King James Version

I had a short small chuckle when I saw a bumper sticker that said something to the affect… if it’s not King James, then it’s not the Bible.

To be sure, it is a serious subject.  Nonetheless, the foolishness of such a statement is easy to see.  Even so, in a way, I can kind identify with it.

Now that might sound like a bunch of mambo-jumbo, to be sure a conflict in ideas.  First, for those few who don’t realize the error, let me explain.

  1. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Certainly the Israelites studied what we call the Old Testament for centuries and it was completely valid.  Then, for a few centuries, the Christian Church studied the scriptures in both Greek and Hebrew.  That was, and is today valid.  In fact, for those able to read and understand the original language, it is likely an advantage.  I certainly wished I could read the original.
  2. The King James was written in a dialogue that most of us would have a difficult time understanding. Since it made its way on the scene, many of the words have changed meaning.  Many of the words are simply archaic.  It would be far better to read a translation that is more current, provided it is accurate.
  3. The original King James is not completely accurate. For instance, it translates the  commandant, as “Thou shalt not kill.”  It is almost unanimous among the experts that it should have been “Thou shalt not murder.”  Granted it is a small difference, but it has misled uncounted millions to use the commandant as a reason for not going to war.  Indeed, the scriptures speak of killing many times, but never does it justify murder.

Now that I have so badly ridiculed the translation, let me explain how the person with the bumper sticker had his heart in the right place.  Nowadays, there are many translations, some not so good.  Some suggest or outright say that God is female.  I do not want to consider stepping into eternity with that concept.

Too be sure, it is the modern concept of religion to accept beliefs a-la-carte.  They accept this belief while rejecting others.  Take for instance, Pelosi, as well as most democrats.  She said, as a Catholic, she learned not to hate.  Then, she allows, even encourages abortion.  Moreover, what she said was a lie and most of us know it.  She hates the president so much that she has permitted her time as Speaker to be an abject failure.  Mostly, her only accomplishment has been to impeach POTUS.

The scriptures were never intended as something to select from as on a holy buffet line.  It is akin to creating one’s own religion.  Of course, when a person makes up their own religion, it does have advantages.  However, all those advantages have an end.

In such situations, I am reminded of the passage, an illustration of a man who cuts down a tree.  Half of it he uses in a fire to keep warm.  The other half, he carves into an idol.  Then the man bows down to the idol and prays to it.  Have you ever heard of anything so ludicrous.

Of course, modern man does not make idols like that.  Well that’s not true.  A short trip through Asia will verify that there are still people in this world that expect help from things that cannot help them.  They are just a ridiculous as the idol the man carved from the tree.  Yet, I risk the anger of those who read this.  To them, I am committing a horrible sacrilege.  To them, I am being inconsiderate.

I ask.  Which is more horrible, to present the truth or allow people to continue to believe the lies?  Of course, if there is no God, it makes no difference.  There is no reason for me to rain on their parade.  It all rides on the one question.  Is there a God and who is he.  The question is important enough that we all should consider it.

When Pelosi’s heart beats its last, when she takes last breath and she comes face-to-face with her maker, she just might have some explaining to do.  To be sure, I will have to cough up a few explanations too.  However, she is going to have to explain the death, the outright murder of millions of babies under her watch.  Somehow, I think that will more than singe the locks on her head.

By the way, I prefer the New King James translation.  However, I am sure there are two or three other translations that are good.  Most of all, let’s not practice our religion a-la-carte.  That is even worse than not believing in God at all.  It gives Christianity a bad rap.

4 thoughts on “King James Version

  1. There was a Jesuit on the so=called translation committee for the NKJV
    I read your article. I’m sure King James only had one wife.
    Are you actually a Catholic?

    • No. Catholicism is a religion. My relationship with Jesus is not religious. It is based on faith in Him, not some man in Rome who I don’t even know. Possibly I was wrong about the wives. However, the committee James formed still had to tread lightly with their translation.

    • Then I guess no one was saved between the cross and King James. As I said before, the original was Hebrew and Greek. Also, the Spanish, Germans and French have their translations. Are they all wrong too. The Bible has been translated into over 100 different languages. To be sure, occasional errors occur. The original King James translation has a number of them. In the original Hebrew, Jonah was swallowed by a large fish. The Greek makes no differentiation between a large fish and a whale. Hence, when translating from the Greek to English, Jesus used the term Whale.
      From the Greek, we have no way of knowing if it was a fish or whale. However, given the complete context of the Book of Jonah, I suspect that Jesus said fish. Nonetheless, for hundreds of years, everyone who read the King James version was convinced that Jesus used the term whale. If He did use use the whale, there is a minor contradiction in terms between the Old and New Testament.
      Regardless, the Book of Jonah says that the fish was created by God. It implies that it was created for the one purpose. There likely was not one like it before or after. If he wanted to do it that way, that’s fine with me. He can do things like that when wants to. On the other hand, he could have used a whale or a fish that already existed. He can do that too. It just is that it says he created one. Either way, it makes it difficult to defend the King James version as the one and only.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s