The Importance of the Bible and of the Criticality of Proper Interpretation

One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that the Bible is the Word of God, right? It would seem not, at least not in today's world. See, the Bible is full of hate, as it were; the Bible is staunchly anti-gay, saying that gay people are going to Hell no matter what they do. It's also very misogynistic; it even authorizes men to beat their wives! To make matters worse, it condones slavery. What is this document, if not a tool of the Christian Right to further oppress those with whom they disagree?

Is it just me, or do these arguments sound like horrible accusations against Christianity? Could they be true? Well, upon hearing these arguments, I was shocked and indignant that these atrocities could possibly be in the Bible. After all, God is love, is He not? So what I did was I dug.  I sought out these offensive texts to see what I could find.

GOD HATES FAGS! Wait, what?!
First, I've long known that the Bible said homosexuality is an abomination, and that those who practice it (such as the NAMBLA-esque ancient Greeks) are not welcome in the Kingdom of heaven (just like anybody who doesn't repent from their sins). The most cited passage is found in Leviticus 18:22, and is quoted thus from the Contemporary English Version, which I have found to be one of the clearest translations: "It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man." Could it be simpler than that? But hey, this text doesn't condemn gays to hell! So what's the problem? Well, let's see if we can find another text in the same chapter. Oh, here's one, Levicitus 20:13, which says, "It's disgusting for men to have sex with one another, and those who do will be put to death, just as they deserve." Oh... So the Bible says to kill all gay people. Joy in the morning, I'm going to have a hard time explaining this to the judge.

But wait, let's see if we can find another text about homosexuality, one from the New Testament. After all, the ceremonial law in Leviticus was thrown out when Jesus died on the cross, right? And for that matter, didn't Jesus say that calling somebody an idiot (or a racist, homophobic, islamophobic, white supremacist, gun-toting, Bible-thumping right-wing whackjob) was the same as murdering them? Jesus would never have supported this genocide! Okay, I have a text here. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Let's see what it says.

Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.

So there it is. The infamous text that says gays will burn in Hell. Wait a minute! There is no mention of eternal torment in Hell here! Nor is there anywhere in the entire Bible, for that matter. It just says that gays won't be able to share in the Kingdom of God. But it also mentions that there won't be any thieves in heaven, either. What about the thief on the cross who repented? Jesus said to him, "Surely you will be with Me in paradise." This doesn't make any sense! Let's try to find another text from the New Testament, hopefully one that vindicates the gays rather than damning them. Here's the last text I could find about homosexuality, found in Romans 1:26-28.

God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds. Since these people refused even to think about God, he let their useless minds rule over them. That's why they do all sorts of indecent things.

What is this text saying? Is it saying that the gays are going to burn? No. It's saying that they had desires that were against God's will, and because they chose to think upon their desires instead of thinking about God, He let their desires take them over. The same goes for any sinner: if we choose to have nothing to do with God, then God lets us have our way. It's been like that throughout the Bible.

But (I say with sarcastic indignation) science says that homosexuality is natural! It can't possibly be wrong, or be a sin! Well, folks, it can. Why? Because the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes. It is unnatural in that God's original plan was for Adam to wed Eve, not for Adam to wed Steve. It is sinful in that it is a deviation from God's original plan. In fact, any sexual deviancy is considered adultery in the Bible, which states clearly in Exodus 20:14, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (KJV). The Bible rails against homosexuality, but even more extensively against things like incest and bestiality. Yes, Abraham, Solomon and Jacob were at least bigamous, but people discount that these polygamous lifestyles were against the will of God.

One mistake people make all the time is to say, "The Bible heroes did it; why isn't it wrong?" for things like incest (drunken Lot and his instigating daughters, who essentially raped him, or Amnon, who raped his half-sister Tamar) or the aforementioned polygamy. They use this to demote the Bible as a moral authority, when the problem is not with the Bible, but the way they are reading it.

