AUDIO BIBLE | AUDIO BIBLE REVIEWS

kjv onlyism

How to Pick The Right Bible For You

By Hwang Keum-Ok

There are a multitude of Bible translations in existence today — a bewildering amount. If you doubt what I say, simply stop by your local religious bookshop — or even a secular bookstore. If you need and her over to see religion and philosophy section, you will probably find several shells filled with different types of Bible translations. If you have not done much reading or studying of the Bible before in your life, you may be at quite a loss as to know which Bible translation you should choose. In this article I would like to give you some things to think about — I won’t actually tell you what your choice should be, I’d just like to come along side of you for a few minutes and help you do your own thinking –

One of the things you need to think about is what you plan to do with your copy of the Bible. Are you primarily interested in studying the Bible in an in-depth manner — or are you more interested in just sitting down and reading it, perhaps for extended periods of time? Certain translations of the Bible are more “conversational” in tone — they are sometimes called paraphrases or Dynamic-Equivalence translations. Many people find them the easiest types of Bible translations to read. On the other hand, you may prefer a more literal or traditional type of Bible if you are interested in doing in-depth biblical studies or research.

Another important consideration here is the amount of education that you have received. No, I am not insisting that the Bible is understandable only to those who are educated — rather, the amount of formal educational training you may have received will again factor into the type of Bible that you will be comfortable in using. People who are college educated, or who have received prior religious instruction will probably feel more at home with a traditional Bible translation or one which is more literal in its translation approach. On the other hand, folks with limited training — both secular and/or religious — may find it easier to begin with one of the modern language Bibles.

Something else to think about: Will you be reading or studying the Bible with others? Will you be taking religious education classes of some type — or will you be studying it in a home group meeting? If you will be reading or studying the Bible with other people, you may wish to check with them to see what types of Bible translations are preferred by your group. If you are taking religious training in a classroom setting, your instructor may have a preference or a particular translation of the Bible may even be required. If you will be using your Bible in a church setting — perhaps for following along with scripture readings — then you may want to investigate using a translation of the Bible that is approved and preferred by your local church.

Choosing the right Bible — in particular the right Bible translation — is not necessarily an easy task. Especially for those of us who live in the West, we have an unbelievable number of options available to us! But you can manage to work through the confusion, if you do a little reading and researching on your own, and think about what your present and future needs are, you should be able to make a good choice. And for those of us who are a part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the choice of a good Bible translation is absolutely essential to our continued spiritual growth

1611 king james version bible

The 1611 Authorized King James Translation of the Bible - And the Bible

By Robin Calamaio

As God has been granting me spiritual opportunities via the internet, I have been encountering brethren, in church settings, where The King James translation of the Bible is heralded as the Bible. All other translations originate from the pit - and descend to it. Those propagating this “faith” will be referred to as “KJV only” here. They are not my target audience. This Article is for those who have been told the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible … yet, are having some nagging questions about the truth of this position. I do not know anyone who has ever read the Authorized 1611 King James Translation of the Bible. I do not even know anyone who has seen the Authorized 1611 King James Translation. In fact, if those of the “KJV only” group actually had this translation in their hands, they likely could not read it. With some coaching, they would learn that what looked like an “f” is actually an “s.” But, before long, they would encounter foreign words - with no idea of their meaning (holpen, knop, neesing, Osee, wot, wottech, wit … just to name a few). They would need to retranslate this into current English. Come to think of it, … that is exactly what has happened.

The 24th, … I Mean 26th, … Uh, Actually the Unknown Revision Number of my KJV Translations

When the “KJV only” translators retranslate the “Textus Receptus,” they call the new translation a new “revision.” They justify using the word, “revision” over, “translation” because these new translators (revisionists?) use the same manuscripts the original 1611 translators used (the Textus Receptus). For this Article, I rounded up my KJV Bibles, and turned to each one’s “Preface” to see what revisions of the original 1611 translation I possess. While each Editor acknowledges I do have a revision, the number of the revision … is not stated. This is rather curious. One time (in the early 1980’s), I told a “KJV only” man he probably had the 24th (or 26th? - I can’t remember now) revision of the 1611 translation. He proceeded to almost run off the road, frantically flipping through the Preface of the Bible on his dashboard. After finding my assertion was correct, I was quite relieved when his wild-eyed eyes refocused on the road. So, why would the Editors withhold the revision number on my newer copies of the KJV? Has the revision number become so high that they feel it would be better … to hide it? Surely not! These people are publishing … the Bible! So, why this deliberate omission? There maybe a very base motive. But, first …

If anyone wants to read the 26th revision of the KJV (or whatever is the current revision number) … do it. And if a church wants to use some preferred revision number as their pulpit Bible, that is absolutely fine. But if a person, or church, or denomination insists this translation, or any of its dozens of revisions, is the only true Word of God - that is an issue that must be taken on … and taken down. The Word of God is an exceedingly important theological matter. God uses His Word in the salvation event (Mt 13:1-23, 1Pet 1:23,24, Ja 1:18, etc.) and in a Christian’s subsequent growth (1Pet 2:2, Eph 5:26, etc.). To place some doctrine on The Word of God itself is a subject of the highest order. Ignorance, or error, on a subject this important must be exposed.

