And his bishopric let another take

      In my Sunday School class, we are doing most of the year on apologetics, with a break every once in a while on an obscure person of the Bible - a person we don't know much about, but is mentioned usually very briefly in the Bible. This week's lesson was on Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas, the two men they picked between to replace Judas as an apostle in the first chapter of Acts. The Sunday School  teacher was reading aloud the verses he had selected from that chapter, pausing to comment occasionally. I was reading ahead, and my eyes fell on verse 20, which says:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take."

  Bishopric? What on earth is that?

   My church uses the King James Version of the Bible, which is the version I was raised on. Occasionally, my pastor will brave the rabid KJV only people in the congregation and read from the NKJV for the verses used for his sermon, but for the most part it is KJV.

 And that is the version this weird word appears in.

 I was using my Bible app, so I went to the versions page and picked one of my favorites, the CEV(Contemporary English Version) and pulled the verse up again:



"In the book of Psalms it says,

"Leave his house empty,
and don't let anyone
    live there."

It also says,

"Let someone else
    have his job."



  Job. Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I checked a few other versions and the word was also interpreted "office" in some.

    I am not anti-King James Version, but rarely use it. I can't remember the last time I used it outside of church, preferring to use other versions at home in my personal devotions and for other Bible-related things. I would rather read versions with updated language that don't use words like thou, thine, lovest, and other outdated words.

  When I pray, I don't talk like that, nor do I talk that way to anyone. "How art thou today? Lovest thou the day we are having? Has anyone taken your bishopric at the job you just quit?"

  The KJV translation was done at the order of a very immoral king. Could that have affected the translation any? I don't know, but it is amazing how fired up and self righteous people can get about being KJV only. I say self-righteous, because I think they are being that and a tad bit hypocritical. Yes, hypocritical.

  No one that I know of reads the original King James Bible. What we have as our King James Bible is an updated version of the 1611 translation.... hmm, almost sounds like the NKJV, an updated version of the KJV.......exactly! The same people condemning anyone who dares use a more modern translation than the KJV are themselves using a more modern translation than the original KJV. Yes, hypocrisy thy name is KJV only people.

  And no, I am not putting all KJV people in the same category. I know a lot of people who prefer the KJV, and that is fine. What is not fine, is the ones who condemn other translations and people who use them and spend a lot of time putting down those translations and those who use them. Those are the people I have a problem with...... the ones who pull their righteous robes around them and proudly announce they use only the KJV.


  I actually own a copy of the 1611 KJV Bible.... and wow. I challenge anyone to read it.

   There seems to be an almost idolization of this version of the Bible by many. The idea that this one translation done 400 years ago is the only translation that is infallible and perfect, and we cannot use any other and truly have God's Word....that is arrogant, silly, and wrong. Is every translation since then good? No, but there are several that are. If the KJV is the only Bible that is truly God's Word, one has to wonder about all of the poor souls prior to the KJV....how on earth did they serve God and make to to Heaven without the KJV? Is it possible they missed Heaven because they lived before King James ordered the perfect and flawless translation that is the only true Word of God? (Sarcasm intended)

  But let's be realistic and serious: can we truly say this one translation done so many years ago is the best and only translation that we should use? Who has the authority to make that decision? I know of no man who has the authority or perfect knowledge to make that decision for all of Christendom......and it is arrogant to make the claim that one knows that for sure.


  But yet there are several out there trying to do such a thing.

  Ironically, the newer translations have been translated using way more manuscripts than were available when they did the KJV translation. Interesting....



  So go ahead and read the KJV if you prefer it. That is your prerogative and your right. But it isn't your right to tell other Christians that we must use that translation.



  Meanwhile, I will be reading translations I prefer and getting more out of my Bible reading than if I were only using the KJV. You could even say that other versions have taken the bishopric of the KJV in my Bible reading.....

And for further reading, 7 things you may not know about the King James Version (taken from here):

7 things you may not know about the King James Bible

By Margaret Mowczko

The King James Version of the Bible is a great translation and has helped countless
thousands of people to find and know God, to receive his gift of salvation, and to effectively
serve him and his people. The Bible was beautifully written by some of the best scholars of
the day, and its reputation as fine literature is deserved.

