Logos Made Flesh

3 Reasons You Shouldn’t Read the King James Bible

July 11, 2012 — 31 Comments

Without fail! It happens every time I talk about bible translations. Someone approaches me and says they’ve heard that the King James Version is the most accurate translation around.

I’m sorry. It’s not.

I know its the version your family read, you’re church read and the one you’ve studied, memorized and cherish.
I know its the most widely distributed translation in English.
I know it was accurate for its time.

But it’s really time you shelve the King James Version and pick a new translation! Here’s why.

1. The KJV is not based on the most accurate manuscripts.

If you read the KJV you’re reading things the Biblical authors DID NOT WRITE. It’s not that it’s translators were in some secret conspiracy to deceive the masses. They weren’t. They were working with the best copies they had at the time. But these copies had errors – errors which entered the text over 1400 years of hand copying hand copies.

The vast majority of these errors were small and unintentional. If you’ve ever tried copying a lengthy handwritten document you may have experienced some of the following.

errors caused by sight.
errors caused by hearing and transcription.
errors caused by lapses in memory.

But some copyists intentionally changed the text – a fact that later copiers could not rectify because all they had was the copy in front of them. It’s similar to the errors created and passed on in the game of telephone. The famous 4th century Bible translator Jerome said,

They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning, and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own.

These copyists made

spelling and grammar changes
harmonistic alterations
factual corrections
conflations
and even support for certain doctrines

The later is clearly evident in 1 John 1:7 where the King James reads,

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It’s great proof text for the trinity. The problem is that no church writer quoted it when the doctrine of the trinity was being hammered out in the 3rd and 4th century. The reason is that not one manuscript contained these words until the late middle ages. It’s an insertion and not at all what John wrote.

And it’s not the only one.

2. The KJV is not the language we speak today.

The King James Version may sound poetic but it’s not easily understood by the vast majority of modern English speakers. And it’s not just because of the thees and thous. You may have heard some of these words. But can you tell me what they mean?

abjects, afore, agone, amerce, artificer, bethink, bewray, botch, bray, by and by, caul, chargeable, concupiscenece, coping, cotes, cumbered, dissimulation, doleful, durst, emerods, fan, felloe, firkin, froward, gainsay, grisled, holden, holpen, ignominy, lade, lees, lucre, minish, mote, paps, paradventure, platted, quick, remission, requite, shambles, sheepcote, slow bellies, superfluous, thitherward, twain, unction, wimples, wont

OK, I’m sure you could get close to their meaning if you read them in context. But are you sure its the right meaning and not just a faulty guess?

You can learn a lot about the English language from reading the King James Version. But is that the point of reading the Bible? To broaden our vocabulary? I don’t think so.

The dedication to the King James version is the same love Catholics have for language of Latin. It’s traditional. It’s what we’ve always done. But stop and ask yourself does it still work? Is it helpful? Or are the people in the pews just hearing someone speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:19).

3. There are better versions available!

It’s perfectly acceptable to read the King James Version IF nothing better is available. I’ve often read it when it was the only Bible I could find. But that’s not often the case today! There are two other translations, the NASB and the ESV which are based upon more accurate manuscripts and that use the King James Word-For-Word method of translation. While the New KJV attempts to modernize some of the KJV’s language it still does not address the underlying manuscript issues.

What do you think?

In Bible, Devotions

The Three Types of Bibles

July 9, 2012 — 2 Comments

I’ll never forget sweet Grandma Lydia’s awkward pause as she read 1 Samuel 20:30 from the Living Bible.

“Saul boiled with rage. “You son of a b…

You could see that she didn’t know what to do. She stood there in front of our Sunday School class, a blush spreading across her cheeks.

“Come on,” I said with a smile. “If it’s in the Bible its OK to say.”

She never read it. God bless her!

I like to open discussions of translation with this particular rendering of scripture. It’s ear-opening to say the least.

It certainly amused me, finding as I did in my daily devotions at the age of 17. I approached my youth pastor the next Sunday, handed him my bible and said, “God gave me 1 Samuel 20:30 as a word for you” :0.

Don’t worry. He eventually forgave me.

Such an out-of-place word causes us to wonder about the differences between Bible versions. What makes a good translation? Is there one better than the other?

What do you want most in a translation? Every time I ask my students this question it comes down to these two issues:

Accuracy: we want a translation that is faithful to the original language.
Clarity: we want a translation that is easy to read and understand.

The problem for translators, however, is that these two desires are not easy to meet with equity. Accuracy and clarity are like two sides of a scale, focus too much on one and the other side gets out of balance.

Words in one language, for instance, don’t have the same range of meaning that they do in another. In John 3:3 for instance, Jesus tells Nicodimus, “no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born anothen.” The word anothen means a “second time” but it also means “from above.” No English word possesses this range of meaning. Any single word used in translation will at least partially obscure its meaning.

