Bible Translations

Let's begin this morning in Nehemiah chapter 8. I do want to preach this morning on Bible translations and I want to explain a lot of things about Bible translations and the need for more modern translations and how we got our Bible and all of those things. But let's begin with Nehemiah chapter 8. In the book of Nehemiah God raised up a political leader to be a spiritual leader of God's people. He went back to the land of his fathers and ancestors back to Israel, back to Jerusalem, where he rebuilt the walls. The walls since the people had gone back from captivity had been in a state of disrepair allowing any enemy just to come unhindered into the city and attack. So God raised him up to rebuild those walls. But after the walls were rebuilt Nehemiah realized that there was more rebuilding that needed to be done. There was some spiritual rebuilding that needed to be done as well. And so along with the scribe and teacher Ezra, he gathered the people together in Nehemiah chapter 8. They gathered together to hear the reading of the word of God. And I want us just to skip down to verse 8 because it's the important verse for our purpose this morning. They read from the book of the law of God making it clear. Notice those words making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read. The King James Version says they read in the book of the law of God distinctly. He obviously says making it clear. The Hebrew word behind that translation, both of those translations, could be rendered translated. So they read from the book of the law of God translating it, making it clear, reading it distinctly, giving the meaning of it so that people could understand what was being read. And here's the reason why in all likelihood they did actually translate it. You see, the Old Testament was written in the Hebrew language which was the language that the children of Israel spoke. However, they had been in captivity and babbled for 70 years and Hebrew kind of followed off the charts. They were speaking a more current version of an ancient Norwegian language called Aramaic. Well, they'd been back in the land for 80 years and they're still using Aramaic. Now Aramaic is very close to Hebrew. It uses the same letters, but it is different enough that if you were hearing at that time, your Old Testament read in Hebrew, it might be a little confusing. And so what they were literally doing is they were taking the Hebrew scriptures, translating them into Aramaic, the language the people spoke in that time. Why? So that they could understand. They could understand what they were hearing. That is the exact purpose of modern translations today. This is such a divisive issue today. The issue of Bible translations. There are those who believe that we are a liberal church for using the NIV or that any church who would use a modern translation is called kind of a liberal church. By the way, that's a misnomer. Liberalism is the denial of all the basic teachings of the Bible, the denial of the deity of Christ, the denial of the resurrection of Christ, second coming of Christ, the blood of Christ, the way of salvation by Christ. The way of salvation by grace through faith, those were the liberals back in the 1920s who abandoned all of the cardinal Bible truths. We are not a liberal church at all. We believe in all of those and all of the truths of the Word of God. So there's such divisiveness today over this issue that I think it's time for an update of a 20-year-old idea and concept because we have a lot of folks that come to our church from other churches and I get this question a lot. How do you use the NIV? Because many people have been taught that the NIV is a perversion of the Word of God. The only true and acceptable translation is the King James. That's what many people have been taught. There is an incredible amount of misinformation on this issue. An amazing amount of misinformation. There's so much this morning that I would like to deal with that I'm not going to have time to do it all. I'm sure. But I want to make sure that I am very clear that I say exactly what I intend to say. So you're going to see me following my notes a little bit more closely than I usually do. I love to be familiar enough with them so that I can speak more extemporaneously but that's just probably not going to happen today because I want to make sure this is a very clear statement. What I want to do this morning is approach this subject by answering some basic questions about translations. The first question I want to ask and hopefully answer is this. Are newer translations a new age conspiracy because that's what is often said about the NIV, the ESV, the New American standard and other more modern translations. Are they a new age conspiracy? There was an influential book that was written in 1993, which I'm going to take a few moments to refute. And the reason is that's been I understand 23 years ago, but most of the King James only books that have been written since then have flown out of that book or at least use the same arguments and the same reasoning. The book in 1993 was a book by Dr. Gail Ripplinger entitled New Age Bible Versions. In that book she accused all the recent translations, anything but the King James and she lists about 20 different translations and paraphrases on the cover page of her book. All of those she says are a part of a new age conspiracy to bring the Antichrist's one world government and one world religion to the earth. She also accused the editors of the more modern translations and the translators. She accused them of being involved in the occult or the new age movement, which was a serious hot button charge back in the middle 90s if you remember. She also accused them of being involved