Some Christians today maintain that the KJV is the superior English translation. Some
Christians and churches are so enamored with the KJV that they refuse to use, or give
credit to, any other Bible. The stance of these Christians has been referred to as KingJames-Onlyism
.
The KJV is an excellent English Bible and if you can easily understand it there is no real
reason to change to another English translation. However, one of the biggest shortcomings
for most people is its dated language.

The KJV uses many archaic words: words such as “jangling”, “subtil”, “privily”, and “holpen”,
etc. And it uses archaic expressions that are unfamiliar to modern readers and audiences.
For instance, how many people readily understand “Charity vaunteth not itself” (1 Cor.
13:4c). The earlier editions of the KJV also used spelling that is outdated, such as sunne for
“sun”. Moreover, the edition of the KJV that is still commonly used contains several words
which have changed in meaning over time. Words such as "suffer, “vile”, “conversation”
and “quit” convey a very different meaning to modern readers than was intended by the
translators. (See Matt. 19:14 KJV; Phil. 3:20-21 KJV; 1 Cor. 16:13 KJV, etc.) The fact that the
KJV uses the word “unicorn” nine times in the Old Testament is also problematic, as a
unicorn is regarded as a mythological creature rather than a real animal.

Apart from its dated language, there are a few other shortcomings of the KJV. KJV-only
people seem unaware of these shortcomings. Moreover, many accept incorrect statements
that are frequently made about the KJV. The following paragraphs contain seven pieces of
information that some KJV-only Christians may not be aware of.

(1) The KJV was not the first English translation.

A few King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible was the first English
translation of the Scriptures. This is incorrect. John Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from
Latin into English and hand copied in the 1400s. In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV
was first published, William Tyndale's English translation of the Greek New Testament was
published. “After Tyndale's, a number of other versions were produced. Among them were
the Coverdale Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops'
Bible.”[1] In fact much of the KJV borrows heavily from earlier English translations,
especially the Bishop’s Bible.

(2) The KJV has been revised several times.

Some King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible perfectly preserved the
Scriptures for all time. If this is the case there would have been no need for further edits.
The current edition of the KJV is different from the original 1611 translation and several
other early editions. “The KJV Bible we use today is actually based primarily on the major
revision completed in 1769 - 158 years after the first edition.”

(3) All early editions of the KJV contained the apocryphal books.

The 1611 version, and all other editions of the KJV that were published for the next fifty
years, contained the Apocrypha. Protestant Christians do not regard the apocryphal books
as uniquely inspired and authoritative. The 1666 edition was the first edition of the KJV that
did not include these extra books that are not included in the canon of Holy Scripture.

(4) King James authorized the new Bible translation for political reasons.

King James believed that a single ‘Authorized Version’ was a political and social necessity.
He hoped this book would hold together the warring factions of the Church of England and
the Puritans which threatened to tear apart both church and country.[3] Most of the
translators, however, were clergymen belonging to the Church of England, but at least some
had Puritan sympathies.

King James issued over a dozen rules that the translators had to follow. King James disliked
the Geneva Bible, the Bible used by the Puritans, because he believed that some of the
commentary in the margin notes did not show enough respect for kings.[4] James' new
translation was to have no commentary in the margins.

King James favored the hierarchical structure of the Church of England and wanted the
new translation to keep words that supported a bishop led hierarchy. In keeping with
James' preferred views on church government he specified, "The old ecclesiastical words
[are] to be kept; as the word church [is] not to be translated congregation." (I personally
believe that congregation is a better translation in some instances.) King James also ruled
that only his new Bible could be read in England's churches. The translation rules of King
James can be found here. The political motives of King James had a direct influence on the
translation of the KJV.

(5) The translators of the KJV 1611 were untrained in Koine Greek.

