Abraham Lincoln and the KJV

Everyone who has read any of the great speeches of Abraham Lincoln knows what an articulate, eloquent and inspiring speaker he was. We've heard the stories of how he agonized over just the right words to explain to the citizens of America the truly epic struggle in which they were involved and the righteousness of their cause.


People being the way they are, I imagine that, at some point in time, future historians will come up with the genius idea that Lincoln's way of speaking is just too old fashioned and contemporary American students just struggle too much with his antiquated and archaic mode of speech. They would contend that it's maybe less about his exact words than his ideas.


That's when you can expect to see history books with revised and edited Lincoln speeches using simpler, less complex and, honestly, dumbed-down language. You know, so as to make reading his thoughts less work and so his words are, allegedly, more easily read. And, though there is loss, they will claim it will be more understandable for those who, frankly, are unwilling to do the work involved in comprehending what this great man was trying to say to us.


Will they argue that their version of his speeches are just as accurate?  Will they question who in their world can understand such antiquated language? Will they suppose so few in their day can grasp the nineteenth century dialect that it has to be brought to a more current vernacular? Will they claim they are not less concerned with precision than readability?

Will the thought ever occur to them that If you change a man's words, you change his ideas? Would they ever wonder if rewording his speeches would detract from his oratorical nobility? Would they be bold and brassy enough to actually think they can improve his wording? His phraseology? His style? Would they presume the average student will ever understand the man's thinking better by merely simplifying the way he wrote?

Will they ever consider the undeniable truth that Mr. Lincoln's words cannot be simplified, they can only be changed? And, being changed, will lose the precision, eloquence and inspiration for which he has been lionized for one hundred and sixty years? Would it ever occur to them that you can't make his words simpler, you can only make them less accurate?

Would they realize that trying to "simplify" the beautiful words he once delivered to a war torn nation would only diminish, weaken and make them less impactful?

Would they claim it's more about readability than accuracy?

Would they ever understand the cost?

I've been recently contemplating this potentiality and it puts me to mind of arguments, er, discussions I've had with a lot of people concerning English Biblical translations. Which is best? Is new better? The old?

Being the KJV man that I am, I feel very comfortable with the king's English and when I struggle, I consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Along with other study helps to which I have access. Then, just for good measure, I pray.

Now, I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up in America and in the South. (When there actually was a "South.") We have traditionally been so predominately KJV readers that we still retain much of the vernacular from the Bible. (Supper, carry, yonder, etc.) Most, at least those who know the old ways, are glad to have been blessed with so inestimable a gift.

The past century or more, specifically the past few decades, some of the more modern translations have taken hold in our formerly genteel society. (Not affected in a small manner by the large numbers of Yankees and foreigners moving into our neighborhoods.) Modern wanna-be scholars won't admit that they believe trading a little accuracy for "readability" is perfectly acceptable. They say theirs is as good as ours.

Is it?

I've had at least one liberal college professor, who didn't use the KJV, tell our class that, in the English language, it is the most accurate. I recall another liberal non-KJV preacher saying the same thing.

So what am I to conclude from these statements? No, this doesn't prove anything, but it only makes the point that they didn't have any prejudice toward the KJV. So, there was no reason for them to be dishonest or slanted in their opinion.

Now, some might be willing to use another translation because they think they'll be able to understand it better.  (Ya know, to avoid all those thee's and thou's,) Could they then simply read whatever version they choose as is? Would they need a dictionary? An encyclopedia? More study-helps? Maybe prayer and fasting? Just how simple would they expect the translators to make it for them?

I'm amused by those who criticize the alleged difficulty of King James English as if they have any command of modern English. Most can barely put two words together and don't know the difference between a subject and a predicate. Can anyone help them with their obvious willful ignorance? Rarely.

Okay, it has been a long time since I have claimed that the KJV is the only Bible or that it should be anyone's exclusive Bible. Most of the other translations have their uses, but should really be treated only as opinion. The KJV has proven over four centuries that it's reliable and trustworthy and is a useful tool for leading lost souls to a saving knowledge of Christ and making them into disciples.

Is it always easily understood? Even by those who were raised with it? Do you often need a dictionary? An encyclopedia? Other study-helps? Prayer and fasting?

Yes, Praise God!