in the new age movement. That book has had a tremendous influence. I remember when it came out, she did a bunch of interviews about her book on the text mars radio program. He subscribed to her views. They put out a bunch of tapes, some pastors in this area gave me those tapes to educate me and to help me understand what was right and what was wrong. I remember listening to them, I did read enough of the book to know what she was talking about. I listened to the full two hours of the tapes and I will tell you that has been the most confusing and created the most doubt among sincere Bible believing people. Since that book was published, there have been a number of books that and articles that have refuted her teachings and pointed out numerous errors and untruths in the book. So just by way of a real quick critique which applies to more than just her book, but for many who argue in the same way, let me give three critiques of the King James only movement. Again, I'll say later the King James is not a bad translation, we respect it, commend it. But the King James only movement, the idea that it is the only legitimate translation, everything else is a perversion of the word. Let me give this critique first of all. The authors credentials have been exposed. And so everything that comes from that book that's been written in other books is likely is also tainted. She did have a doctor's degree, an advanced degree, but it was in interior decorating. She is an architecture professor at a university in Ohio. So Ohio, she has no training in biblical studies, no training in Greek or Hebrew, the languages in which the Bible was written. She has no training or understanding of the manuscripts of the Bible, the copies of those, those Greek and Hebrew original documents and how they were transmitted down through the centuries and how we got our Bible. It was clear as I listened to her speak she had no idea what she was talking about. Now, please understand, I'm not being boastful with this. I just mentioned this to get a little frame of reference. I've had five years of Greek and three years of Hebrew and seminary. At the time I was taking those, I could easily translate from either testament, not as well today. I've lost some of it, but I only listened to about five minutes of her speaking before I realized she has no clue what she's talking about. And anybody with any bit of seminary or Bible college training should be able to recognize the book is a total fabrication. It is clear in what she says and the way she says it. And by the way, it has had such great influence. There are other books written today that kind of follow along the same path. There are charts that are made of Bible translations that say only the King James comes from a pure source of pure, pure root. It's the only pure translation. There are charts and I've seen pictures of them that someone was willing to show me of all the modern translations are lump under an evil root and evil beginning, claiming that they came from evil men who used an improper way of translating. And thus you get evil fruit, all these new translations. So they're called evil translations. I have a book on my shelf entitled Touch Not the Unclean Thing. It's a King James only book and they used the expression from the King James in 2nd Corinthians 6 where Paul is talking about staying away from pagan idols and pagan religions. And he says, Touch Not the Unclean Thing and they apply that to the King James or to the NIV to any modern translation. They are unclean in their minds. So a lot of the same thinking has come in other ways, but it all kind of roots back to that landmark book in 1993. Her credentials do not qualify her to even speak on the topic much less being authority. The second critique I would have about the book is the book is sensational. Not in the sense that it's great or wonderful. It is I mean sensational in the sense of a negative publicity seeking way. She makes a lot of incredible, unbelievable, unsubstantiated claims. Quick, just quickly just give you three examples on page 231. She says the five points of Calvinism form a satanic pentagram. Now I don't agree with everything in the five points of Calvinism, but the five points of Calvinism are basically an attempt by good Bible believing men to explain the doctrines of salvation. I may disagree on a couple of minor things with that, but it is certainly not satanically motivated and it is not a satanic symbol. That's just an outlandish claim. On page 232 she says this, watch out for the letter S as in sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul whose name had to be changed to Paul to get away from that kiss of the serpent, she says. Well, it makes me wonder what she would do with words like salvation, scripture, sanctification, sacrifice, servant, and on and on the list could go. Here's a third unbelievable claim on page 596, it's about a 600 page book. She predicted that Christ would come in 2000, remember the book was written in 1993. She predicted that Christ would come in the year 2000. Here's her rationale for that. She says that God closed the Old Testament scriptures 389 years before the first coming of Christ, which is approximately true. The Hebrew Old Testament was finished somewhere between 300 and 400 years before the coming of first coming of Christ. So she says God finished giving his word in 1611 with the King James. And so add the 389 years and you get 2000. So Christ has got to come at his second coming in 2000. That is just craziness. That has no root at all in logical thinking, in factual thinking or in biblical thinking. But this may be the part that bothers me the most about her book and others like it that are still being published today. The book is