I was upset when the pastor my church insisted that King James version (KJV) of the Bible was the only version to be used and to be considered as the preserved Word of God this morning. Even more sad was the reasoning he used to come to this conclusion.
He said that KJV has been attested through history and has traditions. He mentioned that all the revivals occurred using KJV. But he did not realise that KJV only has a history of less than 500 years. No one was using KJV when the church started and no one was using KJV when revivals occurred from the 1st century to the 17th century. There were other English versions of the Bible such as Geneva Bible and Wycliffe's translation which had contributed to the spiritual progress of many men and women of God (Protestant and Puritan movement). Not to mention the fact that there was no English translation of the Bible until the 14th Century and the original manuscripts were never written in that language. I could not understand how the form has taken so much importance over the content that KJV has become the Word of God. What is the logic behind such thinking?
He also said that KJV was authorized by the king of England at that time and not by some businessmen who were only interested in profit in trying to make the Bible more readable and thus selling more volumes. This was a dangerous statement to make because of the implications on the publishers of the different versions of the English Bible. I know personally that Crossway has made their ESV (a more literal translation) freely available for download and can be used in free bible software such as e-sword. (E-Sword comes with so many resources that no one can argue that the developer is trying to make a profit out of its distribution.) BibleGateway offers 50 versions of the Bible which are feely readable from the Internet. All these are free electronically!
At the same time, the pastor has appealed to the authority of a man, King James, but he was not really a man of great repute. A quick search in Wikipedia will show that he was involved in all sorts of controversies e.g. affairs, financial mismanagement etc. He has his strengths and contributions as well, but how could we affirm KJV just because it was authorized by him. Are we evaluating the authority of the Bible based on one man's reputation and stature? If that is the case, I would rather choose the Geneva Bible or Wycliffe.
He mentioned that he need not hear what other scholars say about Jesus Christ, our Lord because he has the Bible with him. This is to me implies a very positivist perspective of knowledge where the content of the Bible could be transmitted verbatim to our minds without any interpretation from our cognitive abilities. It is as if knowledge of the Word of God could be transferred from the Bible to our brains without any lost of meanings, much like transferring a file from the thumb drive to our PCs.
This is a sad situation for me even as I am writing this. May God enlighten him.
He said that KJV has been attested through history and has traditions. He mentioned that all the revivals occurred using KJV. But he did not realise that KJV only has a history of less than 500 years. No one was using KJV when the church started and no one was using KJV when revivals occurred from the 1st century to the 17th century. There were other English versions of the Bible such as Geneva Bible and Wycliffe's translation which had contributed to the spiritual progress of many men and women of God (Protestant and Puritan movement). Not to mention the fact that there was no English translation of the Bible until the 14th Century and the original manuscripts were never written in that language. I could not understand how the form has taken so much importance over the content that KJV has become the Word of God. What is the logic behind such thinking?
He also said that KJV was authorized by the king of England at that time and not by some businessmen who were only interested in profit in trying to make the Bible more readable and thus selling more volumes. This was a dangerous statement to make because of the implications on the publishers of the different versions of the English Bible. I know personally that Crossway has made their ESV (a more literal translation) freely available for download and can be used in free bible software such as e-sword. (E-Sword comes with so many resources that no one can argue that the developer is trying to make a profit out of its distribution.) BibleGateway offers 50 versions of the Bible which are feely readable from the Internet. All these are free electronically!
At the same time, the pastor has appealed to the authority of a man, King James, but he was not really a man of great repute. A quick search in Wikipedia will show that he was involved in all sorts of controversies e.g. affairs, financial mismanagement etc. He has his strengths and contributions as well, but how could we affirm KJV just because it was authorized by him. Are we evaluating the authority of the Bible based on one man's reputation and stature? If that is the case, I would rather choose the Geneva Bible or Wycliffe.
He mentioned that he need not hear what other scholars say about Jesus Christ, our Lord because he has the Bible with him. This is to me implies a very positivist perspective of knowledge where the content of the Bible could be transmitted verbatim to our minds without any interpretation from our cognitive abilities. It is as if knowledge of the Word of God could be transferred from the Bible to our brains without any lost of meanings, much like transferring a file from the thumb drive to our PCs.
This is a sad situation for me even as I am writing this. May God enlighten him.
Comments