It deeply saddens me that in the midst of a sermon on unity, a preacher felt pushed to apologise for his lack of use of the KJV, as some other people in the church had urged him to use.

I do believe it is right to passionately stand up for what you believe to be the best translation. This is the Word of God on which we ground all our beliefs and actions on (or try to, at least). It's a big deal!

There would be no issue if this was people "being fully convinced (KJV: persuaded) in his own mind" (Romans 14:5, ESV), not passing judgment on others, as Paul in Romans 14 argues. But that's not what is happening.

My concern is that this is running up against the profound rebuke that Jesus gave the Pharisees:

My concern is that this is forcing people who barely know English to learn Old English, which is difficult for the best of us to understand—and therefore the entire foundation of their faith may be out of reach for them. Just look at this verse in the KJV, it doesn't even make sense:

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders (Matthew 23:4, KJV)

Whoever has to translate that to modern English in their head is guilty of breaking the eleventh commandment: "thou shalt not use any other translation than the King James Version"!

Let me say that again: whoever has to sit down and work out what a verse means grammatically in the English you think and speak in, is guilty of breaking your own eleventh commandment.

So where to from here? I could argue that the KJV is not the best translation, and entire books have been written on that, so that could go on for a while. I could argue for another translation being better. But I'm not sure these things are at the heart of the matter, though if you're interested, I'd love to tackle the issue. It is a worthy subject.

It strikes me that you could believe in the ESV to the exclusion of others (though perhaps not regard it as infallible), in a similar (unfounded) divisive attitude. 

So, instead, I want to focus on the matter of unity, and how we can maintain unity, even while trusting in different translations.

Realise people come to faith in varying ways

If people had to have the correct translation to come to faith, it would be a matter of top priority to get the correct translation, and enforce its use.

Yet, people see God perform mighty miracles and believe, or see visions and dream dreams of Jesus, and come to faith.

Others read a NIV or ESV and come to faith. Or any number of other versions of the Bible.

Still others have conversations with believers, and come to faith.

How can we then insist our translation must be used, even if we are correct that it's the best translation?

Realise people grow in their faith with varying translations

It's not just coming to faith, but also our growth in faith that is like this.

We have all been strengthened by seeing and hearing testimonies of God's miracles and breakthroughs in each others' lives.

Most of us have been strengthened and grown through preaching and teaching that used translations other than the KJV.

Most of us have been encouraged by brothers and sisters who have not based their words on the KJV, but an alternate translation.

And so if this is common place, and the Holy Spirit seems happy to use these means, should we then actively work against the use of other translations as if they were unhelpful? And the alternative is not to stop caring about what the best transation is, but rather to listen, to reason, and to keep pursuing God—while not passing judgment on others.

Of course, this is not to argue against the use of the KJV, which God has also used. I take that as being beyond question. This is about a dogmatic insistence that the KJV is the only way forward—and that doesn't fit the fruit.

Realise God is big enough to use our errors

We should not be excusing our errors, and always seek to come to the truth, but we're all on a journey towards that. Some things will get in the way in big ways: drugs, alcohol, the party scene, and so on. You do not hear of God using these errors to teach us, but only story after story of God saving people out of those dark places.

But alternative translations of the Word of God are not dark places! God does change people's minds about which translation is the best, from time to time, but in all cases, he will use whatever available truth in them to teach us about himself.

I myself make a big fuss against leading people to the Lord through the use of a quick prayer (the 'Sinner's Prayer'). I see that method used like an older man teaching a young boy how to win over a girl: "just use this line, it'll work". If, however, coming to God is about surrendering yourself, that not only makes no sense, it will lead people to a false sense of security and they'll remain non-Christian. This is a Gospel issue. Yet despite all this, God uses our errors again and again to lead people to Himself with this poor methodology. It doesn't mean I would cease caring about this matter, but it means I will not get so worked up about it, especially in an environment where it is insisted that we ought to be seeing God's Spirit work through a person (by their fruit you shall know them).

So when we see God use bad translations to woo people to himself and teach and train them, we should take the same attitude and, while not ceasing to listen from others and seeking to persuade others to our position, nevertheless restrain our anger.

Watch for the fruit

It was Gamaliel, a Pharisee held in high honour, who calmed the enraged Council of Elders (also known as the Sanhedrin—made up of the high priest, Pharisees, Sadducees and chief priests). Acts 5:12-42 has the story, and we see Gamaliel intervene to calm things down from verse 34.

It's remarkable how close this is to people attempting to enforce the preaching of the KJV exclusively. Here is group of men, the Apostles, essentially claiming new revelation of God (a new translation?) that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah. The Sanhedrin, though, are convinced their translation of the Old Testament, that Jesus is not the Messiah, is correct, and they are determined to block other interpretations (translations).

Crucially for us, what was the Spirit-inspired way forward? To deny others the right to speak from their perception (and kill them!)? No. It was to wait and see the fruit that would come from it. (A compromise was evidently agreed, where the Apostles would still be flogged, but otherwise Gamaliel's Spirit-inspired advice was heeded.)

Some issues are clearly sinful, and we need to clamp down on them. The issue of translation is not such a clear issue. It is right to seek to understand God's Word and get to the truth of it. But we all know how much we have to learn to get to perfect truth. I pray that we would adopt the position of one of our modern highly respected scholars today, NT Wright, who said something along the lines of:

This attitude leads to a wise caution with respect to hearing new things. Or has the voice of God stopped inspiring people today?

Take the same line as you take with hearing from God

Anyone who has experienced hearing from God for themselves knows that it can be hard to discern whether something they 'heard' (whether through circumstances, thought, reading, impression, dream, vision, audible voice or other means) was from God or themselves or some other source.

Although we have this uncertainty, Pentecostals do not by and large block people or even pressure people to not have a go. Indeed, they encourage people, even while they also reserve the right to correct them.

In the same way that we hold these words from God out for testing, we ought to hold various translation out for testing—and the commentary that comes from them (i.e. people's preaching and teaching). And those speaking also ought to speak in a way which humbly admits that they are not infallible and could be wrong.

So when someone comes along with the 'correct, inspired, infallible' translation, which itself relies upon fallible original manuscripts, fallible translation processes, fallible translation guidelines, fallible prior translations (yes, the translators of the KJV relied upon the previous translationsThe King James Only Controversy, James R. White, 2nd edition, 2009, p119), fallible printing processes and more—the weight of hypocrisy simply cannot hold the pressure to go all out King James only.

What's the key, then? I like the spirit many of the more mature charismatics I know have:

Although we have this uncertainty [in hearing from God], we do not block people or even pressure people to not have a go. Indeed, we encourage people, even while we also reserve the right to correct them.

Realise the voice of God has not stopped inspiring people today

A key point in this debate is that God inspired the translators of the King James Version, overcoming the human, error-prone processes. Do we not believe that this can happen today? And if it could, should we not hold out the possibility that a new translation may fit into a new inspired work?

Well, how can you have two inspired works that are different? They can't both be right. But let me draw out two points:

1. Languages change over time.

2. A Bible translation, if it were inspired by God to teach the hearers, should be accessible to those hearers in their own language.

The English of the KJV is a different language to the English that we speak today (I call it here "Old English"). You may find yourself translating it in your mind as you read it, unless you've come, over a long period of time, to learn it thoroughly. So even if we take the KJV to be inspired, it is the height of arrogance to condemn new translations that help modern English readers read and understand the Bible in their own language. Maybe they're all inspired, speaking as they do to different hearers?

Of course, if we say there is only one inspired translation, we would have to condemn the Chinese tranlation, and the Indonesian translation, and any Aborignal translations, and instead teach them Old English!

Therefore, although I might say that the ESV is the best version available today, it may be that the NIV is best for you, or indeed that the KJV is the best—if it helps you to understand God better in the way that it speaks, presuming you take the same care in your exegesis (and presuming the translators have too).

God speaks to us in our language, and continues to speak to all people today. The pursuit of a King James only position – or any one translation – undermines these beliefs, and therefore it is right to openly condemn it. We will be less concerned about it when we realise that different people need to hear at different levels (more readable versions versus more literal versions, or indeed even going back to the original languages or manuscripts). When we are less concerned, we are more open to unite despite our diversity.

Conclusion

I'm sitting here with a long tome "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, and, as stated earlier, I could try and convince people out of that stance but it wouldn't get to the heart of the matter. I'm greatly concerned that we would hinder people from understanding the Word of God should we use a foreign language amongst our people. If you personally find it helpful, go ahead and use it. But let each person be convinced in their hearts before God.

I want to leave you with inspiring words from the translators themselves.

On why they produced a new tranlation:

Do we condemn the ancient [translation]? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.

On the necessity and validity of various translations:

...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

On their methodology—the same as modern methods:

Neither did we think much [there's no issue to think about!] to consult the Translators of Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

On the need for marginal notes, due to the complexity of some statements (there's further humility):

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. ...to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translation is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.The King James Only Controversy, p118-21

Translation: that which the Spirit has left questionable should remain so; variety of translations is profitable. (This is in the preface of the KJV itself!)

Therein is wisdom. Let us unite by embracing the diversity of ways in which God saves and teaches; the grace that God gives in using our errors; the humility that comes when we realise we're all fallible; by rejoicing in good fruit, even if we don't understand why God blessed it; just as we would with hearing from God.

From now, let the only King that is insisted upon be King Jesus only!