slanderous. The chart I saw this week is slanderous. It tries to discredit the translators of the more modern translations by painting them as men with satanic motives who are in the occult or in the new age movement. Right after she published her book, a theologian in South Bend, Indiana by the name of Roger Krynach and I have his article in my files wrote an article which you later published in a book. What he decided to do was to take all of her quotes because she strings together a bunch of quotes from the men who translated the NIV in particular and makes them sound like full blown Satanists. Well this this may Roger Krynach decided to to investigate all of her quotes. He went back some of the books throughout a print. So we're back to libraries and he found everything she had quoted and found out where it was in the original books. And he discovered and exposed the fact that she had taken different statements from different pages of books, even different books and put them together like she wanted to to make those people say things they had never said. Now that my friend is lying. That is deception of the worst kind to defame godly men with that kind of tactic. She will answer to God for that kind of lying and libelous accusations. I know three of the men who helped translate the NIV were my professors at Grace Theological Seminary. They're godly men. They're men who love Christ, humble men who walk with God who are serious about the scriptures. Dr. John Whitkins, Dr. John Davis, Dr. Homer Kent are godly men. And I know most of the other translators of the NIV from their writings. They are godly men who honor him and to defame them in this way and distort their writing. She could be sued were it not for the fact that those men are too godly to take someone else to court who claims to be a believer. They're not going to waste their time with that. But that's the kind of book it is. Be careful not to swallow. King James only arguments that come from those kinds of sources. So our newer translations of new age conspiracy. Absolutely not. There's no truth to that at all. Secondly, our translations wrong. Is it wrong to translate the Bible into current language? Well, let me begin answering that question. I'm glad you asked it by the way. Let me begin answering it by saying this. You are reading a translation. I don't care what version you have with you this morning. You are reading a translation. Whether it's the King James, the ESB, the NIV, the New American Standard, whatever. You're reading a translation. Unless you have a copy of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament in your hands this morning, you are reading a translation. And if that translation is a faithful translation from the original Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. If it's accurately done as the King James is and as the NIV is and as the New American Standard and ESB are. If it's an accurate translation, it is just as much the Word of God as the originals. And you can say with confidence, I have the Word of God in my hands. So here's the controversy today. The controversy today centers around the fact that there are some who claim that the King James is the only legitimate English translation. Now within that what we call King James only camp, there are four different views. First of all, there are some who just prefer the King James. Absolutely fine. It's absolutely fine to say, you know, that's just the translation I prefer. I recognize there are other good translations. But I just prefer the King James and that's what I would prefer to use. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I love the King James. I grew up on the King James. Most everything I've memorized, I memorized out of the King James. When you hear me quote versus just on the spur of the moment from from memory in a service, it's probably out of the King James because that's so deeply embedded in my heart. It's a wonderful translation. And for those who just prefer to use the King James, I would agree with that. There's nothing wrong with that. But then there's a second camp of King James only people who say that the Greek and Hebrew texts behind the King James are superior. And the Greek and Hebrew texts or copies of manuscripts that were used to translate the newer versions are inferior. There is no way to prove that at all. Simply no way to prove that. That is not factual. It's not based on any historical fact. I've read all the arguments on both sides. It just is not factual. In fact, if there is anything to a group of manuscripts that were used in translating being more accurate, it's probably the ones that were used to translate the New American standard in IV and ESV, which are older and closer to the originals than the ones used for the King James version. It would be an interesting study sometime where you go back and study all of that translation process. The guy who put together the Greek text used to translate the King James was a Dutch humanist by the name of Erasmus who was a Roman Catholic. And he put together five Greek manuscripts because he was trying to be the first one to put out a Greek New Testament. And so he was trying to beat someone else to it. And he had five manuscripts at his disposal. They were all from the 12th and 13th centuries. That was the text that eventually became the textus receptus or the received text, which was behind the King James. But by the way, the textus receptus was not even named until 22 years after the King James translation was done. It was named in 1633. So, anyway, that's an interesting study. I can't go into that at any more depth. But there's simply no factual basis for saying that the Greek and Hebrew texts behind the King James are superior to the ones used