God commands us to hide specific words, which He calls “these words”, in our hearts. (De 6:6) They are His words; we call them holy scriptures (2Ti 3:15), given by inspiration of God. (16) He tells us to live by every one of them. (Mt 4:4)
Keeping these commands may seem straightforward until we note that [1] no one today has the original manuscript of any part of the Bible (only copies of copies exist, and they aren’t all identical), and [2] most of us don’t understand the original languages of scripture. So, without reliable, consistent access to the actual words of the autographs, how can we live by these particular words and obey such basic, foundational instructions? (Ja 1:22)
To resolve this, observe that God’s purpose in giving us scripture is to fully equip us unto all good works. (2Ti 3:17) If the intention of inspiration is confined to the autographs, the purpose of God in inspiring scripture cannot be achieved since most all believers don’t have access to them.
So, if God needs to preserve the intended effect of inspiration across the boundaries of language and time to accomplish His purpose, which is to equip His people to live for Him, then we may safely conclude that He has done so. It is evidently consistent with scripture to act as if the inspired words of God are available today in a language we understand so we can obey Him in these core commands. (De 6:7-8)
Hiding the very words of God in our hearts, meditating on them day and night (Ps 1:2), and deeply treasuring every one of them (Je 15:16), is God’s loving design for us. (Ps 119:103) He does not intend for us to spend our time trying to figure what these words are, but rather in trusting, understanding and obeying the words as He has intentionally inspired them. (Ja 1:21)
Consider our options if this is not the case: if God has not reliably preserved His Word for us in a form that is sufficient to achieve His purpose in inspiration, within a written document which we can readily access and understand … if what we actually have are only faulty, imperfect translations of His Word, containing mistakes and errors of various kinds which no one can authoritatively and conclusively identify and correct, then what are we to do? If we cannot trust any particular text as if it were inspired, what becomes our ultimate spiritual authority? Do we pick and choose which translation we prefer in any given context based on how it makes us feel? Do we defer to religious institutions or organizations and try to outsource our ultimate spiritual welfare to them? This is not God’s intent.
Memorizing and meditating on a text which we do not implicitly trust as if it were God’s inspired, perfect, infallible Word (Pr 30:5), which we do not intend to submit ourselves to, is perhaps good for personal discipline, and we may pick up much of God’s truth in the process. But when it comes to correcting us where we are out of the way, and giving us insights essential to discerning and proving God’s will for our lives (Ro 12:2), we may tend to disregard it since we don’t accept it as our ultimate spiritual authority. We will not be able to renew our minds where we are mistrusting and unwilling to be guided, challenged and corrected. (1Pe 2:2)
And if we’re thinking the words themselves don’t matter as much as the ideas they express, we get into sort of a circular trap because we cannot express ideas without specific words, and it is not so easy to change the wording without changing some sense of the meaning, significance or nuance expressed. We may not be able to tell if or how the meaning has changed with different wording, or presume the difference is inconsequential. In any case, we find ourselves dabbling in a space that is itself foreign to scripture. (1Pe 3:16)
We should then ask ourselves what our motivation is for wanting to modify scripture. Are we clarifying the meaning and intent of the text based on an informed knowledge of the original intent? Or are we simply changing it based on our subjective, personal preference? In either case, how do we ensure we are dealing rightly with the words of God? (De 4:2)
And scripture itself is layered with meanings which may not be readily apparent as we are becoming familiar with the text. Even after meditating on a particular text at length, we may come back to it later and see precious things which were hidden from us at first. (Ps 119:18) If we are not aware of all of the intended meanings and applications of any given text of scripture, how can we possibly correct it with any confidence? (Pr 30:6)
Further, God’s Word is actually alive (He 4:12), what He uses to impart spiritual life to us (1Pe 1:23), birthing us into Himself through it (Ja 1:18); the words themselves are spirit and life (Jn 6:63), Changing these living words is no small matter. (Re 22:18-19)
It would certainly be convenient if the scripture itself told us clearly which translation to use, but we are evidently tasked with seeking this truth out from God, just as we are the understanding and application of scripture. The task is not necessarily an easy one, but in God’s providence the challenge is evidently also good for us; it is essential to engage God here if we are to fully benefit from His design in giving us His Word. Thankfully, He promises to guide us into all truth as we seek Him earnestly to find it. (Mt 7:7-8)
In my research on this topic, I have concluded that the authorized King James Bible is completely trustworthy and I have accepted it as God’s inspired Word, in every sense equivalent to the original autographs for the purpose God has intended.
However, I also feel the liberty and confidence to change the word LORD in the Tanakh to Jehovah, understanding that the translators adopted a common convention for replacing God’s name with a title and intended for the reader to be aware when they did so. I think my editing better preserves the intent of the original and makes the meaning clearer.
I do not fault the translators for deciding what they did, as I do see evidence for this convention in the New Testament, and this decision may have reduced the offensiveness of the translation to Jewish audiences. However, I don’t think it was strictly necessary for every believer, and I think it does somewhat diminish the intent and force of the original, particularly if one is not offended by speaking and hearing God’s name.
I don’t deny that God could preserve multiple translations in the same language that are equally effective for the purposes of inspiration. But I don’t see how a believer can actually treat multiple translations as equivalently authoritative and trustworthy. It seems to me that the “act as if“ orientation is not as much driven by technical accuracy as it is by the utility and coherence of the believer’s view of scripture so that he is not continually second-guessing the words, but is committing to them without distraction.