Can We Trust Our Bible...

There was quite an article in the local newspaper about a new book that "makes a good case for using the King James Version above all other translations."  The author of the book, Rick Shoemaker, who pastors a small independent Baptist church in the area (which BTW, provides directions to the church before directions on how to be saved...) says those who use modern versions of the Bible are "simply deceived."

Apparently the people that translated the KJV were "inspired by God to do so, and ...other translations were inspired by man to be translated, and they were subject to man's interpretation."  He goes on to compare word use, omissions and additions between the KJV and any newer version.

But what about the KJV and its origins?  When King James became king in 1603, England was deep in theological controversy, primarily between the Anglicans (Church of England) and the Puritans.  King James appointed himself "mediator" between the two groups  and appointed a group of translators to look at the original languages and write a new translation.  However, he wound up siding with the Anglican church, which interestingly, was the position that posed the smallest political threat to his power.  He was personally involved in some of the translation choices, choosing translations that conveniently reinforced the power of the ruling elite and discouraged equality.  (You can read for yourself in God's Secretaries: the Making of the King James Bible.) 


So given KJ's self-interest and the limits of the "original manuscripts" available in the 1600's, you'll never convince me that the KJB is the "inspired" word.  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which added older versions of many of the biblical texts to our resources, showed that many "additions" had been made over the years.  So you can't really argue as Shoemaker does that the New International Version subtracts "but by every word of God" from the verse in Luke 4:4 that starts, "That man shall not live by bread alone."  You have to argue that a creative scribe added the second part to the original manuscript.

So take heart if you are one of the deceived using a newer translation of the Bible.  There's really no sinister plot out there to undermine the church with the New International Version or the New Revised Standard Version.  In fact, they may be closer to what actually got read in the early church...and take the arguments on, because really, every reading/translation of the Bible, ancient text or modern, is human interpretation.  Language is never a scientific exercise and you can't make it one, even if it is your "favorite" language.

Wonder if they would quote me if I wrote a book...