The question raised in this space two weeks ago was “What Bible do you read?”

This was, of course, concerning which translation or version of the Bible does one use in personal study or public worship.

Before the subject was treated I proposed to another person that people would react in every way imaginable to the things said. Emphasized was the point that in keeping with past reactions readers would assign to me positions not stated in the column and not even believed.

There was no disappointment. Seven individuals in a specific and dogmatic manner assigned a position or statement found nowhere in that column. The seven were equally divided in sentiment. Three claimed my acceptance of only the King James Version (KJV) and rejection of all other versions since that 1611 work. Three others embraced me greatly for attacking and rejecting all other versions and translations of the last 400 years. One person was vague in what he thought I had said.

In case you did not read that column two weeks ago let me tell you that it set forth the position of one William Lyon Phelps, a professor of English Literature at Yale University back in the early decades of 1900. His book Human Nature in the Bible, published in 1922 was the source from which I took his great praise of the King James Version.

Also, I noted that older people right here in Gordon County would be pleased with his position.

What did you read in the words in the column? What position do you think was taken?

Foy E. Wallace Jr. and his position against modern speech versions was noted. He denounced with clarity and power his disdain of, as he called them, “the new Bibles.”

I deem it worthy and expedient to note here another Wallace and his position on other versions than the KJV. My beloved teacher and friend, G.K. Wallace was a first cousin to Foy E. Wallace Jr. and a Bible scholar in his own right. How often did I hear him proclaim, “A person can learn what to do to be saved, live righteously and go to heaven from any version in existence.” He did discount paraphrased and corrupt works.

The translators of the KJV had words on this subject back in the 17th century and said, “We affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”

With all this said, I still haven’t set forth a position of preference to Bible versions or translations. There are several with great qualities to be admired.

The American Standard Versions (ASV) of 1901 has long been considered a most worthy work. The Revised Standard Version appeared on the scene in the middle of the 20th century. Now we have the New King James Version (NKJV) and the New American Standard Version (NASV).

The most prominent newer version on the religious scene today seems to be the New International Version (NIV) which is reported to be outselling the KJV.

My position can be set forth with an incident from about 25 years ago. A young man came home from a Bible college to his little country church here in Gordon County. He was asked to speak at the Sunday morning worship service which was the home congregation of his family.

The young man spent time and effort to the disdain of his parents, grandparents, and other family members advocating the teaching of the Bible could be discounted in many essential and indispensable points.

After the service, the young man was confronted about his position. After discussion he was asked what he would do to correct this little congregation of their conservative and conventional ways. His haughty answer was, “I would give them a Bible they could read.”

The response to the young man was “Any of our trouble isn’t that we don’t have a Bible we can read. It is that we don’t read, study and obey the Bible we have.”

The position here is to read the Bible, study the Bible and heed the Bible we have.