The Rejection of Knowledge

Those holding “KJV only” demonstrate a lack of knowledge in three major fields of study - Textual Criticism (Lower Criticism), Biblical Languages and the History of Translations. They do not understand the goals, history, evidences or current status of these disciplines. Whether this is willful darkness, or just a lack of interest, is ultimately irrelevant. The journey of the Biblical documents from the original author’s pen, to the copy in one’s hand - may indeed be as much of a miracle as any miracle recorded in its pages. While knowledge of the Bible’s contents is of first importance, knowledge about the Bible runs a close second. Knowledge of Biblical languages, and the copying and transmission history of these documents, enhances one’s ability to accurately handle - and present - its contents. Knowledge, accurate knowledge, is always … a good thing. “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2Pet 3:18).

An Exception: The New King James Translators

The Preface to The New King James Translation, fifth revision, 1994, is a noteworthy exception to the charges just levied. The publisher addresses these fields of study - and accurately represents them - yet, still defers to the Textus Receptus. The publisher even includes these “contrary materials” in that translation’s textual apparatus. This integrity commends the publisher - and serves the readers of this translation, and its revisions, well. But, I have the feeling the “KJV only” adherents deem the New King James publisher a wayward brother - or disown him outright. I have always found it interesting to listen to anyone who teaches the Bible (whether “KJV only” adherents … or others). When expounding a verse, the preacher/teacher often rephrases that verse - using synonyms or illustrations, etc. - so as to make its meaning more understandable. This activity is in itself … re-translating. It just happens to be verbal and not written down. Presenters of the Bible are almost continuously in a re-translation mode when expounding the Scriptures.

“The Faith”

As one reads various prefaces of KJV Bibles, it is not just the omission of the revision number that stands out. For example, these publishers know that red lettering Jesus’ words is a modern day fabrication - and that many in their audience will errantly exalt these particular words over the rest of the God-breathed materials. As one reads the justifications for this (and several other subjects) - it becomes increasingly clear these publishers are pandering to a niche market - and if they do not produce a Bible for this group … someone else will. I am indeed assigning a very base motive here - but my Christian experience has shown that when money becomes part of the equation … very strange things happen. “A root of all the evils is the cherishing of silver” (1Tim 6:10 - this is not KJV, as they really botched that verse). Error, of any kind, in any arena, is destined for a short life-span. Those who insist the KJV is the only Word of God, are calling on others to adopt this “faith:” “We believe the 26th revision (or whatever it is now) of the original 1611 translation, authorized by King James of England is inspired by God. Its translators were borne along by the Holy Ghost … as were the translators of the other 25 revisions. Furthermore, we believe the Byzantine texts, which Middle Age theologians compiled into the Textus Receptus, is flawless.” Call me a simpleton, but I believe “All Scripture is God-breathed …” (2Tim 3:16), not, “The 26th revision of the 1611 King James Translation of Scripture … is God-breathed.” I have no desire to add this to the Word of God … and present - that - as “Biblical faith.” This would be similar to asking one to believe the Pope’s “ex cathedra” (from the throne) declarations are on par with the Word of God. Sorry, no can do.

Conclusion

I have no desire to patronize whatever audience God allows me touch. There is no point. It never leads to spiritual prosperity. In fact, in my experience, the mentality that leads to embracing “KJV only” - does not end with just the rejection of Textual Criticism, Biblical Languages, and Translation History. They also reject, and often demonize, those engaged in these objective, fact-filled studies. This exposes a serious spiritual problem possessed by these “believers.” Clinging to error is personally dangerous on several fronts. For starters, errant beliefs - no matter how fervently held or heralded - are abysses void of God. Secondly, genuine believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. “When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13). The Word of God is so foundational to the entire Christian faith, that there is absolutely no way He is leading any Christian to adopt this “KJV only” position. God does not exist in - or promote - error. This persuasion is either from the flesh (stubbornness, pride, fear, wilful ignorance - or some toxic combination) … or else demons. Brethren, do not yield to it. That is not God’s call to you. Well, here is a question for the “KJV only” group (in case any might be reading). Are other cultures only supposed to read the 26th (?) revision of the 1611 KJV … even if they do not know English? If you really think this question through … you are going to get all knotted up.

1611 kjv bible

Easter, Should It Be In Your Bible?

By Joel Finck

“Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also (Then were the days of unleavened bread). And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people” (Acts 12:1-4). Here in Acts 12:4 the term “Easter” is the translation of the Greek word, pascha. In all of its 28 other occurrences in the New Testament it is rendered “passover.” Acts 12:4 is the lone exception. The careful student of Scripture will immediately ask, “Why should a word which is so consistently translated one way, be translated another way here?” We believe that when all things are carefully considered, from the Word of God, we will reach the conclusion that pascha should be rendered “passover” in this text, just as it is in the other 28 places.

