Authorized
A few weeks ago, I saw a sign in front of a church that read "KJV Preached Here." For those of you who might not know what that means, it - first and foremost - means that that particular church reads from and will only read from the King James Version of the Bible. That's the one with the "hence cometh" and "speaketh thee" language. What that also likely means is that particular church is a rather conservative one. I base that on the sign as well as a second sign below that one that read, "Conservative Music Sung Here."
I wasn't sure exactly what that meant. I guess it means that only particular traditional hymns are sung. I don't think it means hymns that are right leaning, but more reflective of an older Christian tradition. Though I do wonder if they would sing old high church songs that might be technically older, but not reflective of their particular understanding of conservative music. I would assume conservative music would be songs such as "Almost Persuaded," Church in the Wildwood" or "Power in the Blood."
Not that there is anything wrong with these songs, or that they are particularly conservative, but they are more reflective of a particular line or branch of the Christian family tree. And for that group, more contemporary songs sung in worship would be anathema. I understand that, and I appreciate their willingness to say that because instead of saying "Everyone Welcome" it is a sign that says, "Here is who we are. If you don't want to hear this, don't come in."
But the aspect about the KJV is one that I still find odd. Not because I don't know what the KJV is, but that I don't find it as important as the message it (as most other Bibles) would contain. Instead of the message, the messenger has become the point of debate. In particular, which translation of the Bible is most authentic or which speaks most accurately. There are hundreds of translations of the Bible, but for some people the King James is the only one worth reading or hearing.
Why is that?
For some, the King James Version of the Bible is considered the only "authorized" version to exist. By authorized, I mean that it was authorized by King James I. For those who are King James Version only the argument is that this is the only version to every be authorized as scripture for English speaking people. On the opening page of these versions you will find the following:
The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.
Of course this implies that there were other translations that existed from which the compilers of the KJV studied. But they weren't the authorized ones.
For those who proclaim that the King James is the only way to go - and that all other translations are heretical, I find that there are strange parallels with the Roman Catholic Church. In particular, there are those Catholics who believe that the Mass should only be performed in Latin, not English, German, or whatever other language there is. Why? Because that was the way it was done and the way it should remain. Insisting on the KJV is akin to denying the veracity of Vatican II. Another parallel are Muslims who claim that unless you read the Qur'an in Arabic, you aren't really reading the Qur'an.
It becomes a point of self-identification and tradition. Proclaiming allegiance to a particular translation is a definition. Right or wrong, it isn't to be treated too lightly, because there is a sincere attempt to hold fast to a particular tradition and understanding of both scripture and what constitutes scripture. For particular protestants, the King James is and always will be the final authority. While that isn't true for me, I appreciate the willingness to define themselves by a particular translation.
If nothing else, it does offer some clarity in a matter of a few seconds as I read the sign.
I wasn't sure exactly what that meant. I guess it means that only particular traditional hymns are sung. I don't think it means hymns that are right leaning, but more reflective of an older Christian tradition. Though I do wonder if they would sing old high church songs that might be technically older, but not reflective of their particular understanding of conservative music. I would assume conservative music would be songs such as "Almost Persuaded," Church in the Wildwood" or "Power in the Blood."
Not that there is anything wrong with these songs, or that they are particularly conservative, but they are more reflective of a particular line or branch of the Christian family tree. And for that group, more contemporary songs sung in worship would be anathema. I understand that, and I appreciate their willingness to say that because instead of saying "Everyone Welcome" it is a sign that says, "Here is who we are. If you don't want to hear this, don't come in."
But the aspect about the KJV is one that I still find odd. Not because I don't know what the KJV is, but that I don't find it as important as the message it (as most other Bibles) would contain. Instead of the message, the messenger has become the point of debate. In particular, which translation of the Bible is most authentic or which speaks most accurately. There are hundreds of translations of the Bible, but for some people the King James is the only one worth reading or hearing.
Why is that?
For some, the King James Version of the Bible is considered the only "authorized" version to exist. By authorized, I mean that it was authorized by King James I. For those who are King James Version only the argument is that this is the only version to every be authorized as scripture for English speaking people. On the opening page of these versions you will find the following:
The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.
Of course this implies that there were other translations that existed from which the compilers of the KJV studied. But they weren't the authorized ones.
For those who proclaim that the King James is the only way to go - and that all other translations are heretical, I find that there are strange parallels with the Roman Catholic Church. In particular, there are those Catholics who believe that the Mass should only be performed in Latin, not English, German, or whatever other language there is. Why? Because that was the way it was done and the way it should remain. Insisting on the KJV is akin to denying the veracity of Vatican II. Another parallel are Muslims who claim that unless you read the Qur'an in Arabic, you aren't really reading the Qur'an.
It becomes a point of self-identification and tradition. Proclaiming allegiance to a particular translation is a definition. Right or wrong, it isn't to be treated too lightly, because there is a sincere attempt to hold fast to a particular tradition and understanding of both scripture and what constitutes scripture. For particular protestants, the King James is and always will be the final authority. While that isn't true for me, I appreciate the willingness to define themselves by a particular translation.
If nothing else, it does offer some clarity in a matter of a few seconds as I read the sign.
Comments
Post a Comment