Likewise, the ordering of words in translation can upset the balance of accuracy and clarity. We say, “This is my friend.” We don’t say, “Friend my this is.” But in Hebrew and Greek the later construction is quite natural and reveals a great deal about the the meaning of the sentence. We know that stressing different words changes the implication of a sentence.

This is my friend. Neutral
This is my friend. As opposed to someone else’s friend.
This is my friend. As opposed to my enemy or something else.

The free ordering of words in Hebrew and Greek reveal the stress on any given word. It tells us what ideas are more important and what ideas are less. Reordering the words so they make sense in English without losing meaning can be difficult.

Finding the right balance between accuracy and clarity is the reason we find so many versions today. To this end, Bible translations break down into three groups, each representing a particular method.

Word-For-Word translations (a.k.a formal equivalence): The translator tries to find the nearest equivalent words and to place them in as close a corresponding order to the original text as possible. The NASB, ESV, KJV and NKJV follow this translation method.

Thought-For-Thought translations (a.k.a. dynamic equivalence): The translator attempts to grasp the meaning of the sentence or phrase and to translate that meaning in whatever words or phrases that are deemed most useful. The NIV, TNIV, NET and the NLT follow this more modern method.

Transliterations: These “translators” follow a Thought-For-Thought method but begin with a Word-For-Word translation instead of the Greek text. They are twice removed from the original language. Like a copy of a copy they are interpretations on top of translations. The Message and the Living Bible are the more popular representations of this group.

A Word-For-Word translation of 1 Samuel 20:30 reads,

Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, ‘You son of a perverse rebellious woman!’ (NASB)

Though it may not be a Word-For-Word rendering, I think the Living Bible rendering captures Saul’s thought quite nicely.

What do you think?

In Bible, Devotions

Is Sex Essential to Jesus’ Encounter with the Woman by the Well?

July 1, 2012 — 15 Comments

I’d like to hear from YOU. This past week we explored the “sexual” subtext in Jesus conversation with the woman by the well.

Now, I’d like to hear from you. What do YOU think about the issues that have been raised in this series?

In the first post, I noted the seemingly disjointed topic of the woman’s marital status and noted that it had something to do with John’s description of Jesus as the bridegroom.
In the second post, I showed how Jesus and the Samaritan woman’s meeting follows the consistent pattern of engagement scenes in the Old Testament.
In the third post, we looked at how John connects the location of the well to a story of rape and marriage.
And finally in the last post, I asked if the issue of the woman’s marital status could have arisen because of (a) perceived double-entendre(s).

So here’s my question to YOU. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON?

Is the marital innuendo in the historical situation itself?
Is it part of the inspired message of John?
or does it simply arise in the overactive imaginations (or dirty minds) of the readers?

I for one believe it’s both 1 and 2. It’s not without reason that John is known as the Spiritual Gospel.

But you might think its 3. Say so!

If you thinks its 1 or 2 though, tell us what you think John is up to. What spiritual message is he driving at?

What do YOU think? Oh and I’d be glad to take any questions that you might have for me.

This is your chance to write down all those thoughts, feelings and questions you’ve been wrestling with while reading this series. I’d be delighted if you shared them.

NOTE: If you don’t feel comfortable leaving your information, I do allow anonymous posts. But please, please don’t use it as cover to write rude or offensive comments.

In Gospels

15 Comments

What Exactly Do You Mean By “Water”?

June 29, 2012 — 2 Comments

STOP! Before you read any further, I strongly encourage you to read the first three posts in this series (here, here and here). If you don’t know what’s been covered, you may be offended. My intention is not to offend but to cause you to think more deeply about God’s word

You’ve heard of a double-entendre, right? It’s a spoken word or phrase that can be understood in two different ways. The first is simple and safe, the second risqué. For instance, a double-entendre is central to the following sentence. “A nudist beach is place where men and women go to air there differences.”

Could a double-entendre lay at the heart of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman? Might SHE THINK… Jesus… ahhh… is offering her… sex?

WOW! That was tough to write. I’m sure you never thought you’d read that from a conservative evangelical. I hope your hanging with me and didn’t throw your phone or break your computer.

In Bible

Why We Don’t Talk About That Plot of Ground

June 27, 2012 — 4 Comments

“Don’t open that door!” Have you ever seen a horror film and screamed like a little girl those exact words? I know I have. A certain tension is created by knowing what happens in these situations. We know the rules. When young scantily clad girls open doors to darkened rooms, there’s a knife welding maniac just waiting for them.

Well John isn’t too far removed from creating such tension in the description of Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman. Why else would he mention the PLOT OF GROUND THAT JACOB GAVE TO HIS SON JOSEPH (John 4:5)! I know. Sounds scary, doesn’t it? Well maybe it’s not scary, but something really intense did happen at this exact spot. And involved… yea, you guessed… a man and a woman.

The plot of ground is mentioned three times in the Old Testament (Gen. 33:19, 48:22 and Josh. 24:32). In the later two instances its just mentioned in passing. The first time, however, it’s the backdrop and catalyst to a very heated story. Read Genesis 33:18-34:4: