|
|
So from the summer of 1973 when Boyd approved the loan for Tyler until
the beginning of the summer of 2000 when Henry comes to manage the
will's reading is 27 years not 25. Okay, maybe the 25 was approximate
but then why does everyone say 25 in the book?
Now, comes the real problem. On page 150 Henry idly looks through
his motel room's Gideon Bible and, surprise of surprise, discovers
those very ramblings--from the oil well as carried on since 1973--which
anyone can find in Ezekiel 38:10,22. But the words the book quoted
were straight out of the New International Version of the Bible which
indeed the Gideons have taken to distributing lately, instead of the
traditional King James Version, but the Old Testament of
the NIV was not
published until 1978, so how could the birdman have incorporated it
into his repetitive ramblings back in 1973?
How could that have happened? I mean, just because Zondervan published
the NIV (Old
Testament--Ezekiel) in 1978 doesn't mean the people in small town Kansas
read it that year. It could have taken years for it to have caught on at
Evangel Baptist Church, if at all. This is backward "hick" Kansas, remember,
not progressive Chicago. They could still be using the KJV. And even if they started using
the NIV, how would
that have affected the birdman? He was not exactly the socialite to go
to church and keep up with the latest trends. He hadn't done church things
like Bible reading for 25 [27] years (page 297).
His intense religious fervor would probably be better supported by
the KJV anyway. Considering
that the author added an element of religious faith to the plot, I
think his book would have been better had he kept it consistent in
the timeline.
Now, just as neither author nor editor caught this problem, so might
problems have got by the translators and editors of the NIV. But they don't
claim their version as traditional, you may point out. True, but
figuring my reader lacks the expertise to fully grasp the weightier
issues that would disqualify the NIV from any church service, I am giving
him something in his range that he would readily understand disqualifies
the NIV from a
traditional church service. Of course, you are free to pursue heavier
fare elsewhere.
I shall, however, cite a parrallel example of a Gideon Bible quotation
from another work of fiction.
I sat for quite some time, adjusting to the change of light. There was a
single picture on the wall, turned to an angle of ten degrees. A woodland
scene. Something restful for those who could not find slumber as the freeway
thrummed. I wanted to read, too. The Gideon Bible was in a drawer of the
crummy, chipped dresser. I paged through Deuteronomy trying to find the
words that had been in my mezuzah, as if they were a
message in a bottle. I read: "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the
statutes and unto the ordinances and judgments, the law I teach you, for
to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which
the Lord God of your fathers giveth you." Jehovah's line. It meant noting
to me. It was the rumble of rhetoric, the weight of the words that seemed
connected to the world of unchosen obligation and duty that I was seeking to
shirk. --Scott Turow, The Laws of our Fathers100
This is similar to the birdman's quote in that it wasn't understood, at least
not at first. However, here it has the familiar ring of the King James Version
which the Gideon's had distributed into motels/hotels for ages. I don't know
why they've switched to modern versions--takes away the continuity.
At any rate, let's compare that to the actual KJV wording. (Deut. 4:1-2) "Now therefore hearken, O Israel,
unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them,
that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your
fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the LORD your God which I command you." Here I quoted the following verse
too. If one looks closely he will see a slight change in wording from the
Bible text "unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you" to
the quote we find in the book, "unto statutes and unto the ordinances
and judgments, the law I teach you"--emphasis added. Evidently
the Jewish mind is harking back to the Septuagint: "hear the ordinances and
judgments, all that I teach you." It kind of got mixed in with the actual
quote from a Gideon Bible.
What makes it so curious is the following verse saying, "Ye shall not add
unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it."
LORD has become Lord, a diminution, and "the judgments,
which I teach" has become "the ordinances and judgments, the law I teach," an
addition. Usually we let such monkeying pass as we say, but it conveys the
same idea in different words, but please consider here the idea wasn't being
conveyed at all, just the words. That is the only issue. In neither novel
would the character have read the words in question from a Gideon Bible.
This is jsut a novel, but God seems to have wanted a continuity with the
words he gare us.
Also to be considered is that we don't even understand everything we read in
the Bible, nobody does. Our modern translators sure don't. Having a very
reliable English (KJV) Bible,
we might just be betrer off leaving well enough alone.
I know a woman who has instructed her children to study only the King James
Version. If they are having trouble with the English of a passage, they are
allowed to look in a modern version to get a better idea, but they must
return to the KJV. She
explains to them that the modern versions only show what the translators
understood at the time of their translation. If God wants to show
her children something the modern translators missed--and how could they not
miss thigs?--then it will have to be done through that version he's set up
for our use in English, our lack of study and scholarship notwithstanding.
[TOP]
|
bibles.n7nz.org