TWO FEASTS, ONE OBSERVANCE

While it is true that the feasts of passover and unleavened bread are two distinct entities, God’s prescribed method of observing them led to them being considered one and the same. This is because they were observed together as one festival during the first of three yearly convocations in Israel. “Three times thou shall keep A FEAST unto me in the year” (Exod. 23:14). Notice that it does not say “thou shall keep some feasts” but “A FEAST,” even though two feasts were held at this time. Deuteronomy 16:16 further explains, “Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles….”

That these two feasts were observed as one is confirmed in Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning their future observance in the kingdom: “In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, A FEAST OF SEVEN DAYS; unleavened bread shall be eaten” (Ezek. 45:21). It’s obvious from this text that the entire week was considered the “passover” even though the seven days of unleavened bread are also mentioned. This is why Luke 22:1 says “the feast of unleavened bread…is called the passover.” Luke 22:7 goes on to say, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.” To say that “where both the terms passover and `days (or day) of unleavened bread’ are found in the same passage refer to the two as distinct entities” is forced at best; untrue at worst.

WHY DID HEROD WAIT?

Was Herod waiting for a Jewish or a pagan festival to end before bringing Peter forth to the people (Acts 12:4)? Scriptural evidence points to the Jewish passover, not the pagan “Easter.” As has already been pointed out, the word translated “Easter” here is consistently rendered “passover” in all other places. But what about the argument that the passover itself was already finished, since Peter was arrested during “the days of unleavened bread?” There are two distinctly Scriptural possibilities which adequately answer this without interjecting a pagan holiday into the text. The first is the fact, already mentioned, that the passover is already identified in Scripture as “a feast of seven days” (Ezek. 45:21). The second is, to borrow an expression from the world of sports, “it’s not over ’til it’s over.” According to Numbers 9:9-12, a SECOND passover was scheduled for those who may have become ceremonially defiled and therefore unable to participate in the first. “…If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the Lord. The fourteenth day of the SECOND month at even they shall keep it…” (Num. 9:10,11). The normal passover, of course, was held the fourteenth day of the FIRST month.

The best explanation for Herod’s delay in bringing Peter out to the people, then, is that he was simply waiting for the first passover festival (including the days of unleavened bread) to run its course. But for those who would press the issue with technicalities over terminology, Acts 12:4 could be referring to the second passover which was only a few weeks away.

HEROD: PAGAN, PIOUS, OR PRAGMATIC

We would in no way wish to suggest that this Herod (known in history as Agrippa I) was a true believer, even under the Jewish program. But we do beg to differ with the view that he was strictly a pagan Roman with no reason to reverence the Jewish passover. While it is true that Agrippa I was educated in Rome, his ancestry can be traced to the Idumeans (or Edomites, descendants of Esau). His grandfather, Herod the Great, had constructed the temple in Jerusalem which stood at the time of Christ. This was not done out of his love for God, but for pragmatic reasons: to gain favor with the Jews. Agrippa’s uncle, Herod Antipas initially held off the execution of John the Baptist because “he feared the multitude, because they counted him a prophet” (Matt. 14:5). Other Roman-appointed leaders in Israel showed deference to the Jews (for example, Festus in Acts 25:9), so why shouldn’t Herod Agrippa I do the same? Furthermore, Agrippa’s daughter, Drusilla, is called a “Jewess” in Acts 24:24 and his son, Agrippa II is described by Paul as a man who “believest…the prophets” (Acts 26:27). There was obviously a strong Jewish influence on this entire family, so we should not think it strange that in the text in question (Acts 12:4) Herod is thinking of the Jewish passover, not some pagan festival. Now concerning the question, “What reason is there to believe the Jews would have been upset by Peter being killed at their passover?” There’s plenty of reason to think this, most importantly, the Scriptures: Mark 14:1,2 says, “After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. But they said, not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.” If the very chief priests expected an uproar over an execution during a holy festival, why should it seem strange that the king would also recognize this sentiment in the people over which he ruled?

The fact that Christ was actually killed during this time simply illustrates the significance of His death. Christ was killed in accordance with the fulfillment of Old Testament types and pictures. God arranged for His death during the passover festival to show that the fulfillment of the types took place right on schedule. God simply overruled the sentiment that the chief priests had anticipated in order to carry out His divine plan. But in the case of Peter, there was no divine time schedule to meet, therefore we find the delay of Herod’s actions in respect of the wishes of the people. The Scriptural evidence is clear, the pascha refers to the Jewish passover, not a pagan holyday. If there were no need by some to defend a particular translation of a particular word, no one would have ever imagined that the Holy Spirit meant “Easter” when He said pascha.