Bible version wars

I haven't had a question in a long, long time about why we don't use only the King James Version of the Bible at CVC. I thought that fight over what I consider to be a non-essential was over. But one of our members is having to defend the non-use of the the KJV.

Many, many years ago, the elders of CVC adopted a statement about CVC and Bible versions. Here it is. I've added a few references to the ESV since it was not a version available when our statement was adopted.

***

CVC and Bible Versions

A position paper by the Elders at Cuyahoga Valley Church - 6/20/95

At CVC, we are solidly committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We believe it is the Word of God. Our statement of faith begins with these words: "The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God, without error in its original writings. "

Concerned Christians want to be sure that they and others are reading and studying accurate versions of the Bible. From time to time, the trustworthiness of some of the newer versions of the scriptures is questioned. Usually, those who raise such questions desire that churches only use the King James Version of the Bible, believing it to be the most reliable of all the translations.

We are familiar with the arguments raised against the modern versions of the Bible. Many of these arguments are simply saying that we should use only the manuscripts that were used to produce the King James Version and ought not use the thousands of ancient witnesses to the text of the Scriptures. Others of these arguments, we have found, arise from an incomplete understanding of the Hebrew and Greek language, grammar and vocabulary, and of the principles of Bible translations. Still other arguments that we have heard regrettably employ tactics of guilt by association or quoting material out of context.

The King James Version (first translated in 1611) is a good English translation of the Bible. However, its original text was based only on a few of the early Greek texts. Today's English translations like the English Standard Version, the New American Standard, and the New International Version are based on many more Greek manuscripts, and far earlier ones, that have been discovered more recently. We have complete copies dating from the fourth and fifth centuries, and papyrus fragments (with complete books) as early as AD 200. The translators of the KJV did not have the advantage of these more recent discoveries.

We do, however, now have access to many thousands of ancient copies of the Greek New Testament (in whole or in portions) so that by comparing the copies we can conclude with relative certainty what the original wording must have been. Because so many more manuscripts have come to light in the last century, and because the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV based their translations on an objective comparison of all known manuscripts, we are confident that we are indeed as close to the original as we can be.

Often the objections to the use of the ESV, the NIV, or the NASB boil down to the fact that it is translated from the Critical Greek Text. A Critical Greek Text is simply the editors' best scholarly opinion of what the wording of the original document must have been, in light of the variant readings that exist. Those who believe that churches should only use the KJV want to use the Textus Receptus, a Greek text used by a 16th century scholar. The fundamental question is, whether the best witness to the original Greek text is a handful of late manuscripts from a single text-type (the Textus Receptus), or the combined witness of several thousand manuscripts ~ including all the text-types and some very early parchments (the Critical Text).

There is not one single place in the entire New Testament where the acceptance or denial of any doctrine related to our salvation or security in Christ, stands or falls on a disputed phrase where the manuscripts differ. The concern of the Critical Text and of the ESV, the NIV, and the NASB is to present the best reconstruction of the original text, based on all available evidence. The Greek Text of 1522 (the Textus Receptus), which underlies the KJV, attempted to do nothing more nor less. Today, though, we have thousands of manuscript witnesses, where the KJV translators had but a few twelfth century manuscripts.

We do not find that the modern translations are the product of those who would deny our Lord and the effectiveness of His work in saving us. Rather, the new translations are the result of careful scholarship. There are places where these new translations read differently from the familiar King James Version. In practically every instance, the difference is in the Greek copies used to translate the New Testament. The King James Version is ultimately based on a handful of late (12th century) manuscripts from a single geographical text family, while other translations, including the English Standard Version, and the New American Standard and the New International Version, have considered literally thousands of manuscripts, from every test family, including many from the fourth and fifth centuries and a good number of papyrus copies from as early as the middle of the second century .

Seeking an honest solution to the variants in known Greek texts does not make one a liberal or a heretic. Arguments that attempt to draw textual conclusions from a prejudicial selection of not immediately relevant data, or from a slanted use of terms, by a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or by repeated appeal to false evidence are not only misleading, but ought to be categorically rejected by Christians who, above all others, profess both to love truth and to love their brothers in Christ. Adoption of the Textus Receptus should not be made a criterion of orthodoxy.

CVC is not asking anyone to give up their KJV. Everyone is welcome to continue to use it for personal reading and study, to bring it to Bible studies and public worship. It is still a good translation, although we contend that there are better ones.

The Living Bible and the Today's English Version are not literal translations from the original Hebrew and Greek. They are not appropriate for serious study, and we do not use them as such. The ESV, NIV, NASB, and KJV are all generally literal translations. We can honestly recommend any of these four for private study. We must realize though, that no translation does a perfect job in communicating precisely from one language into another.

In conclusion, we reaffirm our belief in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible as God's Holy and inspired Word. To imply that the use of translations other than the KJV means that we are moving away from this commitment is false and divisive fellowship with one another.

We can trust our Bibles. If you prefer the NIV, use it. If you prefer the KJV, use that. But do not call another Christian's doctrine or orthodoxy into question on the basis of their choice of version.

We should not permit the usage of a particular version to become the basis of personal and ecclesiastical fellowship. God hates those who "sow discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6: 19). Rather, He instructs us "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). If a person who uses only the KJV declares as heretical another believer who chooses to use the ESV, the NIV or the NASB, then that first person is disrupting spiritual unity. Loyalty to Christ and the inspired Word of God should not be measured by the version which a believer chooses to read or to use in public ministry.