King James: The Version Jesus Used
Preaching
Shaking Wolves Out Of Cherry Trees
And 149 Other Sermon Ideas
Purpose Statement: Every Christian needs to be familiar with the various translations of the Bible to some extent: why they exist, why some are better than others, and for what reasons.
We have probably begun to move beyond the point where most Christians believe a certain translation of our scriptures is right and proper and the others are bad. However, there must still exist some confusion over the wide variety of versions. Church members might find it helpful to know the strengths and weaknesses of the different translations in order to select the one or two or three they prefer for different reasons.
a. King James. A brief history of the preservation of scriptures and different translations up until and including the time of the King James would be interesting. A Freudian slip causes some to refer to this version as the Saint James. It is interesting to note that when it first appeared in 1611, it was criticized as sounding like a newspaper and that it denied the divinity and messiahship of Jesus. When sailing for the new world in 1620 the Pilgrims refused to carry the KJV with them. It took fifty years for it to be accepted. (The Bible in the Making, by Geddes MacGregor, p. 147). Wycliffe, the first to translate the Bible into English, so incensed people for that act that they dug him up about forty years after his death and burned his body. Tyndale, for translating the Bible into English, was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 (Know Your Bible Series, Vol. 1, by Roy L. Smith, p. 11).
b. Other translations. Give strengths and weaknesses of the key translations, especially the more popular ones today: The New International Version, Good News Bible: Today's English Version, and The Living Bible. The latter, which is sort of "far out," is a favorite of the conservatives despite their aversion to anything that moves away from the traditional. The key to their acceptance is that it is considered only a paraphrase (you might think about that one a while).
For scripture readings, you could read some passages from different versions for contrast.
We have probably begun to move beyond the point where most Christians believe a certain translation of our scriptures is right and proper and the others are bad. However, there must still exist some confusion over the wide variety of versions. Church members might find it helpful to know the strengths and weaknesses of the different translations in order to select the one or two or three they prefer for different reasons.
a. King James. A brief history of the preservation of scriptures and different translations up until and including the time of the King James would be interesting. A Freudian slip causes some to refer to this version as the Saint James. It is interesting to note that when it first appeared in 1611, it was criticized as sounding like a newspaper and that it denied the divinity and messiahship of Jesus. When sailing for the new world in 1620 the Pilgrims refused to carry the KJV with them. It took fifty years for it to be accepted. (The Bible in the Making, by Geddes MacGregor, p. 147). Wycliffe, the first to translate the Bible into English, so incensed people for that act that they dug him up about forty years after his death and burned his body. Tyndale, for translating the Bible into English, was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 (Know Your Bible Series, Vol. 1, by Roy L. Smith, p. 11).
b. Other translations. Give strengths and weaknesses of the key translations, especially the more popular ones today: The New International Version, Good News Bible: Today's English Version, and The Living Bible. The latter, which is sort of "far out," is a favorite of the conservatives despite their aversion to anything that moves away from the traditional. The key to their acceptance is that it is considered only a paraphrase (you might think about that one a while).
For scripture readings, you could read some passages from different versions for contrast.
