I was given this book by a friend at church. He said he's about 90% convinced of the author's point, but still holds some reservations.
The basic premise of the book is that the King James Version of the Bible is the only true word of God, the best translation available, and that the manuscripts that form the basis for all other modern translations (with the exception of the New King James Version) are unreliable. Actually, the author goes beyond calling those manuscripts unreliable to actually assert that there was a conspiracy on the part of those who translated them to change the Bible to fit their views.
In a nutshell, many Christians and Biblical scholars consider the Greek manuscripts that the modern translations come from to better because they are older. The logic is that since they are older they are more reliable because the time between the original writing and the oldest manuscript is less. Less time = less chance they were changed or that there are errors.
For example, take the Gospel of Luke. If Luke wrote his gospel in A.D. 40, and the oldest manuscript (copy) of that gospel was written in A.D. 150, then it would be considered more accurate than a manuscript (copy) of Luke written in A.D.1100. Less chance that there were errors in copying or changes made, right?
The author rejects that in the case of the modern translations. He questions the motives and integrity of the writers of the manuscripts, and the translators who translated them in the late 1800s. He also plays up the authenticity of the newer manuscripts from which the KJV is translated, as well as the Catholic monk who translated them: Erasmus.
I have to admit I never finished this book. I got through about half of it, at which point it got way too in the weeds about translation techniques, and their worthiness. I simply got bored and confused and lost interest. The main thrust of the book is in the first half anyway. I found the whole thing a bit ridiculous. There differences between the KJV and the NIV (as one example) are minimal, and I think if someone wanted to change the Bible through some malicious intent to deny the diety of Christ (as one example) they should have done a better job. My disinterest mounted even more when I found out that there are just as many books out there trying to malign the integrity of the KJV as there are ones trying to malign the integrity of the modern translations.
Frankly, I'm saddened by all this bickering. If we spent as much time helping others and witnessing to the lost as we do arguing amongst ourselves about minutia, we might actually be able to make a difference for Christ. That is one thing I have learned and come to appreciate in our new home church. It is a decidedly non-denominational gathering of Christian brothers and sisters who hold each other up, read and speak the word of God in love, and can disagree on the minutia while still loving each other and witnessing together. We've got former Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and Church of Christ. Yet we all seem to get along together for the larger purpose of serving Christ. The existance of denominations has always bothered me, and although I believe the Baptists have it 99% right, I will never let that keep me from fellowshiping and serving with other Christians for the glory of God. Jesus said his church was to be a city on a hill, not several hundred different cities scattered about fighting amongst themselves.
My current book is on the Lewis and Clark expedition. I've been bitten by the history bug again, and will report on it when I'm done.
2 comments:
Paqpaw loved the book about Lewis and Clark. He read it, highlighted the parts he especially liked and talked about it to anyone who would listen. Isn't it called Undaunted Courage?
That's right. It's called Undaunted Courage. It's been enjoyable so far.
Post a Comment