Bible, particularly for evangelism, is a bad idea for Christians.
According to Fee and Stuart, who write books on proper interpretation of the Bible used in Bible Colleges to teach students about how to interpret the Bible well the King James Version (and the New King James Bible) are the two least favoured by Bible Scholars.
In the secular world the KJV is the least accurate and reliable English translation of the Scriptures. In my time in university it was regularly ridiculed by those writing the readings that were assigned. The King James Bible does not stand up, in any sense of the word, to scrutiny.
Fee and Stuart, talking about the key thing to studying the Bible is to start with a good translation (or learn Greek and Hebrew) include this paragraph on the King James and New King James which I will quote in it's entirety:
"The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it is also a classic expression of the English language. Indeed, it coined phrases that will forever be embedded in our language ("coals of fire," "the skin of my teeth," "tongues of fire,"). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes- and we must note that there are many of them- make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognising the English of the KJV was no longer a living language- and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV)- it was decided by some to "update" the KJV by ridding it of its "archaic" way of speaking. But in doing so, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text).
This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or the NKJV."
I have also heard it said that it is to be used because it is the only Authorised Version of the Bible leading the KJV to sometimes be called the AV but see the first of these blogs to discover who Authorised the KJV Bible and you will quickly wonder why people think he is a good person to look to for spiritual decisions and how scripture should be translated.
According to Fee and Stuart, who write books on proper interpretation of the Bible used in Bible Colleges to teach students about how to interpret the Bible well the King James Version (and the New King James Bible) are the two least favoured by Bible Scholars.
In the secular world the KJV is the least accurate and reliable English translation of the Scriptures. In my time in university it was regularly ridiculed by those writing the readings that were assigned. The King James Bible does not stand up, in any sense of the word, to scrutiny.
Fee and Stuart, talking about the key thing to studying the Bible is to start with a good translation (or learn Greek and Hebrew) include this paragraph on the King James and New King James which I will quote in it's entirety:
"The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it is also a classic expression of the English language. Indeed, it coined phrases that will forever be embedded in our language ("coals of fire," "the skin of my teeth," "tongues of fire,"). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes- and we must note that there are many of them- make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognising the English of the KJV was no longer a living language- and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV)- it was decided by some to "update" the KJV by ridding it of its "archaic" way of speaking. But in doing so, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text).
This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or the NKJV."
I have also heard it said that it is to be used because it is the only Authorised Version of the Bible leading the KJV to sometimes be called the AV but see the first of these blogs to discover who Authorised the KJV Bible and you will quickly wonder why people think he is a good person to look to for spiritual decisions and how scripture should be translated.
Why we shouldn't use the King James 1
I apologise to anyone who likes the King James version of the Bible; I do not, and I think that we still use it is a little ridiculous. This is part one of why I don't think we should use it, especially for Evangelistic purposes.
Who was King James:
In 1532 King Henry VIII secretly married Anne Boleyn and divorced (publicly) Catherine of Aragon, his wife. Thus beginning English Protestantism and the translation of 'Holy Writ' into English.
In 1603 Henry's sole surviving heir, Queen Elizabeth 1 (daughter of Anne Boleyn) died. This meant a new person and dynasty would wear the crown. In Henry's will he stated that the crown, assuming all three of his children died without issue, should go to descendants of his sister Mary (who married his best friend, Charles Brandon) and not to descendants of Margaret (who married James IV of Scotland).
Sir Robert Cecil, one of Elizabeth I's ministers preferred James VI (Margaret Tudor's great grandson and great great grandson of the English Tudor King Henry VII) of Scotland for King over the descendants of Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor (the line was a bit foggy this way to be fair).
Cecil basically appointed James VI of Scotland as James I of England as soon as Elizabeth I died and James headed to England not too long after (this effectively created Great Britain as, under Henry VIII Wales was officially annexed to England in 'The Laws of Wales Acts' in the 1530s and now the Scottish Monarch sat on the British throne).
England didn't take to her new King well and there were two plots against his life in 1603 alone (the famous Guy Fawkes plot of 1605, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot, was English Catholics). He became very critical and harsh on Catholics after this and it was from this that the Authorised Version of the Bible, or King James version of the Bible came about.
The King that gives his name to this book had what are called 'favourites' these men, because they were always men, are believed by many, if not most historians think these people were lovers of the King, who sent his wife off to her own castle and be nowhere near him.
One such favourite was George Villiers. James was known to call this man his 'wife'.
One Knight in Whitehall Palace in 1610 said "the King sold his affections to Sir George Villiers, whom he would tumble and kiss as a mistress."
Later on the Ambassador of Venice said that James would not "eat, sup or remain an hour without Villiers and considers him his whole joy."
James himself was asked about his relationship with George and said:
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."
To sum up. The King James Bible is written by someone who reportedly was a homosexual and who, when confronted about the issue didn't deny it but actually called Jesus a homosexual comparing his own relationship (like that of a mistress) with the relationship between Jesus and John.
So when we use this Bible, if anyone looks up who it is named after they will find things that contradict the theology of the Christians that use it, it's like shooting yourself in the foot really.
Who was King James:
In 1532 King Henry VIII secretly married Anne Boleyn and divorced (publicly) Catherine of Aragon, his wife. Thus beginning English Protestantism and the translation of 'Holy Writ' into English.
In 1603 Henry's sole surviving heir, Queen Elizabeth 1 (daughter of Anne Boleyn) died. This meant a new person and dynasty would wear the crown. In Henry's will he stated that the crown, assuming all three of his children died without issue, should go to descendants of his sister Mary (who married his best friend, Charles Brandon) and not to descendants of Margaret (who married James IV of Scotland).
Sir Robert Cecil, one of Elizabeth I's ministers preferred James VI (Margaret Tudor's great grandson and great great grandson of the English Tudor King Henry VII) of Scotland for King over the descendants of Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor (the line was a bit foggy this way to be fair).
Cecil basically appointed James VI of Scotland as James I of England as soon as Elizabeth I died and James headed to England not too long after (this effectively created Great Britain as, under Henry VIII Wales was officially annexed to England in 'The Laws of Wales Acts' in the 1530s and now the Scottish Monarch sat on the British throne).
England didn't take to her new King well and there were two plots against his life in 1603 alone (the famous Guy Fawkes plot of 1605, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot, was English Catholics). He became very critical and harsh on Catholics after this and it was from this that the Authorised Version of the Bible, or King James version of the Bible came about.
The King that gives his name to this book had what are called 'favourites' these men, because they were always men, are believed by many, if not most historians think these people were lovers of the King, who sent his wife off to her own castle and be nowhere near him.
One such favourite was George Villiers. James was known to call this man his 'wife'.
One Knight in Whitehall Palace in 1610 said "the King sold his affections to Sir George Villiers, whom he would tumble and kiss as a mistress."
Later on the Ambassador of Venice said that James would not "eat, sup or remain an hour without Villiers and considers him his whole joy."
James himself was asked about his relationship with George and said:
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."
To sum up. The King James Bible is written by someone who reportedly was a homosexual and who, when confronted about the issue didn't deny it but actually called Jesus a homosexual comparing his own relationship (like that of a mistress) with the relationship between Jesus and John.
So when we use this Bible, if anyone looks up who it is named after they will find things that contradict the theology of the Christians that use it, it's like shooting yourself in the foot really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)