Koine (common) Greek is the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had
been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first
time in 1611. The translators of the KJV didn't even know what Koine Greek was. Some
people believed that the Greek language of the NT was a unique Spirit-inspired dialect.[5] It
was not until the late 1800s and during the 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyri
documents were discovered - many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the
language more fully.[6] Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New
Testament are scholars of Koine Greek.

(6) The KJV translation of the NT is based on relatively recent Greek manuscripts.

As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611 edition of the KJV relied on a
critically edited Greek text that was “for the most part based on about half a dozen very late
manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD)."[7] These late manuscripts include
editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus[8], as well as Robert Estienne's (a.k.a.
‘Stephanus’) edition (1550), and Theodore Beza's edition (1598). Unfortunately, one of the
manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their Greek editions contained a few "corrections"
that downplayed the importance of women in the church.[9]

(7) The early editions of the KJV are not based on the Received Text.

Most KJV advocates claim that the KJV was translated from a Greek text known as the
Textus Receptus (TR) and that the TR is especially accurate and inspired. However the TR
did not exist in 1611 when the first King James Bible was published. The first TR was written
in the 1633. “The TR used today is normally the one created by Scrivener in 1894, which
took as its basis the English translation of the KJV, giving the reader the Greek textual
choices made by the KJV translators.”[10] Conversely, most modern translations of the New
Testament are based on critical texts which take into account much more ancient, and much
less handled, Greek manuscripts. A few of these Greek manuscripts date from as early as
the third century.

Other Criticisms and Considerations

One of the criticisms leveled at some newer English translations is that the New Testament
was translated from the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament. However, the 2011
edition of the New International Version (NIV) is based on the 27th edition of the NestleAland/United

Bible Societies' Greek New Testament which is a critical text that takes into
consideration all known Greek manuscripts, and lectionary quotes, of the New
Testament.[11] Any criticism of the Westcott and Hort text, or the men themselves - and
much of the criticism has been misleading and outright slander - has no relevance
whatsoever to the latest edition of the NIV and other modern translations.

Another criticism of newer translations is that some words and phrases, and even a few
passages, that are included in the KJV are absent in newer translations. These are not
omissions. Rather, these words and phrases are additions in the KJV. These additions are
absent in the more ancient Greek manuscripts. Most modern translations still acknowledge
the traditional additions in some way (e.g. margin notes, footnotes, or in a different font,
etc.)

The King James Version is a good translation, but I believe the NIV (2011) to be better. I
mostly read the New Testament in Greek, but the English translations I use, roughly in order
of preference, are: the NIV (2011), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the King James Version (KJV). Most of the other,
better known English translations are fine too.

It is most important that we read a Bible that we can understand. The New Testament was
originally written in common, everyday Greek - a language that almost everyone in the
Roman Empire (the world of the New Testament) could easily understand. We need
modern English translations of the Bible for modern audiences.

Should we be one Bible version Christians? Part 2

 I don't think there are many people on earth clinging stubbornly to one version outside of the King James Version. There may be some, but the only dogmatic one-version Christians I have run across have been those who cling to the KJV.

  Back when I was working at the Christian bookstore, we had a new line of greeting cards come out. As a promotion, there was a coupon in the flyer to get one card free. The wife of a local pastor (not mine!) came in and spent a long time looking at the cards. Finally, she came up and laid one on the counter with a sigh and said "I was trying to find one that had a Bible verse in it from the King James, but they are all NIV. I guess I'll have to glue a King James Version Bible verse over it." I stared at her in amazement, and wanted to say "You do know you don't have to get the card, don't  you?" But I just rang her out and said nothing. The same lady went to another Christian bookstore and bought a bumper sticker to cover up the words "devil" on her church's Dirt Devil Vacuum Cleaner. Odd woman.

  I truly have no problem with people preferring the KJV, though I really do think those people are shortchanging themselves for not reading a couple of other translations. And I don't have any problems with the KJV, except the language is outdated. However, the dogmatic ones who act like the Apostle Paul used the KJV and you're a heretic if you don't.......those ones bother me. So here are a few questions I have:

1) If no version since the KJV is good and is considered heretical and bad, then what about the ones BEFORE the KJV? Were they, and are they, bad and heretical?

