Why I Use The King James Bible

Why I use the King James Version of the Bible The question of which bible a Christian should use is not an unimportant one. The beliefs one develops and espouses should come directly from the words that God has given to us. That being the case, the Bible is more important than church and even denomination in developing and defending one’s Christian beliefs. So why do I use the King James Bible? The first reason is simply personal preference. As a third grade student I read ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ by Alexender Dumas. I loved it. When I was in sixth grade, I learned that I had read an abridged version that was easier for younger students to understand. I immediately got a copy of the unabridged version and read that. As a matter of personal preference, I have never viewed writing that has been altered to be easier to read as more desirable than the originals. I would no more read The New American Shakespeare than I would the New American Standard. Years ago I thought a mostly political magazine got it right (according to memory) when they lamented the cultural loss of the poetic quality of the King James. Instead of the devil walking about, “as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,” they pointed out that the modern devil “goes around like a roaring lion looking for someone to eat.” (NCV) It was enough, they wrote, to make them want to rend their garments, but all they could do was “tear their clothes.” This, however, is simply a matter of personal preference, and does not mean others are wrong for having a different preference. Personal preference, however, is not enough. The Historical Perspective The King James Bible has withstood the test of time. In America, it is the bible our forefathers consulted as they built one of the most devoutly Christian nations the world has known. Modern versions came into fashion in the 1960s. As Vatican II worked its liberalism on the Catholic Church, modern versions were the protestant equivalent. Out with the King James Bible, in with the praise-and-worship hymnals and easy-to-read bibles. So, has this modernizing of the church produced a stronger church? It depends on who you ask, but the numbers show the mainline denominations leaking adherents in droves over the past few decades. It makes perfect sense as to why liberals would embrace a rainbow of bibles for people to pick and choose from. For traditionalists and conservatives, this trend should be of concern. The Luther Principle This brings us to the writings of Protestantism’s founding father. Much like today, Martin Luther found a church using various versions of the bible. Here’s what he had to say about it: “In the first place, let the preacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts and forms of the Ten Commandments, The Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Sacraments, etc., but choose one form to which he adheres, and which he inculcates all the time, year after year.” So why did Luther think this important? “For [I give this advice, however, because I know that] young and simple people must be taught by uniform, settled texts and forms, otherwise they easily become confused when the teacher today teachers them thus, and in a year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thus all effort and labor [which has been expended in teaching] is lost.” As Luther goes on to point out, using a single, settled text is an idea that did not originate with him. “Also our blessed fathers understood this well; for they all used the same form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should teach the young and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change a syllable, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than in another. Hence, choose whatever form you please, and adhere to it forever.” Which of Luther’s points is not valid today? Luther is not making a case for the King James Bible, but he is pleading for the church to use a single text. Indeed, throughout most of this country’s history, one could walk into any mainline denomination church service and the pastors and congregants would all be reading from the same Bible. Baptists might disagree with Lutherans, who didn’t see eye-to-eye with Methodists. But they all went to the same book and used the same words to make their respective cases. There is value in the choir having the same songbook. It wasn’t until 1978 that modern versions finally started outselling the King James. Liberals understandably believe the church has been on the right track since then, becoming more open to other religions and different lifestyles. Can conservative Christians say the same? So why have the King James as the “one, settled text” and not any one of the dozens of other versions now available? In theory, choosing another version as the one, settled text would be an improvement over what we have now. In reality, though, choosing any other version is effectively a choice against having one, settled text. Those who claim that a number of versions are essentially equal invariably display a strong bias against the King James. If that were not the case, the King James would be mixed in around the same proportion as the other acceptable versions. If you go to a church that does not use the King James Bible, in most instances you will find that about the only bible that never makes it into the rotation is the King James. There is a difference So what of Luther’s specific admonition not to change a syllable of the Lord’s Prayer? The Lord’s Prayer that many of us learned as children concludes, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” A number of versions don’t stop with changing syllables, instead cleaving the whole final sentence from the Lord’s Prayer. These versions include the New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Standard Version, and New Revised Standard Version. Whole verses are left out of some versions. When a verse is left entirely out of one version and included in another, ostensibly there is a difference there. But is anything substantially different? A dispute in the early church centered on whether Jesus was born of a virgin. The King James Bible is unequivocal in stating, “a virgin shall conceive.” So how does the NIV handle the same verse? Readers find a footnote so the verse reads: “The virgin(b) will conceiveA” The (b) footnote reads: “Or young woman.” Other versions are even more muddled. The Message states, “Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant.” If I were trying to cast doubt on the virgin birth, I would prefer to use the NIV or another version (the Message) with even weaker language. What is puzzling is why someone who believes in the traditional biblical teaching of the virgin birth would see no difference here. Conservatives who make use of various modern versions will point out that one must distinguish between versions. However, I have never met anyone who makes this case who could give me a list of approved versions for everyday use. They can tell you they wouldn’t use the Queen James Version, a gay-friendly version, but there is typically a large gray area between their personally preferred version and the Queen James. As in Luther’s time, this puts the congregation in the place of simply relying on their leaders to decipher what is, and is not, actually the word of God. Those who use the King James can give you their list pretty quick. Again, this sort of muddling of language and versions makes perfect sense if one’s goal is to soften the overall message and move the church in a more liberal direction. Interestingly, we are now so far afield that some conservatives are even trying to reinvent the wheel. The Conservative Bible Project completed their work on a new “New Testament” translation that has the old-school word choices. That project stemmed from objections to unisex language (NIV), dumbed down versions (NIV again), and other liberal theology including evolution and acceptance of abortion that they see seeping into new translations. The original conservative bible project concluded their work in 1611. In conclusion The bible, whatever bible you use, is the foundation for everything a Christian believes. It is important. It might seem obvious when talking about the most important book in the world, but words matter. There is no doubt Christians can use versions other than the King James, maintain conservative positions on key doctrines such as the virgin birth, and win others to Christ. What is less clear is whether allowing a thousand bibles to bloom will aid in maintaining a strong church, or whether Luther’s points remain valid. One could spend a lifetime tracing the various texts and comparing each word in the different translations. Precious few people are going to allocate even a few hours to this effort. Unfortunately, the most study that many people will put into the bible is in order to refute someone who tells them they should stick with their King James Version. Ultimately, the question comes down to whether there is value in the church having one, settled text that all agree is God’s Word. Luther thought so, and so do I. Given Luther’s admonition that the church have one text, the fact that there are significant differences between an ever-expanding number of versions, and the fruits the different versions have produced, I’ll take the King James Bible. If that’s not modern and trendy enough for you — good. www.TGC1611.org

Written by Michael J. Noyes