So what does the Bible say about salvation for homosexuals, thieves, and so on? It's easy: all they have to do is be like the woman at the well, and answer Jesus's call to "Go and sin no more." The Bible is plain that homosexuality is a sin. And yes, denying one's homosexual desires seems like a deal breaker, but to be totally honest, celibacy isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Paul said that it was better never to get married than to fall into sexual sin. And that is why I cannot and will not support same-sex marriage in any way, shape or form. (I cannot, will not, Sam I Am.) But that is also why I will pray for strength for those who happen to be homosexuals, why I will pray that they will find acceptance as followers of Christ, should they so choose. I know it hurts to be told that something about who you are is inherently sinful. It's actually human nature to be sinful. But that is the beauty of the cross: anybody who wants to be a part of the Kingdom can, so long as they love Christ. And as Christ said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15, KJV). That means all ten of them.

Christian Wifebeaters
No, I'm not talking about a certain style of tank top emblazoned with a cross and a Bible verse. I'm talking in fact about the second issue about the Bible. In all my reading, I had never come across a Bible text where it condones man-on-woman spousal abuse. After all, spousal abuse is a plague that needs to be eradicated. But could the Bible possibly condone this barbarism? Let's see...

Wait a minute.... I can't find a single passage that specifically condones the beating of wives. Could it be that this passage doesn't exist? Pardon my shouting, but OF COURSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! The Bible would never condone something like that! (Don't talk about slavery yet; that will come in the next section.) The hateful atheist internet commenter that told me about this particular gem didn't have a text on hand, and he said, and I quote, "I'll get back to you when I find one." Hopefully his searching the Bible will make him see exactly what Christianity is supposed to be, rather than his skewed image of an exclusive, judgmental God that likes to burn evildoers in Hell forever.

The only passage that I seem to have found in all my research is a call for marriage to be a partnership, found first in Ephesians 5:22-24:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (KJV)

Seems pretty misogynistic to me...wait a minute, why is everybody leaving out the next few verses?! Let's start with verse 25:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (KJV)

Wife beating my foot! Male oppression? Hogwash! This is a call for a marriage to be a partnership, where a man loves his wife, and a wife loves her husband. Those who take this text to mean that a man has the authority to do whatever he wants to his wife are, in my opinion, radical, misandristic (hateful of men) feminists who want nothing more than to make men pay for the atrocities they've committed throughout history, true love be damned.

The text is echoed in Colossians 3:18-19, but it adds more guidelines for the creation of a functional family: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged" (KJV). Hey, that sounds a lot like my family. My folks have been together for 23 years, and they will never split up. My siblings and I love and respect our parents, unlike half of the current generation. And it's because our family is founded in God rather than on the shifting sands of emotion and hedonism.

Again, the problem is not with the Bible, but in how people read it. They look for buzz words and pull out individual texts that they then twist so that the Bible will seem offensive, when the Bible is still the best moral authority. There's a reason that following its guidelines just makes things work!

On the Driving of Slaves
Now for a look at the Bible's command for us to enslave others. Well, actually, the Bible's condoning of slavery. Slavery as we know it is a barbaric practice, where people are bought and sold like possessions, treated worse than dirt. Slavery in the United States was abolished by Abraham Lincoln (side note: the Republican party was created for the purpose of abolishing slavery. Make note of that next time you think to baselessly accuse a conservative of being racist). But its wounds are still great; many black Americans still blame the white man for keeping them down. Some of them self-segregate, wanting nothing to do with white Americans. It's all a shame, really; after all, aren't all men (human beings, you feminists!) created equal? Thomas Jefferson thought so. He despised slavery, no matter what anybody said.

In my research, I stumbled across a site that I think addresses this issue much better than I could in this blog post. In essence, slaves in Genesis were treated more like family members than property. Slaves in the Bible had rights; they were considered human beings, but indentured servants.

Let's say you run up a tab at a local grocery store because you can't pay for what you need to eat. You work out a deal with the manager where you will work for free stocking the shelves as payment for your debt. Sounds reasonable, right? Well guess what, you are his slave until your debt is paid. That's how indentured servitude works.

Not only were slaves treated like humans in the Bible, but they could not be kept in bondage for more than six years! Every seven years, all debts were forgiven, all Hebrew slaves were freed, and everybody had a massive party. Singing "every day I'm shufflin'" wasn't just the Party Rock Anthem; it was a way of life for them during the Jubilee Year.