2) You do realize the same way KJV people act about other versions, is the same way people in that day acted when the KJV came out? Up til then, the Geneva Bible was the Bible of choice.... aren't the odds greater that the Apostle Paul used it instead of the KJV? (slight sarcasm)

3) What is so special about the KJV that makes it better than any version before or since it?

4) If one is to be so dogmatic about it, then shouldn't a KJV only person use the orginal 1611 version..... complete with the Apocrypha? Are they not being heretics by daring to use an updated version of the 1611 version....... while criticizing people who use an updated version of the KJV Bible they carry........ the NKJV...... is not the NKJV to the KJV the same thing the KJV we have now is to the original 1611 KJV?

5) King James was a wicked king. It would be like Obama getting together a group of people to make a new translation today..... and yet the translation he had done is the only perfect one and is THE Word of God....... does that make sense?

I was discussing this with my best friend, and he said most KJV only people will come back with something like "well the church just made him look bad and said stuff about him that wasn't true... he wasn't that bad of a guy". And true story, my friend did come back with that "the Catholic church was against him doing the translation, so they made up stuff about him" (No offense D. if you're reading this!)

  I did some research on this king. He doesn't sound like he was a very good person, and many historians believe he had male lovers. The evidence is pretty good to make the case that he did. And this king had the only perfect translation done.......

6) Did it ever occur to KJV only people that there were Bibles before the KJV....... good Bibles? And that people in that time most likely acted the same way about the KJV as they do about more modern translations. There was a day when people who dared to read  the KJV were thought heretical..... interesting thought....... And what about the pre-KJV Bibles..... did they suddenly become hertetical with the creation of the KJV?

7) What if you're wrong? Have you actually, with an open mind, considered it, or are you so "By God I am KJV only come hell or high water"?


  8) I ran across something interesting while reading up on the KJV: "James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy    So, the translators had some instructions.....did anything get changed or left out to abide by those instructions?

9) Since the translation of the KJV, many more manuscripts have been found. Those who have translated more modern translations have many, many more manuscripts to work from than the ones who translated the KJV.......it would seem that newer translations might be more inerrant and closer to the original manuscripts than the KJV.

9) Even though it is one I don't own... yet...... there are many Biblical scholars who feel the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is closer to the original manuscripts than the KJV is..... what if they are right? What if the Bible KJV only people should be clinging to is the NASB?

10) I do believe there are differences in the KJV and other versions, but none in the main ones that are accepted by most Christians have major doctrine or theological issues, The differences are small. Like replacing charity with love - which is what the Geneva Bible, a predecessor of the KJV has,

11) If one studied with an open mind, could it be possible that the KJV isn't the best version out there?


12) Some of  the same Bibles that were consulted in translating the KJV - The Geneva Bible and William Tyndale's version - were also consulted for the other major translations we have today.

   I don't know how to say this nicely or politely, but it doesn't make sense to single out one Bible translation as the Holy Grail of Bible translations, and put all others down as bad or heretical. They are all God's Word.... I am not condemning the KJV, or those who prefer it, but common sense would dictate that the thinking isn't intelligent or sane to declare a translation done in 1611 by a wicked king is THE Bible we must all use, and is the perfect Bible.

  Are all translations good? No. Some go too far and dumb it down, and there are some that have changed things too much - i.e. the masculine pronouns for God -  but there are several great translations out there, and I am glad there are.

  I honestly feel using a variety of Bible translations has changed my devotional life. I try to vary what version I am reading from at least every few days, and it is refreshing to read it in different wording.

  And my Bible version journey is not over. There is a version I don't have that I am planning on buying at some point.

 ***A disclaimer: I am not knocking people for preferring the KJV, or for only reading it. However, I am knocking people for blindly claiming it is the version we must use and for insisting it is better than any other.... and also for criticizing people who use other versions.

Should we be one Bible version Christians? Part 1

 I had a conversation/debate a while back with a friend of mine via Facebook chat who is extremely King James only. I had been thinking about the issue for a while, and our conversation led me to think some more.