in other translations. That's just not correct. A third King James only camp is those who believe that the textus receptus, the received text, the Greek text used to translate the King James New Testament. Those who believe that is inspired and here we're getting into dangerous territory. To believe that Erasmus and others who put together the textus receptus were actually inspired of God in the same way that the authors of the Scriptures were. That's getting to be very dangerous to the point of heresy. But then the fourth camp of King James only supporters are those who actually say that the King James version is inspired of God. Now that, my friend, is blasphemy. Because to say that the King James is inspired means that God inspired a new text in 1611. And for 1600 years the church had no Bible. Some of those who believe the King James is inspired actually teach that the King James corrected the Bible. Errors in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that God breathed out. That is blasphemy and certainly is not the truth at all. So the controversy today comes from those who are King James only in their view. We have to be clear at this point on inspiration. What does the Bible mean by inspiration? So I'm going to show you a couple of verses on the screen. First of all, second Timothy 316. I'm going to show them in both the King James and the NIV to show you the difference. Great. Something just happened to the computer. We'll turn to them if we need to. Is it up? Is it up? Vonda? Okay. It's not there. Okay. Second Timothy 316 that we read it out of the NIV. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuke and correcting and training and righteousness. King James says all scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for and then it lists these other things. So here's the difference. The King James says all scripture is inspired in obvious as all scriptures God breathed. The reason I wanted to show you both of them is because it's a great illustration of how modern translations actually help us understand better what God's word is saying. All scripture is inspired when we think of that English word today. We think of inspiring, inspirational. It moves us. So there may not be anything special about the text itself, but it really moves me. That is not at all what is meant by inspired in second Timothy 316. The Greek word is the word theot new sauce comes from two Greek words. Theot the theos which is God. Theon God, the new sauce which is a form of the Greek verb penetto which means to breathe so literally very literally you put those two together God breathed. That's exactly what the NIV has. So the N.A.B. has taken an old King James word inspired which could be confusing, could be interpreted in several different ways, and has literally translated it with English that we use today which directly reflects the Greek word, all scripture is God-breed. Now it's important to understand that inspiration applies to that process where God breathed out his word. It is that process where God's word originated with him and he breathed it out, it came from him. But when God breathed it out how did it get on the pages? And that is found in 2 Peter chapter 1 and verse 21. 2 Peter 1, 21 says this in the N.A.B. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will but prophets, the human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The King James says holy men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So King James says they were moved by the Holy Spirit, these men, these prophets, these scribes who wrote the Bible, they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Now again that's an old King James word that could be, could mean several things in our current English. It could mean that all it was, they felt impressed to do something and so they were just moved, you know. But that's not really what the Greek word means in the language we speak today. The N.A.B. translates it, they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The Greek word is found only one other time in the New Testament and it's in Acts 27 where Paul is on his journey to Rome and the ship gets on a hurricane and the Bible says they lost control of the ship and it was being born along or carried along by the wind. It means to be totally under the control of and so what the word means in the N.A.B. translates it very well, carried along by the Holy Spirit. The writers of Scripture as God breathed out his word through their minds and hearts and pins as they recorded it, they were carried along by the Holy Spirit kept from any error as they recorded that. By definition inspiration is only those original documents that they recorded. By definition because that's when God breathed out his word and those were the men as they wrote the Scriptures who were protected and born along by the Holy Spirit so there would be no error in those original manuscripts. By definition inspiration applies only to the original manuscripts and I'm going to talk about where it went from there in just a moment. But to say that the King James was inspired of God in 1611 is a misuse of the term and of the Scriptures. The Scriptures make it clear, inspiration has to do with when God breathed out his word through the men who originally recorded it. That is inspiration. So we've got to be clear on that. So our modern translations wrong, is it wrong to translate the Bible? No, no. But let me go on to say this about the King James. The King James is a translation, not an inspired text. It is a translation just like any other translation by faithful godly men who went back to the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and sought to translate it into the language spoken in their day. That is the