Madisonville Church of Christ

by Russell M. Kline

 

For a very long time, the Madisonville Church of Christ has enforced a policy, which requires that only the King James, American Standard, and New King James versions of the Bible are to be used, when reading from the pulpit, preaching a sermon, or teaching a Bible class. While some have questioned the validity of this policy, it has stood the test of time, mostly because of the controversy surrounding modern translations of the Word of God. For decades, the issue has divided brethren all over the world. Those who use only the King James, American Standard and New King James versions are genearlly thought of as "conservative," while those who use other English versions are often assumed to be "liberal." I would hasten to point out that one cannot judge the soundness of a brother simply by the version he carries with him. However, I would also hasten to point out that modern versions of the Bible are very dangerous, for a wide variety of reasons.

 

 

Starting with the Revised Standard Version, in 1946, most translators of the Bible have adpoted the idea that a "word-for-word" translation of the Scriptures is inferior to a "fluid" translation. What that means is, rather than rendering exactly what the Hebrew and Greek text actually says, the highest priority of modern translators is the beauty and fluidity of the English text. What is dangerous about this is that it tends to result in the acceptability of altering the Biblical narrative, so that essential changes in how the Bible reads are no longer taboo. This is in direct violation of warnings against tampering with the Word of the Lord, in passages like, Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18 and 19.

 

Then, there came translators, like J.B. Phillips, who expressed disbelief in the infallibility of the Bible. What is dangerous about this approach to translation is that it holds the sacredness of the Scriptures in contempt (II Tim. 3:16). If one believes that it is possible for the Bible to contain mistakes, how might that attitude influence decisions that must be made about the translation of words? Would it make for a better translation? Why would anyone who does not believe the infallibility of the Bible be involved in translating it, at all?

 

Eventually, there came translations like the New English Bible, which liberally use "paraphrase" to convey "the intended meaning of the text." What this means is, rather than rendering what the Hebrew and Greek text acutally says, the translator's goal is to convey what he believes the "intended meaning" of the text is. What is dangerous about this is that it has resulted in the injection of human opinion into the text of many translations. When translators speculate about the "intended meaning" of a given text, they make the Scriptures into their own "private interpretation," in direct violation of II Peter 1:20.

 

 

The purpose of marginal notes in English Bibles is to give the reader some alternate, or comparative readings for certain words and phrases. Modern English translations use them to cast doubt upon the veracity of some passages of Scripture. For example, many modern versions assign this marginal note to the last twelve verses of the book of Mark: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts omit these verses." What the marginal notes do not say, is that only two