Now, what's this about the Bible authorizing the beating of slaves? It does nothing of the sort! It does, however, make provisions to give protection under the law from mistreatment. The text in question, the only one where it mentions the beating of slaves, is found in Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shale be surely punished. (Most likely put to death.) "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Verse 21 in paraphrasis: If the slave gets up after a day or two, the master shall not be punished, for the slave is the master's property (or investment).

Does this say that the beating of slaves is acceptable? Absolutely not. It merely says that if a master beats his slave and the slave dies, the master will be punished, and severely, I might add. The punishment for the murder of anybody during this time was death, so why should a slave be any different? And should a slave's master be put to death if he beats his slave into a coma? Some would argue such a punishment be in order, but it would violate the eye-for-an-eye policy as outlined in verses 23-25. Most people interpret this policy to be that retribution should equal the injury. While this is true, the policy is also a protection against exorbitant punishment. For instance, if one man should put out another's eye, the injurer should receive no greater punishment than the injury caused the injured. Would it be fair to put somebody to death as a punishment for putting out another's eye? Absolutely not.

The Importance of the Bible
The fact that the Bible is the cornerstone of the Christian faith cannot be changed. I myself am a Biblical apologetic, but not in the modern usage of the word. The original meaning of the word "apology" was "explanation". And that's who I am, somebody who explains why the Bible is the basis for my faith.

The first reason that the Bible is the basis of my personal faith is that the Bible is the word of God. Why else would people have given their lives to protect it? And they are still giving their lives today in Muslim and Communist countries! People gave their lives to correct the Catholic Church's oppression in the Dark Ages. People gave their lives to translate the Bible into the hundreds of languages that exist in the world. Why should we cast it aside as a book of fairy tales?

The second reason I hold the Bible as a cornerstone of my personal faith is that without the Bible, it is impossible to know God's character. The Bible is a complete portrait of God in addition to being a manual of sorts for life on this Earth. If we keep just the New Testament and throw out everything else, we lose a piece of the picture of God. Similarly, if we keep everything but Creation Week, everything but the Flood, everything but the Levitican law, we lose that important piece of the picture.

The third reason that I believe the Bible is essential is that the Bible is a superior source for moral authority. The laws outlined in the Pentateuch may seem barbaric to some, but the Bible was way ahead of its time, as it introduced the idea of equal protection under the law. It introduced the idea of human rights for all, not just a select few. It introduced the idea of a weekend. It introduced the idea of loving one's enemies and praying for those who persecute us. These radical ideas are a part of the Bible, and are not the ideas of human philanthropists.

The Bible is not a collection of fairy tales. The Bible is not an invalid moral authority. We can't sit here and throw away pieces that we don't agree with. Cookie-cutter faith is something Jesus warned about, and the consequences are total rejection. Cookie-cutter faith is something Paul admonished in his epistles. God wants all of us or nothing at all. So either give Him everything and learn to love His word, or leave. It's your choice.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

Further reading/References:

Contemporary English Version of the Bible
King James Version of the Bible

Slick, Matthew. "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?". Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. <http://carm.org/homosexuality> Accessed 3 Mar 2012.

Vander Lugt, Herb. "What Does the Bible Really Say About Slavery?". <http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q1109/q1109.html> Accessed 3 Mar 2012.

What About Foul Language?

I recently read the Sermon on the Mount again. It is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. One segment jumps out at me every time, and it's not because it's confusing or especially great, but it was one thing that I always thought was really strange in the way people used it:

³³You know that our ancestors were told, "Don't use the Lord's name to make a promise unless you are going to keep it." ³⁴But I tell you not to swear by anything when you make a promise! Heaven is God's throne, so don't swear by heaven. ³⁵The earth is God's footstool, so don't swear by the earth. Jerusalem is the city of the great king, so don't swear by it. ³⁶Don't swear by your own head. You cannot make one hair white or black. ³⁷When you make a promise, say only "Yes" or "No." Anything else comes from the devil. (Matthew 5:33-7, CEV)

Every time I've heard somebody use this text throughout my years, it's been in reference to foul or vulgar language. But the passage is clearly not talking about the usage of foul language. The verse that always made it sound weird to me was v37: "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No,' 'No'. For whatsoever is more than these is from the evil one." This verse has nothing to do with "swearing" as we use the term today. Taken out of context, and especially if one omits v37, this passage could be used as a prohibition on such intensifiers as "Oh crap!" But including v37 makes the passage about trustworthiness, which is ever-important in the life of a Christian.