same thing translators do today who put out the NIV, New American Standard, English Standard Version, and other good, solid translations. By the way the writers of the King James knew that and they told us so. In the preface they wrote to their original translation, which is not easy to get a copy of today. In fact, not easy to get a copy of the actual 1611 version. You do not have a 1611 version of the King James. That is mostly found in museums or you can buy commemorative copies for a pretty hefty price. But the version that we have today of the King James is several editions removed. It is a 1769 edition. The 1611 version was written in the Old Shakespearean English where all the essays look like F's. I have seen a copy of it. You would not be able to read it. You honestly would not be able to read it. So all the bumper stickers, you know, they have KJV 1611, I saw a guy with a hat on, had 1611. He does not have a 1611 version. I did not want to try to convince him of that. But he does not. The version we have is a 1769. Many editions removed. Listen to what the King James translators said in their preface to the 1611 edition. They said this. And I quote, happy is the man that delighted in the scripture and thrice happy that meditate in it day and night. But how shall man meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept veiled in an unknown tongue? Contemporary translation, it is that opens the window to let in the light. Indeed, without translation into the common tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well, which was deep without a buck or something to draw with. Now that's a direct quote from the 1611 translators of the King James. You hear what they're saying? They're saying the Bible must be translated in the common tongue. And we must update it. That's what they were doing. There were already three English versions being used. But we must update it, they say, so that it is in a tongue that we speak, a contemporary translation in the common tongue. That's the exact reason why translators today translate new translations. They go on to say this. Do we condemn the ancient translations? In no case, we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that prevailed before us in this kind that we acknowledge them to have been raised up by God for the building and furnishing of his church. Therefore, blessed be they and most honored be their name which help forward to the saving of souls. You know what they were saying? They were saying we recognize there are other good translations. We're not trying to do away with them. We're not trying to say they were wrong. They were godly men who translated those translations. They were good translations. They're just not current. That's what the King James translators were saying in 1611. Read on in their preface. Truly good Christian reader. We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make up a bad one, a good one, but to make a good one better or out of many good ones, one principal good one that has been our endeavor. Now that wasn't said by the NIV translators or new American standard translators. That's what the King James translators said. We're trying to update the older translations to make them better to make them more understandable. They went on. They were being heavily criticized in subsequent editions for, you know, I'll get to a few of these in a moment, correcting some of their errors in their translation. And they were being criticized for that. So they wrote this. We're criticized and I quote for authoring and amending our translations so often. They responded by saying they could do little else quote if we will be sons of the truth. Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered. So they recognized in their 1611 version, they never claimed that it was inspired. They never claimed that it was the only English translation. They applauded the efforts of others. And they said, you know, we have, we made a few mistakes in the first one and we're correcting those. As any good translation might, for instance, in the 1611 version in Matthew 2636 where it says, and Jesus and His disciples came to get simile, the 1611 version said, then come with Judas and His disciples. Well, obviously they corrected that in the 1612 edition. In the 1613 edition in Exodus chapter 20 and verse 14, they left out the word not so that the verse read, vow, shout, commit adultery. Now those who were so critical of the King James called it the wicked Bible. As many call the NIV today, the evil Bible. The King James is a translation like any other. And scholars continue to deal with the Old Testament and New Testament manuscripts and texts in Hebrew and Greek to come up with the very best possible translation. Any godly, faithful translation that is faithful to those Hebrew and Greek manuscripts is the word of God in our language for us. So let me quickly summarize some good reasons for translating the Bible in current language. There are good biblical reasons for doing that. First one is Nehemiah chapter 8. Remember what we read earlier beginning of the message? Those who were reading the Hebrew Old Testament translated into the common language of the people so that they could understand it. That's exactly what current translations are supposed to do. Second reason for biblical reason for new translations, current translations in current language. The New Testament was translated in a particular form of Greek called Coenay Greek. Now the reason for that is there were two kinds of Greek that were available to the biblical writers when Paul and Matthew and Mark and so forth wrote the New Testament. One form was classical Greek. It was the Greek of Plato and Aristotle and the philosophers and it was also the Greek