  Our conversation/debate arose from something he posted. It was a dual picture showing the 3 Hebrew children in the furnace with the 4th man. On the left, was the KJV translation which renders King Neb saying "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." In the second picture it had a more modern translation, which renders the last part "and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” My friend commented about that being proof we should read just the KJV.

 What started our conversation, was I messaged him and said I didn't think that was a good argument for KJV only..... Neb was a heathen king, who up until that time was most likely not familiar with the God of the Hebrews. We know who the 4th Man was, but his mind would not have gone to our God, but to a god. Either way you read it, nothing is gained or lost.. it was a heathen king noticing something miraculous.

 I was raised on the KJV, and we still use it at our church. My pastor will occasionally read from the New King James Version and has quoted from The New Living a few times, but we primarily use the KJV.

 I can still remember the first time I was in a Christian bookstore and saw a new King James Version of the Bible. I was horrified and thought it heresy. I wanted to tell the lady who was being helped by a sales clerk with the Bible not to buy it, but to get a KJV...... but I didn't. Thankfully.

  Then I went to Bible college and had a professor who was extremely pro-NIV and strongly encouraged his students to buy one, so I did...... and didn't really care for it.

  For several years I was still KJV, then I started working at a Christian bookstore in 1999 and had to learn about Bibles and Bible versions so I could sell them to people and help them find the right Bible for them or whoever they were buying one for. I bravely bought a New King James Bible and started reading it.... and discovered that I really liked it.

 The NKJV basically takes out words we don't use - thou, thy, lovest, makest...... and many more, and replaces them with words we DO use: You, your, love, make, etc. The "charity chapter" becomes the "love chapter", as it was intended to be. This wasn't a heretical translation after all, and I found it much more easy to read than the KJV...... and lightning didn't strike me for realizing that.

  Then the New Living Translation gained popularity. I stepped closer the ledge and bought a copy..... and the earth didn't open up and swallow me. God didn't leave me to speak to me ever again..... and I found it even easier to read, and found myself noticing things that I hadn't before. And I discovered something else: when I was reading familiar passages in the KJV, I tended to skim, but when reading another translation, I had to focus more on what I was reading, because it was not the version I had memorized those verses in or read a hundred times.

Several years went by, with my carrying my KJV Bible to church, but reading the NJKV and the NLT at home.

 Then I started reviewing books and had the opportunity to review Bibles, and started adding other versions: The NIV, The Common English Bible, The Message, God's Word, and more. If you look at the first picture in this blog post, those are all of my Bibles....... I think, except for one that I don't know the location of. There are 10 translations represented in that picture. Some are stronger translations than others, and one is a paraphrase.

  Am I a heathen or heretic for reading other translations than the KJV? No, I don't believe I am. I believe my devotional life and Bible reading has been enriched and opened up more by reading other translations. And with the exception of The Message, which is a paraphrase, I haven't run across any doctrinal or theological issues that are out there or wrong. (I use The Message occasionally to make a passage clearer, but would never have a paraphrase by one man be my main Bible).

  I think it is helpful to have a few versions to compare when doing Bible study and reading.

 I even have a Parallel Bible that has 4 different versions so you can easily compare while reading...... and one of them is the KJV, imagine that!

 This post is getting a little long, so I am going to continue in a second one and discuss more why I don't think people should be one version only.... especially the KJV, since that is usually the one version those people stubbornly cling to.

30 days of thankfulness, Day 25: Thankful for different translations of the Bible

   On day 25, I am thankful for different Bible translations. I grew up on the King James Version of the Bible, and that is all I knew for years. I can still remember the first time I saw a New King James Version of the Bible in a Christian bookstore and thinking it was heresy.

  I have changed my views a lot since then, and I believe for the better. I don't talk in KJV language. No one does. I have found my Bible reading to be enriched by reading from other versions. Are all versions good? No. I have seen some that are in street language. I have looked at one that removes all male pronouns to make the Bible politically correct.

  But there are several good ones. And I am thankful for them. I believe my Bible reading has been made better and I have understood what I read more than when I was reading just the King James.

Serving God in a box: Bible reading

 

 My blog post got too long, so I am continuing it in this post.

2) Bible reading. Another "box" we have, is Bible reading. A lot of us grow up having certain ideas about Bible reading taught to us.

You must read the Bible daily (there's even a song about that...)

You must read a certain amount of chapters a day

You must only use the ____ version 

You must read it in the morning. Or evening.

You must read through your Bible, the whole way through, at least once every few years.


  At the risk of sounding like a rebel or heretic, I got rid of the Bible reading box. Long ago.

I read multiple versions, and rarely the King James Version I was raised on. (Horrors!)

Most days, I read a few verses, not chapters. Some days, I will read a whole chapter.

I usually read it in the evening, unless the one verse that is in my morning devotional counts.

  There are those who consider it heresy to read anything but the King James version of the Bible. I go to church with at least a few people like that, but I find that unreasonable. This post is not a treatise against the King James, but I will give a few reasons why I rarely use it for my personal Bible reading:

1) I get bogged down with the language and words we don't use anymore. Lovest? Thou? We don't talk that way anymore.

2) When I read familiar passages of Scripture in the KJV, I tend to zip over it, as it is pretty much memorized. When I read those passages in other versions, I have to concentrate more on what I am reading.

3) Variety. Plain and simple. It is nice to mix it up a bit.

 
  I have tried to read a certain amount of verses or chapters in a day, but it was pretty much a check list type of thing. I did it, didn't get much out of it, but it was done.

  The older I get, the more I get to truly know God, the more convinced I am that it is better to read a few verses and truly get something out of it, than to read several chapters and just get the good feeling of having done it. If you can do both -  read a lot and get a lot of it, more power to you, but I can't.

  As for reading through the Bible.... I did once, and it was to get a trophy. Don't judge. I never got trophies in school, so it was nice to get one for something. But if we are honest, not all part of the Bible are interesting to read, or helpful. OK, OK, I'll get out my heretic t-shirt.

  But seriously... who enjoys reading Leviticus, or the genealogies. I get it that there is something we can get out of all passages of the Bible, but I tend to read the more interesting and encouraging parts of the Bible. Does that make me a bad Christian? I don't think so,,,, and certainly not a heretic.

  That isn't to say we should never read Leviticus. It is to say that we shouldn't feel bound to read the Bible through or read it like others do. Its God's Word. He can speak to us from any of it.

  I don't mean to criticize those who read through the Bible several times in their life or read several chapters a day. Just don't tell me I have to read my Bible in a box. Some of them came in a box, but I tossed the boxes out and won't read them in a box anymore.
  

Lovest thou the King James?

  I have blogged about this before, but had some more thoughts on it. And they may be somewhat inflammatory thoughts, but you'll have that.

  I was raised on the King James Version of the Bible. We used it in church, at school, at home. When I memorized Scripture, it was from the KJV. For most of my childhood and teen years, I didn't know there was any other version.

 I can still remember the time I was in a Christian bookstore around the age of 17 and an employee was explaining the New King James Version differences to them. I felt it was heresy.

 Then I went to Bible College and met the NIV. I had a college professor who was very pro-NIV. I bought one at his urging, and 24 years later, I am still not a big fan of it, but I have gone on to enjoy other versions. I have more than one. My two favorites are the New King James Version, and the one I used the most: The New Living Translation. I believe there are benefits in using more than one translation, especially when reading familiar passages that you almost have memorized in one translation. I never use the King James Version at home. It is still what we use at church, so I do use it there, but that is the only place.

  I have run across a lot of "King James only" people across the years. Some just prefer it, and that is OK. I do thing KJV only people are depriving themselves by sticking to one translation, but that is their prerogative. And then you have the group of people who bug me: the "King James only, and you're a heretic going to hell for using any other version" people. Well, they may not say outright that you're going to hell, but you can almost feel it radiating off of them as they pull their righteous robes around themselves. They scornfully look at even the New King James Version of the Bible and consider you a heretic for using even it.