So if this passage doesn't place a ban on vulgarity, what does? I think something that would be more conducive to the ends of the misquoters is Philippians 4:8: "Finally, my friends, keep your minds on whatever is true, pure, right, holy, friendly, and proper. Don't ever stop thinking about what is truly worthwhile and worthy of praise" (CEV).

In order to understand why we should stay away from foul language, we sometimes need to understand its origins. Here are three "bad" words that are in the Bible: hell, ass and damn. Why, then, are they considered to be foul language? Well, let's start with "damn".

To damn is to condemn, or to curse. The Bible says that only God has the power to judge, and therefore we should not condemn people or things. The word's use as an intensifier is probably more common than as a curse today: "Damn, that was close!" is just one example. An acceptable alternative would be, "Wow, that was close!" but it does lose some of the intensity that the less desirable word adds to the sentence. It can also be used as an expression of disdain, which is closer to a curse: "Damn, I was hoping that would have worked out."

The usage in the expression, "Damned if I do, damned if I don't," for expressing an impossible and undesirable situation is perfectly legitimate and is not foul or vulgar in the least. It's another way of saying, "Either way, it will end in ruin for me." The only thing is that since the word "damn" has been added to the list of foul words, all instances of it are barred from modern "polite" conversation.

Many words have come to replace "damn": man (as an intensifier), blast, curse, etc. But are we really avoiding a certain series of muscle movements, or are we avoiding the actual curse itself? We as humans naturally want to curse things undesirable. If not, why would Jesus have warned us to "judge not, lest ye be judged" (Mt 7:1)? Blasting is a form of condemnation; cursing something is a form of condemnation; everything we replace "damn" with means essentially the same thing. We have no reason whatsoever to judge something because we are not perfect, and we will not be until after we ourselves are judged.

Now let's look at "hell". The only reason that word is considered a bad word is that we hate to talk about the ill fate of the wicked. In many Christian circles, Catholic and Protestant alike, Hell is described as a place where the wicked and sinful will feel the wrath of God for all eternity. It is a place of torment and of suffering. Sounds like a nice vacation, doesn't it? Of course not! Nobody wants to think of this as being anybody's fate, and it was (and still is) often used as a scare tactic. "If you don't repent, you're going to hell!" say some ministers. "Gays will burn in hell!" says Fred Phelps and his thralls. Hell this, hell that: everybody that isn't perfect is going to burn in hell. The Bible teaches something else, though: the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). With one notable exception in Exodus, in every instance throughout history, fire consumes. It consumes the wicked, for that is the only way they will have peace. Ellen White explains that the destruction of the wicked is an act of mercy, not of anger or hatred. Those who hate God and are beyond his grace (due to a little thing called free will) would find every day in the Kingdom of Heaven to be as torturous as the traditional definition of hellfire. They would want to be destroyed, and so God will give them what they want, that they would suffer no more.

Now let's get into the modern usage of the word "hell" in a more conversational setting. Often, people say, "to hell with it," which is essentially the same thing as saying, "damn it." A more kosher way of putting it is to say, "forget it," though more common is, "screw it." But the usual usage of "hell" is in an exclamation of confusion and surprise: "What the hell?" This is, of course, short for something along the lines of, "What in (the) Hell is that?" Similar utterances include, "What on Earth is that?" and "What in heaven's name is that?" They fulfill the same function while avoiding the usage of the undesirable word. "Hell" is not really a bad word; it's just something we don't like to think about, so we've ousted it from the "proper" speech.

Finally we come to the word "ass". This is an old English name for equus africanus asinus, the common domestic donkey. Never in the King James Bible would an ass be referred to as a donkey because the word simply hadn't been invented. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "donkey" originated in 1785: "originally slang, perhaps a dim. from dun 'dull grey-brown,' the form perhaps influenced by monkey. Or possibly from a familiar form of Duncan (cf. dobbin)." I myself have used the word in my poetry, referring to myself as stubborn. And that's exactly what calling somebody an ass used to mean: stubborn. And they're not necessarily known for their intelligence, either. Again, this is not a bad word. Likening someone to an ass is no worse than saying they're stubborn, thickheaded, and so on.

