In the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster a stedfast adherence to the veracity and authority of Holy Scripture was central to the stand of the denomination, from its foundation in 1951. The following is an extract from the "Separated unto the Gospel" booklet which articulates the stand of the Free Presbyterian Church of North America on this issue: "In carrying on this preaching ministry the Free Presbyterian Church has, throughout its history, used the Authorized (often called the "King James") Version of the Scriptures. We wish to avoid the confusion that arises from the use of many different translations and paraphrases in church services. We believe the Authorized Version is unrivaled as a translation of the Scriptures and that it reflects the authentic, historic Hebrew and Greek texts that God "immediately inspired, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I. 8)" In our day there is a clamour for all things new and novel in religion. Standing for the "old paths" has become unfashionable. Those who insist upon the old ways and the tried and tested methods are considered as spiritual dinosaurs, and out of touch with reality. The cry of so many today is for the church to be "relevant" to the age in which we live. Symptoms of such restlessness, even in formerly good churches, is the desire for a change in the "worship" of the church. And so we have the spectacle of religious entertainment - CCM - and the abandonment of "archaic" hymns in favor of contemporary jingles, and often meaningless ditties sung to "catchy" tunes. Some attempt to marry sound words with ungodly music, but this is a union bound for failure. Another sad manifestation of a restless spirit is the endless (it seems) search for a Bible everyone can feel "comfortable" with. Long since, many churches have thrown out the old Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible and moved from the RSV, to the NASB, to the NIV, to the ESV. No doubt the endless search will continue and the ESV will give way to something else. While accepting that the KJV is a translation - the original manuscripts are the basis of this faithful translation - it is my contention (and our church has agreed with this since its inception) that the KJV is a "tried and tested" translation and the best available in the English language. Since the KJV was a standard reading book for young children, in a by-gone generation, and our desire should be to elevate standards rather than "dumbing down" things, I contend that our position on the Authorised (King James) Version is correct. My personal position is clear: I use no other version in my pulpit ministry or in my private reading, but the KJV. Furthermore, I do not recommend to others the use of any inferior versions of Scripture, including the so-called "New King James Bible". There is much evidence that, despite the claims made for the NKJV, it is not merely an up-dated version of the KJV but a brand new translation. However, one of the most serious problems with the NKJV is that while it purports to follow the "Majority" Text, it is replete with footnotes from the corrupt "Minority" Text and thus actually serves to undermine the translation itself. It is inconsistent, therefore, for any supposed proponent of the faithful text underlying the KJV to support or recommend the use of the New King James Bible since it employs footnotes which are corrupt. In my view it is hypocritical to promote a faithful text on one hand while giving tacit approval to a corrupt text on the other. When it comes to the issue of the KJV versus other translations, including the NKJV, it would be proper to state: "The old is better."
Further recommended reading on the NKJV:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A123.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A110.pdf |
Older
Top