  I had a Sunday School teacher who spend half of the lesson one time decrying the evils of the NKJV. I was offended, and thought it was out of place. Is it his prerogative to like only the KJV? Of course, but not to tell his Sunday School class what they should or should not use.

  Here is the ironic part, and where I believe these people are hypocrites with a double standard.... or does having a double standard make them a hypocrite? Anyway, they are condemning others for what they are doing. What do I mean? I'll tell  you:

   The NKJV is basically the KJV without the archaic language. The KJV uses words like "thou, lovest," and many others that we don't use. Other than that, it is very close to the KJV. So why is that hypocritical? Because that is what the KJV did. Yes, really. What people hold so sacred is not the original KJV Bible. It was put in more modern English so people could read it better. Sound familiar? It should, because that is what the NKJV did.

  I was shopping at one of my favorite stores the other day, and ran across something I bought as a novelty: a 400th Anniversary edition of the King James Version of the Bible. The original 1611 edition. It was only $3.99, and I will never read it, but it is cool to have. I will never read it because the English in it is 1611 English. Almost impossible for me to understand with my 2013 English. Good thing someone made one in more modern English. Wish someone would do that with the KJV we have now..... oh wait..... they did! Its called the New King James Version!

  I seriously don't have issues with people sticking to the KJV. But they do need to realize that it is what the NKJV is. The same version with more modern English. And no, the KJV is NOT the version the Apostle Paul used.......

If the Apostle Pau used it, it is good enough for me

I have blogged about this before, but I've been thinking about it lately, and felt like blogging about it more.

My church still uses the King James Version of the Bible. It is the one I was raised on, and the one that I memorized verses from. It is still the one most people will quote verses such as Psalm 23 and John 3:16 from. I'm not knocking the version, and I think it is good for one version to be used at church, as it makes it easier to read along.

I still carry the KJV to church, whether an actual copy or on my Kindle, but I rarely use it at home. Thing is, we don't talk like that. "Lovest" and the like.... no one talks that way anymore, and I don't see anything wrong with reading versions of the Bible that have updated language.

I have met people, and some of them are in my church, who are horrified at the idea of using anything but the KJV. Any other version is heresy and no good, even the New King James Version, which simply removes words like "lovest, thou, thee" and similar words. These people act like the Apostle Paul read the KJV.

Ironically, the KJV we use today is the same thing that the NKJV is.... a modern revision of the former. No one alive would be able to understand the original KJV of 1611. It can still be bought, and in my opinion, if people are going to be so extreme about the KJV, they should buy that version, otherwise they are being hypocritical and doing just what they rail against - using a newer version. Harsh? Not really. Just using their own words against them.

Not every version out there is good. There is one who removes all masculine references, even to God. There are some that try so hard to modernize the language, that it sounds like a gangster version. Here are a few I like and use:

The New Living Translation. The Living Bible was a paraphrase. This is an actual translation, and is my favorite version to read from.

The New King James Version. This sticks closer to the KJV, only changing old words we don't use to ones that we do.

God's Word. This version is still new to me. I don't own a regular copy of it, but do have the Names of God Bible, which puts the original names of God back in that were taken out and replaced with "God" and "Lord", etc. So far, I like it pretty well.

The Common English Bible. This one is still fairly new to me, but I am liking it so far.

The Message. This isn't a favorite new version, and I personally think it is too modernized, and seems more of a paraphrase than a translation, but I do like to look up a passage occasionally in it to get a different perspective, and since I got it for $5, I don't have much invested in it.

The Bible is the most important book there is, and we are encouraged to read and study it often. I believe using different translations and versions can help with that. When reading familiar passages, it is so easy to skim over it if you are used to the same old version, whereas using different ones can make you slow down a bit and think more about what you are reading. It does for me. And it helps clear up passages that are a bit unclear due to the old English we don't speak and use anymore.

We shouldn't just grab any version out there, but there are many that are good and can be a help as we read and study God's Word. I can find no proof that God prefers it over any other version out there, and at one point, it was new and people considered it heresy. And one other point for the KJV only crowd: the work on it was organized and ordered by a very corrupt king. Not by God.