of the Greek stage, the actors, but it was 400 years old. You see, Plato and Aristotle lived 400 years before Christ. So it was still to it was kind of an academic language. It was not the Greek that the average person in the street spoke. That was called Coenay Greek, common Greek. And when God said, I want my word to be put in the language of people and I want the New Testament to be written, he chose the common language of the people. Not the 400-year-old still-fid academic Greek like Shakespearean English of 400 years ago. So there's a direct biblical parallel between modern translations today. God wants his word in common language so that we can understand it. Third reason, Jesus and the apostles quoted from a modern translation. They used and quoted from what's called the Septuagint. It was the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek 200 AD, 200 years before the birth of Christ. And Christ, that was his Old Testament. That was his Bible was the Septuagint. And there are times when it is clear that they quote, they use the Septuagint. Now in her book, Gail Ripplinger is very much aware of that and she realizes how damaging an argument it is to her case. And so she says that the Septuagint did not exist until 200 AD to kind of get around that argument. That is just a lie. It's just historically inaccurate. There is abundant historically. We know when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek. It was 200 BC by 70 scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, who were concerned that Jewish people no longer understood Hebrew. They all spoke Greek because that's what was invoked across the Roman Empire and the Greek world. And so they translated 200 BC. We know that to make a claim that it was translated after 200 years after the time of Christ is just historically fiction. But it's the only way she can get around the argument that Jesus used a modern translation. So how did we get our Bible quickly? Let me summarize. How do we get our Bible anyway? First step is inspiration. Now remember, the Bible teaches that's when God breathed out his word through holy chosen men who recorded it into our Old Testament and New Testament. That's inspiration. That's how it got from God's mind and heart and mouth down on the printed page throughout the time of the Bible. But the second step is the step of transmission. Those original documents that Isaiah wrote and that Paul wrote. Obviously there were no printing presses in those days. They could not copy them in that way. And so what they did, they would obviously wear out at some point, they began to copy them by hand. And there were multitudes of copies made of the originals and they took extreme care. Again, this would be a wonderful study sometime to do of those who copied the Old Testament and New Testament manuscripts. They would sit in reading rooms at tables where they would check each other's work and they would be given one page that they would copy Hebrew manuscript. They were to copy it in the same Hebrew. Before they ever started copying, they would count the number of words on the page of the document they had and the number of letters. And then they would copy it. They would count the number of words and letters on the one they just copied. If they didn't match, they throw away the one they just did and start over. Every page done that way. And lots of other care they took. It's a fascinating study. What was happening was God was preserving His Word by having it faithfully copied. Those original documents which were inspired were then transmitted down to us. And by the way, we have over 5,000 manuscripts or copies of the Greek New Testament. It is the most well-documented literature in all of history. Nothing else even comes close. And so God saw to it that His Word would be preserved. Now the reason why there are some minor differences between the King James and the NIV or other newer translation is because of the different manuscripts that were used. Again, I mentioned the King James only had a few manuscripts that were very close to the time it was done. Since then, manuscripts have been uncovered which go back to 200 or 300 AD, very close to the originals. And those manuscripts were used in the newer translations. Those three reasons, there are some minor differences. Most of the differences are very minor. Most of them were just updated language. There are a few, just a handful of instances where it looks like the NIVs left out of Word or left out of verse. That's simply because they were using older manuscripts. Probably better manuscripts. So there's inspiration, then there's transmission, the passing, the touchdown, and then the translation into English. So inspiration, transmission of the copying of those originals down through the centuries, and then finally English translations. The first English translation was done in 1382 by John Wickliffe. He died at the stake for putting the Bible in the common tongue of English-speaking people. But during the 1500s, part of the Reformation movement across Europe was to get the Bible in the language of people. That's why Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. See, up until that time, it was all in Latin. And so the Roman Catholic Church had control of the Bible. People did not have the Bible in their own language. Martin Luther broke from the church in that way, as well as other ways, and translated the Bible into German. And there was this sweeping yearning and desire to have the Bible in your own language. At the same time, he was translating into German. William Tindale was translating the Bible into English. 