The Backwash

I hardly ever get to say “I told you so.”  The events of the last two weeks, though, have me beating that drum.  I am no prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I wrote in this very blog (HERE) back in January about the mess we are living now. (Click the link… refer to point number two).

I wish my next prediction would lead me to a few million $$, but I don’t know if that one is in the cards.

-MH

Absolutely one of the funniest pictures I have seen, courtesy of my hilarious daughter.  Peanut butter containing peanuts…..ya think??

I’m just tired of it.

It’s not that hard.

If English is your first language, you shouldn’t need this reminder.

It seems like whatever crop of entry-level Joe / Jane Copywriters for ad agencies or name-your-flavor mass media production houses just don’t get it.  Today I heard (once again) a commercial via radio for a football game between the North Little Rock Charging Wildcats and the Sylvan Hills Bears in some aptly named rivalry game.  It was nicknamed the (fill in the blank here because I cannot remember) bowl.  What made this all so disgusting was the wording of the ad…”join us for the FIRST ANNUAL ________ bowl.”

Let me be clear for those of you who just don’t get it.  There is no such animal as a “first annual” anything.  It can be called the “first ever,” or the “inaugural,” but not “first annual.”  Nothing can be annual until it is experiencing at least it’s second occurrence.

But, alas, some simpletons just don’t get it and think the phrase looks or sounds good.  That wording, however, is like an idiot stick pointing back to the slack-minded jackal who wrote the copy.  Just take a look at the newspaper over the next couple of days.  You will likely find some ad touting a “first annual” something.  Buffoons.

These are likely the same people who use phrases like “it’s a true fact.”  Hmmm…. well, since by nature all facts are true, that phrase is redundant…just like there is no such animal as a “false fact.”  Yet, we are still subjected to this outpouring of misapplication of words.

English skills beyond college – please try to hone them – because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.  Such poorly worded non-punchy writing makes people like me even more suspect of the legitimacy of the event.

-MH

We have all been there.  We have been in the church service where someone we just visited with about a football game or (name the subject) gets up to lead a prayer and it sounds like they are a different person.

I was reminded of this again last Sunday as I visited a congregation in Branson, MO.  This is a congregation of people that are very kind, friendly and open to visitors.  Every time I go there, though, I am surprised by those who get up to lead prayers or to read scripture. I feel as if I have been transported to a surreal plane inhabited by King James himself.  “Our most righteous Heavenly Father, we thank thee…” was spoken and then we dove into a plane of existence where I was struggling to translate in my head the meaning of English that is not used in current day-to-day existence.

Funny, isn’t it, how some feel like the use of the King James language somehow makes things holier?  Why in the world would we not speak to God in the language we use every day?  I am of the mind that it is time to stamp-out this “church clothes of speech” approach – and continue to make the Gospel relevant to our time.  (Please note – I did not and will not support changing any scripture – but let’s at least read it and speak it in a way that most can understand).

I am actually beginning to think that the King James version of the Bible is hindring evangelism.  In fact, it probably does as much to drive people away from the word of God as anything. Consider the facts:

• The KJV was a bad translation when it was originally published in 1611. It underwent numerous “corrections,” and was eventually republished several times with the most significant changes coming in 1769. So, in essence, the KJV is a translation of a translation…not the best of situations right out of the gate.
• King James’ intent was good.  He was continuing an effort started during the reign of Elizabeth (1558 – 1603) to reduce the diversities of the bible in the English tongue.  Granted, there were some rotten translations at that time (King James noted the Geneva translation as particularly poor).
• King James’ intent was not to have a bible that everyone would use on a day-to-day basis (most KJV lovers don’t know this little tidbit).  Consider King James’ words from the following resolution:  “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.“  It was a translation that started with the intent of being high-church only.
• We can thank King James (the wimp) for continuing the TRANSLITERATION rather than TRANSLATING the word for Baptism (baptizo).  (The transliteration, as I recall, started when the Bishop’s bible was translated in 1561.  The story goes that john Calvin convinced John Knox that the mode of baptism i.e. immersion / sprinkling / etc. was of no significance.  So, Knox convinced the bishops of England that it was immaterial and they transliterated the word, replacing the “o” with an “e.”)  Had KJ had the guts to TRANSLATE it, we would all be talking about immersion.  Since the church of England didn’t like that, he continued what was out there in the Bishop’s bible and left the interpretation up to the reader.
• The translation uses the King’s English, and is relevant for that time period.  Fast-forward to today when many are communicating with emoticons and acronyms.  Most LOL at the KJV, or ROTFL at some of the language rather than thinking it is gr8.  Honestly – for a generation of people using text language, do we really think the use of “thee” and “thou” and “whither” and other long-deceased uses of the English language are really going to communicate effectively?
• I can hear it already – many will say “the word of God can communicate regarless of the language.”  I agree 100% – and this is the basis of why I think we should retire the KJV version of the Bible.

When it gets down to it, I’m not trying to stir anything up…I’m just asking how effective a communication tool the KJV is.  There are many other better translations out there that are relevant, and are easily understandable.  Unfortunately, though, there are still many who consider the KJV to be the only “authorized” version of the bible.  For all of us, please consider the following:

• The hard-to-understand language and bad translation of the KJV are a significant barrier to entry for those who seek God.
• God has done a remarkable job (like only He could have done) getting the Bible to us over time and in different versions – reinforcing the fact that the word of God is always relevant and always timeless.
• For those die-hard KJV-ers – feel free to continue using.  Just don’t expect a lure a lot of people to the church unless you are willing to use a version that resonates with this generation.
• Let us all remember – as far as we know, Jesus did not speak one word of English while on the earth – so there simply cannot be one “authorized” English version.  Remember – we’re talking about the God that let everyone hear the message in their own tongue at Pentecost.  If versioning were so important, then He would have just used one language and forced them all to understand it.
• Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “The Medium is the Message.”  If the word of God is to dwell in us richly, then we ourselves should be the message.  How evangelical a thought.  Our actions, love and gentle spirit are going to resonate a lot more loudly than a cacophony of tired old-English phrases from a KJV bible.  If people don’t first see Christ in us, they likely will not listen to any version of the bible.

Finally, consider what we have called the Great Commission.  Jesus commands us to “…go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Isn’t it interesting that Jesus did not specify the “how?”  Our command is to go and teach.  He totally leaves the tools and methods up to us.  Make no mistake – this is the same God that wrote Leviticus.  He could have easily included “and use this type of translation,” but he did not.

The message of the entire Bible is timeless.  It should be translated into every tongue the world-over, and made available to all.  There is no reason to encumber it within language that has not been used in general speech for centuries.  If we force that, then we create a barrier that was never intended.

-MH