There is, however, a text that advises us against doing such a thing, found in Matthew 5:22: "But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, you will have to stand trial. If you call someone a fool, you will be taken to court. And if you say that someone is worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell" (CEV) Since asses weren't good for much more than being pack animals, calling somebody an ass is essentially calling them worthless.

I won't get into some of the less desirable language. Some of it was created as profanity, so naturally it doesn't fall into that which is good, pure, praiseworthy, etc. Let's instead have a look at what swearing used to be. Nowadays, it means anything that includes foul language. But in the past, when you swore, you made a promise. It was the equivalent of signing a contract nowadays. You would swear by something you cared about: a parent's grave, the Bible, the rising of the sun, etc. Taking that last example, you could say, "I swear by the rising of the sun that I will repay you," or you could say, "As surely as the sun rises, I will repay you." They meant the same thing. Jesus cautions us against these things, for if we make a promise that is as binding as the rising of the sun, then we are bound to it. Circumstances beyond our control could get in the way and prevent us from fulfilling the contract. It could keep on like that for years, for all we know. Instead, Jesus, in his usual habit of uncomplicating things, said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No' be 'No'." If we were trustworthy, which we should be as Christians, then nobody would need proof of our word in the form of an oath. Our word would be enough for people to have the comfort that we would fulfill our end of the bargain.

That is not to say that all oaths are evil. I have sworn two oaths (other than contracts, license agreements, and so on) in my life: one of allegiance to the United States of America and the ideals of her Founding Fathers, and one to God. And my pledge to the USA has never been concrete. It's been contingent on whether or not I agree with her values, which are growing increasingly counter to my own in recent days. My oath to God, however, is simple: I will serve Him no matter what trials and hardships come my way. I didn't have to make any complicated promise held in place by some truth; it was a simple answer to a simple question. "Will you serve Me?" "Yes." My word is bond. And that's how it should be.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael

My Thoughts Re: the King James Version

The King James Version. Many herald it as the only true and Divinely inspired English translation of the Bible, while others see it as antiquated. I myself find it as hard to read and understand as Chaucer, and I much prefer the Clear Word paraphrase, the New International Version, or the Contemporary English version. I still think it is viable, but I also see that changes in meaning and construction, as well as other vernacular idiosyncrasies, have made the KJV into what I believe is not the ideal Bible for today's English-speaking people.

Some Terminology
If I remember my classes correctly, a Version is a translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek by a group. Similarly, a Translation is a translation from the original manuscripts by an individual. Lastly, a Paraphrase is a re-jiggering, for lack of a better term, of an existing English version such as the King James Version.

A lot of times, we ask, "Which version of the Bible do you use?" Sometimes in the response, we don't think of which Bible is which, and we seem to treat them all as equals. While all of them are Scripture, not all of them are directly translated from the original manuscripts. For instance, The Message and The Clear Word are both paraphrases. They are reconstructions of older English versions that feature more modern English. Many take these with a grain or two (or in the case of the Clear Word, several tablespoons) of salt. Many accuse paraphrases of being twisted to fit a particular denomination's doctrines and message. This may appear true in some cases, but it's often baseless conjecture and conspiracy theory. I see paraphrases as no greater or lesser than direct translations, for, as the Scriptures say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2Tim 3:16-17, KJV, emphasis mine).

Why the KJV is GOOD
The Authorized King James Version is the oldest commonly used English Bible, completed in 1611. Due to the Puritans' despair at a lack of good English translations (most of them had been translated from Jerome's Vulgate), King James commissioned this Bible for the Church of England. Almost fifty scholars took part in translating the Bible from the original languages, and painstaking care was taken that the translations were accurate.

The KJV was further edited in the 18th century, with its final edition being standardized and published in 1769. This is the version that we see today, wholly unchanged.