1525-26. He finished his translation. He was also burned at the stake for daring to put the Bible into the common language of the people. But that didn't stop godly believers from wanting to get the word into the hands of others. By 1603, when King James I became king of England, there were three primary translations in the English language, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishops Bible. And 1603, when King James came to the throne, the Puritans appealed to him to make some changes. And one of the changes they appealed to him to make was either use the Geneva Bible or come up with a whole new translation. And he decided that a new translation would help unify his kingdom. And so in 1604, he commissioned 47 scholars from Cambridge and Oxford universities, some of them Hebrew scholars, they could understand the Old Testament, some Greek scholars that could understand the New Testament, some English scholars that could put the finishing touches in English, 47 of them, all of them Church of England, Anglicans. And he commissioned them to translate a new translation. They started in 1607, they finished in 1611, it was a masterpiece and still is. The King James translation is a masterpiece of the English language, the language of Shakespeare, the language of the poets of that time, it was considered a literary masterpiece, but it was not easily accepted by the Church. In fact, for 80 years, the King James was heavily criticized, bitter attacks against the King James that sound just like the ones today in C&I. Here's what was said. The King James is theologically unsound, it is ecclesiastically biased, which means it's biased toward the Anglican Church, and I could give you proof of that, but I don't have time. All the Anglicans who believed in infant baptism came to the Greek word, Bhaktidzo, which means to dip or plunge under, and they didn't know what to do with it. So they made an English word up. They just took the Greek word and made it an English word. Bhaktidzo became Bhaktism and they skirted the issue. That's why many who knew what the Greek word meant said, you're just catering to the Anglican Church. They also accused the King James of truckling to the King and of unduly favoring his belief in witchcraft. That sounds familiar. They said it was untrue to the Hebrew text, who brought him who was a Puritan pastor, said, I would rather be rent and pieces by wild horses than to use that new translation. The King James. Did you know that the pilgrims would not bring the King James to America when they came in 1620? Nine years after it had been finished, they brought the Geneva Bible. They thought the King James was an unworthy modern translation that should not be used. So the King James had the same fight against it that modern translations do today. The translators of the King James never claimed that it was inspired, knew that it was a translation, did not say it was, that it was taking the place of the others. They just wanted to try to improve it in the more common language. Exactly what translators do today. In closing, what is the value of the NIV? We use the NIV here at Johnston Chapel. Why? Why do we do that? Let me say several things in closing, as quickly as I can. First of all, I respect for the King James version. I hope that nothing I've said today indicates any lack of respect for the King James version. It is a wonderful translation. It is a masterpiece and it is still a great translation. My criticisms have been against those who twist historical fact and biblical truth to say that it is the only legitimate translation. That's just not right. But it is a great translation. I have great respect for it. I still use it a lot. But there are several reasons for using a modern translation. The reason why we've chosen the NIV. Number one is the changes in language. It's number two on your outline. The changes in language. There are so many language changes since 1611. I wish I had time to go compare verses. But let me just give you some words of the hundreds of words found in the King James version that are no longer in use today in the English language at all. So we're very confusing. For instance, do you know what chambering means in Romans 1313? Chambering and wantonness? Chambering means sexual immorality. But we don't use that word chambering anymore. It's gone out of use in the English language. Nobody uses it anymore. So it's not understood. You know what the word sealed means in Haggai 1.4, talking about the Israelites building their sealed houses. You think, oh, it means they had a sealing, right? No. It means panelled. But we don't use the word sealed anymore. C-I-E-L-E-D. Do you know what it means that in Joshua 9.5 they clouted upon their feet? I don't know. We don't use that word anymore. But the NIV translates it in common language. They put patches on their sandals. That was when the Ghibli and Iks were trying to fool the Israelites into thinking they'd come from far away. They put patches on their sandals. Well, they clouted on their feet. I don't know what that means. Neither be you. But do you understand the word cotes, COTES or surety ship or sack butt or skull or brigandines or emers AMERC or what is a crookback or a gleeid or a win WEN in Leviticus 22? What is a Niter in Proverbs 25-20? It's actually soda like baking soda. But we don't understand the word Niter anymore. What about fabric or almug or nieces or chode or hybergian or pertinence or acaldema or blains or what? Paul says, I want not in the King James. Simply means I know not. We don't use the word WOT anymore or TRO, TURRAL and BASIG, COLLUPS OF FAT. Don't you dare accuse me of having COLLUPS OF FAT. I've got some FAT but only of COLLUPS. Wimples, holes mouth, outches of gold, naughty figs or fetched a compass which does not mean go find a compass. It means to turn around. You see there's so many