Churches Should Adopt a Modern Version of the Bible
In my previous post, I asked if churches should abandon the King James Version for a modern English translation. I answered, “Yes,” and suggested there were two main reasons…But the truth is that after 400 years it suffers a number of shortcomings when compared to modern versions. I will mention two. The biggest problem by far with the KJV is the archaic language…Another part of the translation problem with the KJV is that although it was well done for its day, our knowledge of the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek has advanced significantly since 1611. This means that today we have a more accurate understanding of what the original authors of Scripture were saying, and we can express that in current, natural English.Dr. Bill Combs at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary asks if Churches Should Adopt a Modern Version of the Bible. See also: Should Churches Abandon the King James Version?
- 19 views
Amazing how all the tired, old arguments that have little or no basis get trotted out again and again, both here and on Dr Combs’s blog.
Kinda reminds me of D.A. Waite’s failed “fourfold superiority” arguments. Superior texts never to be excelled. Superior translators, IQs of which will never be seen till the end of time. Superior theology, untainted by the Romish and Secular inroads of our day. Superior something else, I forget, but equally untenable.
Come to think of it, Combs may be ahead of some Fundamentalist circles, but he’s probably about 20 years behind where we should be. We should have identified Single-Version-Onlyism for the nonsense that it is (even Jesus and His followers rejected a Masoretic- or LXX-only approach in their day!) and moved on. Our discourse should be centering on proclaiming the whole counsel—not just the familiar/favourite verses thereof—of God, e.g. the cycles of arguments between the opening and closing episodes of Job. We should have been focused on getting people to understand the whole message and drama of redemption as read from an understandable text, and then making direct applications to daily, weekly life.
We should long have stopped dancing around the pretty mole-hill sized (what, 2%? 2.5%?) issue of textual variants. We should long have marched beyond the issue of dynamic/functional equivalence vs formal equivalence—just look at how the NT uses both without exalting one over the other. We should have demonstrated, as the NT does, how multiple versions with multiple wordings can indeed communicate a singular message and gospel, and how the Holy Spirit can use all that to conform us to the image of the Son.
Rather than this. Because we already had all the facts then, textual, linguistic, and in so many other ways. Things have not moved forward much in these fields over the last 20 years due to all the posturing to accommodate those who teach a different view of versions than Christ and His apostles did. Perhaps it’s time to let those detractors be and get on with discipleship and the Great Commission and biblical separation.
Kinda reminds me of D.A. Waite’s failed “fourfold superiority” arguments. Superior texts never to be excelled. Superior translators, IQs of which will never be seen till the end of time. Superior theology, untainted by the Romish and Secular inroads of our day. Superior something else, I forget, but equally untenable.
Come to think of it, Combs may be ahead of some Fundamentalist circles, but he’s probably about 20 years behind where we should be. We should have identified Single-Version-Onlyism for the nonsense that it is (even Jesus and His followers rejected a Masoretic- or LXX-only approach in their day!) and moved on. Our discourse should be centering on proclaiming the whole counsel—not just the familiar/favourite verses thereof—of God, e.g. the cycles of arguments between the opening and closing episodes of Job. We should have been focused on getting people to understand the whole message and drama of redemption as read from an understandable text, and then making direct applications to daily, weekly life.
We should long have stopped dancing around the pretty mole-hill sized (what, 2%? 2.5%?) issue of textual variants. We should long have marched beyond the issue of dynamic/functional equivalence vs formal equivalence—just look at how the NT uses both without exalting one over the other. We should have demonstrated, as the NT does, how multiple versions with multiple wordings can indeed communicate a singular message and gospel, and how the Holy Spirit can use all that to conform us to the image of the Son.
Rather than this. Because we already had all the facts then, textual, linguistic, and in so many other ways. Things have not moved forward much in these fields over the last 20 years due to all the posturing to accommodate those who teach a different view of versions than Christ and His apostles did. Perhaps it’s time to let those detractors be and get on with discipleship and the Great Commission and biblical separation.
Nor do I think a church should use only one particular version. I was just defending christian’s one point about the uneasiness of the restrictions on the use of these versions. I agree, scholars and workers need to be paid; however, the ESV is over 10 years old now and the NIV over 30. My guess the cost of translation has long been paid. If it’s just to cover cost of printing, why not leave it open to everyone to publish? Wouldn’t that help in the cost of distribution to the masses? Wouldn’t it also help in distributing your version to more people?
BTW, I love this statement in NIV’s copyright page.
“These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated.”
BTW, I love this statement in NIV’s copyright page.
“These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated.”
The objection on ground of copyright sounds good, but doesn’t really hold water in the days where just about any modern translation (English or otherwise), not to mention the more obscure ones, can be accessed over the internet on e-readers, computers, mobile phones, and who know what else. The http://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/d…] ESV and http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Bible-Christian-ebook/dp/B0045U9UES/ref=…] HCSB have had free Kindle versions for quite some time now. Furthermore, most any church can buy low cost printed versions ideal for distribution. There is a sense of commercialism out there, sure- but copyright also does allow a certain measure of control that is good (not allowing the translation to be adopted/adapted by cult groups, for example).
BTW- I’m not seeing too many complaints from people that DA Waite’s http://www.biblefortoday.org/kj_bibles.asp] Defined King James Bible is not available for free, and is under copyright… :-)
BTW- I’m not seeing too many complaints from people that DA Waite’s http://www.biblefortoday.org/kj_bibles.asp] Defined King James Bible is not available for free, and is under copyright… :-)
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
BTW- I’m not seeing too many complaints from people that DA Waite’s Defined King James Bible is not available for free, and is under copyright…Defined King James Bible? $35
Pithy Comment about it’s cost: priceless
FWIW, I have no problem at all with BFT charging for their work. In fact, D.A. Waite Jr. was one of my English and Bible teachers in High School, and his brother, Richard, took over my father’s pulpit when he retired. Of course, I always use my old Cambridge KJV whenever I’ve been in the pulpit in my old home church.
And after this comment, I may never be invited again :)
M. Scott Bashoor Happy Slave of Christ
Discussion