Why the KJV is BAD
As a publication of the Church of England, the KJV was translated, as ordered by King James, to conform to the ecclesiology of that denomination. The biggest criticism of the Clear Word is that Adventists have changed the wording of some texts to conform to their ecclesiology (despite the fact that the Clear Word is neither produced nor published by the GC, and that the GC does not endorse it specifically). This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. To get the purest words of Scripture, one must go back to the original manuscripts, and not everybody is fluent in classic Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

Perversion concerns aside, the KJV is just plain hard to understand. Yes, you can take all the "thee"s, "thou"s and "thine"s and interpret them as "you"s and "your"s. But what may have been clear usage in the vernacular of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is confusing and obsolete in the vernacular of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The whole point of translating the Bible into English, German, French, Spanish, Italian (and I can go on for years) was to give the people the Word of God in the vernacular language, not some high and mighty Latin (or Early Modern English) that requires a college degree and a dictionary to understand. For that reason alone, I think the Authorized King James Version, which reigned as the chief English Bible until the 1970s, is outdated and is more useful as a history book than something "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

About Other Versions
While, in my experience, many concerns about versions other than the KJV are unfounded, illogical and alarmist, many of them make me raise an eyebrow to certain versions. For instance, the Revised Standard Version could be used by those who don't believe the literal six-day creation week as outlined in the KJV. In the poem that makes up Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2, the RSV refers to "evening and morning, one day" and then to "evening and morning, a second day", and so on and so forth. This seems to have been adjusted to conform to the theory that the days of Creation Week were not necessarily one after another, and could have been millions of years apart. (In my belief, that theory is a major cop-out to seem more conforming to "science" being lorded over us. In reality, we have no hard number for the age of the Earth, but a young Earth makes much more sense. More on this later.)

My favorite versions are the NKJV, which takes the text in the KJV and makes it a little bit more contemporary; the NIV, which is a new translation that is slightly easier to understand than the NKJV at times; and the CEV, which is even easier to understand than the NIV, yet is closer to the KJV than the Clear Word. Not once have I found in any of these translations anything that seems to contradict what is said in the KJV.

About the Clear Word in Particular: answering criticism
http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm
This page, an article from the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchman Expositor, treats the Clear Word like a Bible put out by the GC. It is in reality the contrary: the CW is an interpretive paraphrase, a devotional exercise by Dr. Jack Blanco. It is not endorsed, not produced, and not published by any Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Similar to my embarkation on translating the Bible into Hra'anh, a language that I am in the process of creating for my science fiction stories, this takes an extant version, such as the KJV and records Dr. Blanco's interpretation. This alone answers for me any criticisms of the Clear Word paraphrase.

I love the Clear Word because it is Scripture. But I don't use it for my primary Bible; I much prefer the CEV or NKJV. I use the Clear Word for commentary's sake when I don't want to sift through the walls of information in the SDA Bible Commentaries or my NIV Study Bible, which has commentary in footnotes and countless cross-references in the margins. Yes, the accusation that the commentary is written into the text is true. But honestly, most of the condemnations are nothing but semantic arguments, which are some of the weakest arguments that aren't outright fallacious. And the others are countered by the CW's origins: an interpretive paraphrase by an individual and published through an Adventist publishing house.

In Conclusion
Never have I seen a Bible, KJV or otherwise, that preaches that the wicked will burn forever. Never have I seen a Bible that preaches the deprecation of Saturday Sabbath. All of these concerns about versions other than the KJV are baseless. And when I don't understand a text, I read it over several times, cross-check with multiple versions, and even dissect and diagram the sentences! The Bible is made to be understood by everybody, and English has changed so much in the last 300 years that it can be almost impossible to understand the KJV.

The position that the KJV is the only true English Bible is more a matter of taste than theology, especially since the KJV was translated carefully enough that it conformed to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. In that light, I would almost rather trust the NIV or CEV since both are new translations! Just as I use the Clear Word primarily for commentary purposes or pleasure reading, I use the KJV only when I want to have a look at the older translation. I own three physical Bibles, and none of them are KJV, which shows how often I use it. The bottom line is that I think this generation deserves a much clearer translation than this three hundred year old relic.

Your Brother in Christ,
Michael