Acts 8:30 KJV
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:31 KJV
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Fundamentalists and You

So much of what happens in Christianity is like “inside baseball.” It makes perfect sense to the fanatics who love and understand the game, (whoever they are,) but to the layman, the outsider, it’s all just a bunch of gibberish.

I once tried to explain the difference between Catholics and Baptists to a Japanese girl who was raised a Buddhist, but wasn’t really sure if she believed anything. I was a complete failure. All she could understand was that we both believe in Jesus.

Another difficult thing to explain is the difference between a Fundamentalist and, well, the rest of us. Now, if you are among the multitudes of lost souls who are on the outside looking in, you most likely see little if any difference. You certainly wouldn’t see what all the controversy is about. Don’t we all believe in Jesus?

A man I once thought I knew, whom I thought was wise, once told me, “There are some things I won’t even argue about. There are some things I will argue about. There are some things I will die for.” I think having the wisdom and discretion to know and relate the difference, is a challenge for most Christians. Especially when dealing with the profane.

Well, some differences simply aren’t worth worrying about. Some are desperately worth our concern. Just because someone can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean there is no difference. The question is only, are those differences worth the fight.

Many unbelievers or even believers with whom I engage in any sort of religious combat don’t understand why I am so repulsed by their attempt to label me as a Fundamentalist. They sometimes say, “Don’t you believe in Jesus?” Immediately, the answer is yes, but to attempt to explain further can, at times, be completely frustrating! There are some distinctions, very important ones at that, that cannot be explained in a simple enough sentence to allow their ignorant minds to comprehend the gravity, or lack thereof, of our disagreements.

While I do believe the KJV is inspired by God and that He actually built the universe in six days, they cannot seem to get it through their heads that there are massive differences between the average Fundamentalist and myself. I don’t like being called a Fundamentalist anymore than a Georgian likes being called a Tennessean. The average Yankee may not know the difference, but here in “Jesus Land,” we certainly do. After the same manner, simply because there is a similarity in doctrines, the discerning eye, the receptive heart and attentive ear will promptly observe the contrasts.

So, allow me, if you will, to enumerate some of the problems I find with “Fundamentalists” and the things to which they so passionately adhere. Some, I find laughable. Others, I occasionally, find revolting still, others are anathema to God’s Holy Scriptures.

1. Fundamentalists refer to the Bible as the “Word of God” when the Bible doesn’t even make that claim.

2. Fundamentalists say they take the Bible “literally”…except when they don’t.

3. Fundamentalists believe the book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible.

4. Fundamentalists believe a woman can’t be a pastor simply because she can’t be the “husband of one wife.”

5. Fundamentalists believe the “New Jerusalem” is Heaven.

6. Fundamentalists believe there are horses in Heaven.

7. Fundamentalists believe the streets of Heaven are paved with gold.

8. Fundamentalists think they’ll actually have a big house in Heaven.

9. Fundamentalists get angry when you disagree with them. They sometimes go so far as to say, “You don’t believe the Bible,” or “You must be lost,” or even, “You’re stupid!”

10. Fundamentalists believe the KJV is the “Bible” and all other versions are straight out of Hell.

11. Fundamentalists like to jump pews, love preachers who go “hah-hooey,” and think it’s really great when a preacher grabs a potted plant and runs around the sanctuary with it.

12. Fundamentalists don’t really know anyone outside of their little circles who are actually living right.

13. Fundamentalists have no doubt that Jesus retains the scars in His hands from His crucifixion. For some reason though, He doesn’t bear any of the scars from his beatings.

14. Fundamentalists believe Lucifer is Satan.

15. Fundamentalists believe that angels once had relations with human women and made babies who became giants.

16. Fundamentalists think that Satan was once God’s “number one” angel.

17. Fundamentalists say that when Jesus told the thief on the cross, “This day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise,” He didn’t mean Heaven.

18. Fundamentalists claim that there was a place between Heaven and Hell where God kept the Saints of old before the resurrection. No, I don’t mean Purgatory.

19. Fundamentalists tell poor, lost Jews that they are still “God’s people.”

20. Fundamentalists are more concerned with your sin than your salvation.

Certainly, not every mark of a Fundamentalist is in this list and not having all of them doesn’t disqualify you from fitting very neatly into this crowd. Yet, these are some of the symptoms I’ve found most egregious from my soirees into the dangerous world of modern American Christian Fundamentalism. A.K.A. the Fundamentalist Zone.