expressions in the old King James. We don't even have clue what they mean anymore. We don't use that language anymore. So why have a modern translation to update the language? And you know what? That's what the King James translators said they were doing. It was updating the translation, the words language. Another reason is the increasing confusion created by an archaic style. The general style of the King James although it is in wonderful historical English, it's archaic. We no longer talk that way. Now if you were brought up on the King James, you grew up in a church where you've always used the King James and you've had a lot of those expressions explained to you, then you get it and the King James is probably not a problem. But for new believers, for children, they cannot understand it. You know 30 years ago when I was passing in Indiana on Wednesday nights, I would have the adults in my house because the Iwana program had grown so much they took over the whole church. And so, the person who was right next to the church and I would start the adults off with a Bible study in our living room. And then when they got started on their prayer time, I'd go work in Iwana. And what the Iwana leaders had me doing was listening to kids' sections, especially of unchurched kids, so that I could have an opportunity to talk with them about the Lord. I will never forget a little girl pointing out to it, pointing to a word in her handbook and saying, what is that word? You know what it was? H-A-T-H-H-H-H. Everyone that believe in him, Hath Eternal Life. She didn't know what that word meant. Kind of took me back at first because I grew up on the count. That's just the word, have, but she'd never seen that word before. And most unbelievers or children, New Converse, don't have a clue as to what that kind of language means. Another reason that ties into those two I just mentioned is the purpose for translations. Remember Nehemiah 8, 8? Remember that? The whole purpose of translation. They read from the book of the law of God making it clear or translating it why, giving the meaning so that people understood what was being read. If it was good enough for Ezra and Nehemiah, it ought to be the same good enough for us. We ought to want the Bible in the language that people speak so that they can understand it. And then another reason is the way that God gave the New Testament. I've already referred to that. God gave it in the common ordinary Greek of the day, not the stilted 400-year-old theatrical language of the Greek stage. So I think God wants his word in the language of the day, not the stilted theatrical language of Shakespeare. He wants it in the language of his day. Now here's, I want to say this just in summary and we'll close with this. John A. Kerberg has written a fine little booklet called The Facts about the King James Only Debate. And he ends that with this plea. Both King James Only promoters and those who use modern translations have been more than blessed by God as far as his word is concerned. And he kind of traces through history. They're privileged to have the word of God more complete than the vast majority of God's people throughout history. He goes through the Old Testament, New Testament, how little of the word they had. And even through the centuries up till the 16th, 17th centuries, people did not have the Bible in their own language. And even since then, very limited ability, copies were simply too expensive, even if they were available. By comparison, Christians of today are immeasurably richer, not only to have the King James translation, but also have reliable modern versions. All believers should give thanks for the great wealth they do have rather than bickering over relatively minor differences among translations. And I say amen to that. If you are a Christian who uses the King James version, A. Kerberg says rightly so. If you are a Christian who uses the King James version, if you understand what you read and are comfortable with it, then by all means continue to use it. If you are a Christian who uses a good modern translation, you should also feel free to continue to use it. Don't be deterred or intimidated by those who would tell you that you do not have the true word of God in your hands. You do have the true word of God in your hands. Any faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew into modern language is the word of God in our language. Now look at this picture in the closing slide. Here's the danger that you have a Bible in any translation. King James and I, V, E, S, V, whatever, which you never use it. If you will read your Bible and live by it, I don't care what translation you have as long as it is a good solid translation. There are some ones that are not that good, but the ones I've mentioned this morning, King James, N. I. V., New American Standard, E. S. D., or English Standard version, and there are a few others. New Living translation is a good one. Those are good translations. If you have one, use it. A lot of people have the King James Bible and never open it and never live by it. So the critical thing is that whatever translation you have, read it, live it. That's the key thing. Let's pray. Father, thank you that you've given us your word and you've given it to us through the centuries in ways that we can grasp and understand so that we know what you're telling us and we can live by it. Help us to be faithful to take your word that which you've given us. We have in our hands this morning and to use it to educate ourselves, to grow in you and to and then to serve to do what you've given us to do. May we cherish and value and live out your word. We pray in Jesus and we pray in Jesus' presence. We pray in Jesus' presence. We pray in Jesus' presence.