Do we worship a seventeenth-century God?

During a church service a few weeks ago, someone read from ,a King James Version Bible a passage from the book of Romans. As I followed along in my New International Version, I was struck by the contrast between what I was hearing and what I was reading. What I was hearing came across as obscure, requiring considerable effort to follow. In my modern translation, on the other hand, Paul's argument stood out plainly; there was no question what he was saying.

As the difference between the old translation and the new impressed itself on me, I wondered, Why in the world are we still using the King James Version (KJV) for public worship? I know the argument that we need something that is uniform so we can read the Bible together, and that the KJV is the obvious choice because more people use it than any other version. But for me this argument doesn't hold water anymore. We can have the uniformity we need for responsive reading by using the scriptures supplied in the back of our hymnals or by printing in our bulletins the passage to be read. I believe that the advantages of using more up-to-date translations out weigh any of the arguments favoring the KJV.

What are the advantages of using a modern translation? For one thing, we've learned a lot about the text of the Bible since the KJV was translated. We now have manuscripts that are significantly closer to the originals. And sub sequent study has added to our under standing of the original languages as well.

These improvements in the text have not brought major changes in the Bible's message, but the Bible is the word of the infinite God—so why should we be satisfied with less than the best? Isn't the removal of some of the "static" on the line sufficient reason to change our practice? ¹

Second, the language we use to speak of God conveys subliminal messages. In Your God Is Too Small, ]. B. Phillips wrote that a group of high school students were asked whether God under stood radar. (This happened when radar was a relatively new invention.) Their first, natural response was no. Then, when they had thought about it for a moment, they laughed and said, Well, of course He must. Their first answer revealed that they tended to think of God as out of touch, as part of the ages past.

Why did they tend to think of God as out of touch with our times? When the primary text we use to communicate about God speaks in language that be longs to the long ago and far away, we give the impression that God and religion belong to the long ago and far away that they are disconnected from the world we live in. People who have a long acquaintance with God can see through this illusion, but it tends to suggest to the young and those who have grown up outside the church that God and religion are irrelevant to our age.

Third, the use of an old, hard-to-understand translation suggests that to those who are using it, the traditional forms of religion are more important than meaning, than understanding—that we value this particular form of God's Word more than we do its content.

The men who translated the King James Version apparently anticipated or actually received a lot of criticism for foisting a new English translation on the public. The translators wrote an extensive preface to meet this criticism (which, unfortunately, most current printings of the KJV leave out). Apparently people were asking Why are you making a new translation? Has the church been deceived all this time ? The translators' response: "To deliuer Gods book vnto Gods people in a tongue which they vnderstand. Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountaine that is sealed, there is no profit."

Note that they weren't making the first English translation. There were other good English translations available—two made within the preceding 50 years. Yet they justified their new translation on the grounds of people's need to have God's Word in a language they understood. They went on in the preface to argue that secular books are translated over and over again, and if that be true, how much more important to retranslate the Scriptures because of their infinitely greater value. They said that such re translation would polish the good and allow the poor parts of the translation to be corrected.

Nearly 400 years have passed since those wise men did their work. Do we really think that the English language has changed so little since that time and that we have learned so little about the Bible that no new translation is justified? Or are we allowing tradition to hinder our clear understanding of God's Word and our persuasive communication of it to our world?

Fourth, while not a matter of translation, I think the KJV's style, which makes each verse a separate paragraph, tends to lead readers to regard Scripture as a collection of aphorisms or pronouncements rather than as connected thoughts forming narrative and argument. This packaging of Scripture encourages proof texting and discourages reading in context—the single most important principle for understanding the Bible.

Fifth, reading is work. As an editor, I've learned that if I want people to read the articles I edit, I have to make reading them as easy as possible. Every obstacle, whether it be small type or poor layout or redundancy or unclear construction, makes some readers stop reading.

Since we want our people to read the Bible, we need to remove the obstacles that sidetrack them—and unfamiliar, out-of-date language is one of those obstacles.

Sixth, the New Testament was not written in either some holy language or some special literary language. Those who wrote it used Koine Greek—the language of commerce and family letters, the common language of the time. Like the people who first received it, we need the Bible in the common, everyday language of our time.

Finally, our direct spiritual ancestors—Ellen White, among them have given us the precedent of using modem translations.

As spiritual leaders, you can educate your people regarding the versions of the Bible. You must do this slowly, carefully, and tactfully. As the translators of the KJV observed: "He that medleth with mens Religion in any part, medleth with their custome, nay, with their freehold; and though they finde no content in that which they haue, yet they cannot abide to heare of altering."

You needn't attempt to take the KJV away from those who are comfortable with it, but encourage them to vary their reading by using other versions. And when you can do so without causing too much of a disturbance, use a modern translation for your Scripture readings and in your preaching. ³