| Visitors |
Currently 8 anonymous souls are browsing this site. |
|
|
Is The "New King James Bible" The Word Of God?
|
|
--By Robert J. Sargent
The "New King James Bible" of 1979 is promoted as an "updated" King James Version (1611 A.D.). Its revisions are said to be no more than those which occurred m 1613 A.D., when the 1611 A.D. work underwent a few minor grammatical and spelling changes. Thus the "New King James Bible" (henceforth designated "N. K.J. B.") is to all extents and purposes the old King James Version (A.V.), with its archaic (obsolete English) words changed into modern English along with the absence of all Elizabethan pronouns and verb endings.
Because the A.V. has been uniquely blessed of God for well over 350 years, and because the last 100 years has seen the rise of many "perversions," it is wise for God's people to be hesitant in their acceptance of any new translation. Nevertheless, our acceptance or rejection of anything ought not to lie with inbred reactionary or progressive motives, but with careful and prayerful study of the facts in the light of Scripture itself.
This article is the result of such a study. Its point of view is from the heart of one who loves the Word of God, esteems it to be far above all the counsels of men, and values it more than any other worldly possession. Its confidence lies in an Almighty God, Who is abundantly able to preserve His written Word beyond the passing of heaven and earth.
The writer freely confesses he neither owns nor uses a copy of the N.K.J.B. For the purposes of settling the issue in his heart and mind, borrowed copies have been used, and these have not been fully read through merely perused and compared with the Bible long accepted as the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of God, namely the A.V.
The conclusion reached is that the N.K.J.V. is more than mere "realignment to a transitory language" (i.e. English), but that it is in many places quite different to the A.V., not a few times significantly so. This leads the reader to three distinct possibilities:
1. The N.K.J.V. is the Word of God --- the corollary being that for 368 years we never quite had the Word of God.
2. The Word of God was preserved only m the Massoretic Hebrew text and the Greek Textus Receptus, the A.V. and the N.K.J.B. being versions of these in English --- meaning that only those competent in Hebrew and Greek can be certain of having the Word of God.
3. The A.V. is the Word of God providentially preserved in the English language --- and the N.K.J.B. only "contains" the Word of God, but is NOT the Word of God.
In his promotional remarks for the N.K.J.B. found on the jacket of the New Testament edition, a prominent fundamentalist, Dr. Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg, Virginia, U.S.A. has this to say:
"This new edition preserves all of the truth and authority of the original, but makes it much easier to read and understand. It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars."
It can only be assumed that this great man, although participating in the North American Overview Committee concerned with the production of the N.K.J.B., has never actually read the very book he is promoting, for his statement is false! The N.K.J.B. does not protect every thought, idea and word of the A.V., but in many places changes these things far beyond its stated aim of simply updating it.
The N.K.J.B. is not the Word of God. From a purely human standpoint, it obviously stands head and shoulders above the rest of the works of men which claim to be Bibles, in that it is based upon the Textus Receptus (N.T.) and is translated by men who have expressed their belief in the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, it has many shortfalls, and these are outlined as follows:
1. The Translators Of The N.K.J.B. Are Biased Toward The A.V.
The Introduction to the New Testament edition of the N.K.J.B. appears to extol the A.V. with heart-warming sentiment. With phrases such as, "still deeply revered," "majesty of the form," "beauty of language," "stately and reverent cadence," one could be excused for believing the Committees involved were ardent lovers of the A.V.
Riveted between such statements are the "tell-tale" signs that such love for the A.V. does not extend to a belief in its pre-eminence. In the same Introduction, we also read things like, "The publishers have felt obliged to follow the method of the original translators to produce a revised English edition which will unlock the spiritual treasures found uniquely in the King James Version," and, "All participating scholars have signed a document of subscription to the plenary and verbal inspiration of the ORIGINAL autographs of the Bible."
These are the words of those who feel the A.V. needs correcting not updating! You can believe what you like about the ORIGINAL manuscripts because they don't exist, and never will.
This is the bottom line of the whole issue at hand. Did God preserve His Word in the original languages, or, for all English speaking peoples, in the A.V.? It makes a difference! How often do we hear or read things like: "That's what the Bible says . . . but, in the Greek it really means....", or, "a better translation would be...."?
We need to face up to some very relevant questions here.
a. Is God's Word for all men or just for the scholars?
b. Do we need to know Hebrew & Greek to fully understand the Bible? If so, how come they are difficult languages to master? Is God out to make life difficult?
c. If we need to rely upon the best Hebrew and Greek scholars, does this not set up two classes of Christians?
d. Does the average "3 year of Bible College" Baptist preacher have the right to correct the Bible on the basis of the Greek text or on what he may have read?
e. If some verses in the Bible are questionable, can we really be sure of any?
f. If we correct any (non-doctrinal) verse on any basis, are we then blatantly inconsistent for impugning the modernists when they correct doctrinal verses on the same basis?
g. If we correct, criticize, or question one verse of the Bible, what are we m effect saying to baby Christians who just got saved through the same Book?
h. Can we not expect the same result when we read from another "Bible" that says differently, or in some cases the exact opposite?
Only those who believe the Mr. Average has never enjoyed the pure Word of God could say they feel obliged to "unlock the treasures" of the A.V.
 |
|
|
Print
eMail