July 2009 Article - Examing the Lies of the King James Attackers Part 3

July 2009 Article - Examing the Lies of the King James Attackers Part 3Iseminger Family Ministries, July 2009

Examining the Lies of the King James Attackers

Well, after a break of over almost two years we are going to finally getting back to writing some articles for the website. I was looking at these articles today, and after attending a “summit” on the King James Bible in Crown Point, IN last week I feel impressed to add to what has been written and press forward with exposing these lies.

I know it has been a long time, perhaps you might want to take a minute and read either the first or second installment in this series. The links in the last sentance will take you to the first two articles in this series. Now that you are up to speed with what has been previously said let me jump in with the lie I promised to address in the last article.

Lie #3 All we have done is brought the Bible up to date and modernized the language.

There are in actuality two different things that need to be addressed here, one is a blatant lie and the other is more of a misrepresentation. But both are deceptive and I believe intentionally so. Both of these you have no doubt heard over and over again, and perhaps not really given much thought to either.

First: The misconception is that we the Bible needs to brought down to the lowest common denominator or the language of the streets. You have heard this over and over again. We don’t talk that way anymore our language has changed so we need a Bible in modern language. Consider several examples of this erroneous mindset:

“The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. The challenge for our translators was to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today's readers as the original texts did to readers and listeners in biblical times.” (Taken from the website of the New Living Translation)

“The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English.” (Taken from the website of the New International Version)

“Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries” From the preface to the ESV

“The Bible in Today's English Version is a new translation which seeks to state clearly and accurately the meaning of the original texts in words and forms that are widely accepted by all people who use English as a means of communication. This translation does not follow the traditional vocabulary and style found in the historic English Bible versions. Rather it attempts in this century to set forth the Biblical content and message in standard, everyday, natural form of English.” From the preface to the Good News Bible

You can read as many of these things as you want to and you will see it over and over again. The whole “we don’t talk that way anymore so we need a new bible” mentality. If you have not already done so please read the first installment of this series of articles and realize that this argument just is not valid.

Second: Now for the outright blatant lie. It is basically phrased this way “we just took out the thee’s and thou’s and modernized it.” Or perhaps, “it is the same bible you know and love, just brought up to date” You read all the information on all of the versions and you will see this mentality over and over again. The reality is nothing could be further from the truth. But don’t just take my word for it let me prove this point for you, Here is how you can know the new bibles are vastly different from the old King James:

Amplified Bible © by the Lockman Foundation

And on and on we could go. I will avoid going on a rant about why people copyright a Bible ($$$$$$$$$$) but the proof of my above statement is in the © symbol, meaning the publisher has applied for and received a copyright from the united states government.

Because we are talking about Bibles and because every Bible is a translation of some form of Hebrew and Greek texts, and because every English bible has looked at, leaned on or borrowed from some other English bible, then all bibles are subject to special rules when it comes to copyright law. All English Bibles that have applied for and received a US copyright have been copyrighted as “derivative works” . The word derivative here means a work that is taken from another work. Here is what the US Copyright laws say about the copyrighting of a derivative work:

“To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.”

In essence here is what these Bible translators have done time and time again. They run to the “religious” crowd and say, it is just updated and cleaned up, it is the same bible you have known and loved it has just been brought up to date. All the while they have gone to the US Government and declared that their new version has enough changes and enough new material to be copyrighted as a derivative work. The reality is this, they are lying to someone, the question is who?

That is lie number three dealt with and defeated. Next up is this one, perhaps you have heard something like this said: “but King James was a homosexual” or perhaps “But King James killed Baptists” or something along those lines. Was he? Did he? Does it matter? That is what we will cover next; hopefully it won’t be another two years before I get to it. Thanks for your patience.