What about modern translations? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
So now we’re about to look at modern translations. Some stuff, I’m actually going to skip because it’s just so tedious. At any rate, the source material can be found here.
In the last chapter we learned that:
“… The KJV reverberates with ETERNAL FAMILIARITY … Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE that the world HAS EVER SEEN … Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as ONE OF THE FINEST SAMPLES OF WRITING STYLES IN EXISTENCE … The KJV … has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the MOST BEAUTIFUL, it BEARS THE MOST FRUIT, it produces SPIRITUAL REVIVAL, it is the EASIEST TO MEMORIZE … the version of 1611 … is probably the BEST version EVER MADE … etc. etc. etc.
Actually, we just heard this asserted. One can say the KJV was a fine work for its time, but that doesn’t mean it will be the same today. If anything, this sounds eerily like the way that Muslims treat the Qur’an.
Now contrast those quotes with sales pitches for ‘modern versions’:
… the King James Bible is too hard to understand … its words are archaic … people don’t understand it … it has thee’s and thou’s …. today’s Christian needs is a ‘more readable’ version … etc. etc.
There is some validity to this. The English language has changed and we need translations that match the way of the usage of language for our time. One can say the KJV was beautiful for its time and still does maintain some great beauty today, but it is also a difficult translation to understand using words and idioms we no longer use.
These two views are diametrically opposed to one another. Only one of them is true. Either the King James Bible IS the … BEST EXAMPLE of English literature the world HAS EVER SEEN or it ISN’T.
So, should we believe:
- A) The ‘non-financially’ compensated comments of the first view?
- B) Should we believe ‘salesmen’ and ‘marketing ads’ ?
We should believe what is true regardless of what the motivations are for someone saying it. I could just as well say that Johnson is a salesman for the position of KJV-onlyism so should I believe him? Of course, I can also point out that he is only giving one side of the equation.
Instead of emotionally (and philosophically) debating this question, let’s get the facts.
Sounds like a good plan, but I doubt that that will happen. To get the facts, one actually needs to consult both sides of the equation. Johnson does not have any opposing sources in his bibliography. He only quotes KJV-onlyists and then what they have to say about his opponents.
Sales pitches for new, modern, versions contain several ‘claims’. In this chapter, we will test them for truth.
And throughout this work I have been testing Johnson for truth and so far, he isn’t doing good. We’ll see if this gets any better, but I doubt that it will.
(And I affirm the virgin birth)