The times we live in are, to quote a phrase, "the best of times, the worst of times." We live in times that offer so much potential, and yet we see so much evil around us. These should be the days when the body of Christ is united in taking the message of Christ to a world that so desperately needs it, and yet there is still so much that divides us, diverting our attention away from our calling to issues that only bog us down and keep us from fulfilling the work we have to do.
It is interesting, and disheartening, that for many in the Lord's church, if we don't have an issue to fight about among ourselves, we'll create one. The problems of worldliness and false teaching notwithstanding, it seems we're not content to deal with what truly needs to be dealt with, and go off on tangents that may make some look sound, "defenders of the faith," when in reality, they're not.
One such issue is that of translations. It amazes me lines of fellowship are drawn by some over which version of the Bible one uses, rather than what one teaches from that version. What also amazes me is how some argue over language and meaning, that have no clue what Hebrew and Greek are. From discussions with some in this group, it seems they have their minds made up before examining any version and the criteria for wording choices that were made. In other words, there is an agenda, and honest scholarship is not being considered.
This seems to be at the heart of many who draw lines of fellowship over whether a person uses the KJV (King James Version) or NIV (New International Version). At the outset, let me state I have no preference here, as I don't use either for my preaching/teaching. I believe both have their strengths and weaknesses, and that both have been used for good in teaching the will of God. If someone wants to use the KJV, that is great; if someone else wants to use the NIV, fine. The important thing is getting in the word of God and letting it get into us. However, just because one person uses one and not the other is not a good reason to impugn that person's relationship with God, whether they are a genuine Christian or not, and whether they can go to heaven or not. Some have made such decisions based simply on a translation.
As I said before, I do not begrudge anyone using either version. For me, the KJV is difficult for many to read due to the changes in language over the last 400 years. On the other hand, the NIV is more interpretative in places than I prefer. However, I believe one can still learn God's plan of salvation from both, about what the Lord's church is to be, and how to live the Christian life.
Our views on these two translations (and others that could be mentioned) seems to be divisive in some preachers and congregations. Defenders of both sometimes take extreme positions, more to win the argument than to consider the truth. And Paul reminds us we must speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). If both elements were part of the discussion, perhaps this would not be the battlefield it has become.
I don't know of too many who use the NIV that would condemn those who use the KJV, but there are those who use the KJV that do condemn those that use the NIV. Passages are pointed out that they believe are in error, and there are those that could have been better translated in the NIV, no question. But I am curious why the KJV gets a free pass in this debate? Some seem to want to hold it as inspired by God himself, when it is not. It is truly astounding, if you look at some of the problems in the KJV, that these never get mentioned as weaknesses. For example, if the NIV had translated the term for Passover as "Easter," as the KJV did in Acts 12:4, there would be no end to the criticisms offered against it. Yet when this is discussed with those so adamant for the KJV, I usually get "Oh, not that again!" No explanation for why Easter is inserted, that it is not correct, just indignation that I brought it up.
Or one could ask from which translation most mainline denominations were established in this country, and you hear, "Well, that's the people using it, not the translation's fault." Why do we allow this for one version, but not another? I had one person tell me, "Well, there's not as many doctrinal errors in the KJV as the NIV." So, how many does it take to cross the threshold of being acceptable to non acceptable?
Objectivity is not an easy thing to maintain in life. We develop preferences and defend them, sometimes passionately. I believe this is what is at the heart of the translation debate. We have allowed emotions to supersede logic in this matter. I understand how the KJV can be precious to many, as it was read to them by their mothers or fathers, studied by them in their youth, a special preacher used it, and other such reasonings. But to allow emotions to determine our choice, and then to debate as if it were a matter of language, of objective consideration, is not being honest. Unfortunately, we have many who will bash something despite all evidence because it makes them look "sound" and gains approval from others.
I developed a love for the Biblical languages in college many years ago. I have examined many, many translations since then. They all have strengths and weaknesses. What is more important than which version one uses, is what one does with what it says. I do not believe anyone will go to heaven simply because he or she uses the KJV. I do not believe anyone will go to hell simply because he or she uses the NIV. I believe we will be judged on how we have lived according to what Scripture says (2 Cor. 5:10).
Are some versions better than others? I believe so, but again, that question has several variables to consider. Suffice it to say, in a day and age when the Bible is so readily accessible, in so many versions, but so few seem to really read and study it, our concern should be more than which one is used. We have real battles to fight for the Lord; we shouldn't allow Satan to so easily distract us from fulfilling the Great Commission by arguing from which version it's done.
