Jump to content

Christopher Hitchens on the King James Version


jv_coach

Recommended Posts

Rinse Not the Prose: Christopher Hitchens on the King James Version
bible_kjv_the_newe_testament-300x200.jpg

 

 

(this was posted April 7, 2011 by Albert Mohler.) http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/07/rinse-not-the-prose-christopher-hitchens-on-the-king-james-version/

Why would an ardent atheist care about translations of the Bible, and why would Christians be concerned with what an atheist would think? These are rather obvious questions, especially when the atheist is Christopher Hitchens, one of the most influential of the New Atheists.

Nevertheless, Hitchens devoted his column in the May 2011 edition ofVanity Fair to the King James Version of the Bible, which celebrates its 400th anniversary this year.

As always, Hitchens is interesting and provocative. He places the history of the Authorized Version (the name by which the British normally refer to the King James Version) in its political context in the early years of the Stuart dynasty and rightly explains that the interest of King James I in the project was to “bind the majesty of the King to his devout people.” He then offers anecdotal observations of the KJV text, correctly attributing its tone and tenor to the earlier work of William Tyndale, as well as to the unusually gifted committee of translation.

Hitchens is a man of letters, and as such, he takes matters of language with urgent seriousness. He points to the King James Version as a crucial repository of our common civilizational knowledge. As he sees it, “A culture that does not possess this common store of image and allegory will be a perilously thin one.” It is very hard to argue with that warning.

Hitchens is also an avowed enemy of banality, which means that he has little literary respect for modern translations that lack literary and linguistic taste and thus pander to mere popular taste. The King James Version translates 1 Corinthians 13:7 to read: “[Love] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” But the Good News Bible translates it as: “Love never gives up; and its faith, hope, and patience never fail.”

As Hitchens states:

This doesn’t read at all like the outcome of a struggle to discern the essential meaning of what is perhaps our most numinous word. It more resembles a smiley-face Dale Carnegie reassurance. And, as with everything else that’s designed to be instant, modern, and “accessible,” it goes out of date (and out of time) faster than Wisconsin cheddar.

He also has little use for attempts to render the text as gender-neutral. He asserts that “to suggest that Saint Paul, of all people, was gender-neutral is to re-write the history as well as to rinse out the prose.”

Along the way, Hitchens takes legitimate shots at modern marketing efforts to commercialize the Bible and sell some translation or edition to virtually every niche market. Of course, as an atheist, he expresses less sympathy with the Reformation conviction that the Bible should be available to everyone in the vernacular of the language. He does offer some interesting insights into the King James Version and the larger issue of Bible translation.

His admonition that translations should not “rinse out the prose” is well stated and profoundly appropriate. Even an atheist can offer good advice on literary matters, and Hitchens is a writer of great ability.

Since the article’s publication, several observers have noted Hitchens’ comments on faulty modern translations and gender-neutral approaches. His points are well worth noting.

But the more interesting aspect of this article to note is this: Christopher Hitchens, one of the world’s most ardent and outspoken atheists and a man in the fight for his life against cancer, is reading the Bible. This is at least the second article on the Bible that he has written of late. I note this with a sense of hope.

I know you will join me in praying that, in reading the Bible, Mr. Hitchens will find more than he might be looking for. Rinse not the prose of its message.

 

 

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at [email protected]. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Christopher Hitchens, “When the King Saved God,” Vanity Fair, May 2011.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully he accepted truth before hand.

Probably not, be cool if he did, but this does show the truth that is in 2 Peter 2:9  The Lord is not slow concerning His promises as some think of slowness but is patient toward men wanting none to perish but all come to repentance.

So yes God loves the worst of sinners (even those who make it their whole life's  work to deny Him and try to lead others away from salvation in Christ alone) but if one rejects the love ( the free gift of salvation through Christ alone) then the promise of eternal damnation, the wrath of God,  and eternity separated from God in the Lake of Fire is  promised to you. For God is Holy and Just while we are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not, be cool if he did, but this does show the truth that is in 2 Peter 2:9  The Lord is not slow concerning His promises as some think of slowness but is patient toward men wanting none to perish but all come to repentance.

So yes God loves the worst of sinners (even those who make it their whole life's  work to deny Him and try to lead others away from salvation in Christ alone) but if one rejects the love ( the free gift of salvation through Christ alone) then the promise of eternal damnation, the wrath of God,  and eternity separated from God in the Lake of Fire is  promised to you. For God is Holy and Just while we are not.

You stated that quite well!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...