Why did Americans accept “modern” substitutes for their (KJ) BIbles?

I am a “product” of the Jesus movement, and my father was a Pentecostal pastor, associated by some people with the rise of the Pentecostal movement, and I once briefly worked with Charismatic-associated missionary organization.

All of that has nothing to do with a more “accessible” Bible.

The KJB never lost “accessibility”. American Christians only began to accept substitutes in the post-WWII years. “Acceptance” got more traction in England earlier, surely due to their nobility-class oriented culture, or the push in clerical circles for it earlier on, and more centralization of clerical authority. And the ascendance of man’s wisdom over God’s wisdom with the quicker takeover of Darwin’s revived ancient pagan myth, dressed up in “modern language”.

There was also the decay in the faith of pastors educated in the seminaries, which became hotbeds for deviation from the faith of the fathers. Questioning miracles, Creation, and so on, and the heavy drumbeat in the media that youngsters were getting their news from, like a run of about a decade I remember that Time Magazine always put the Jesus Seminar foolishness on their front cover. Add to that the commands from wickedness in high places to expunge God from education and from city squares. Young people in my generation were indoctrinated with doubt and godlessness.

I was part of that Jesus’ people movement in fact for many years. I used the KJB without a good understanding of why except that it was obviously “stronger” language.

Believers did NOT have a problem with it in the 1950s, and even them most scholars, including in Divinity School with lots of alphabet titles after their names, would have said that the average KING JAMES Bible reader was of less scholarly education than readers of “modern” translations.

Advertisements

Tags: ,


%d bloggers like this: