The King James Version of the Bible turns 400 this year. Do you have plans to celebrate?
No. Not really.
But it’s a very special occasion. If I were born in 1611, you’d celebrate my birthday wouldn’t you?
Uhm… I guess? But I don’t see what that has to do with an outdated and difficult-to-understand book.
It’s a ceremonious occasion.
Well, in your expert opinion, why are more people not taking advantage of this opportunity to extol the virtues of a book of such distinction?
Only a handful of us read it. Why should we celebrate a book we don’t read? I would, however, be all for observing The Message’s birthday. Do you know when that will be?
No, I’m sorry. I don’t.
Too bad. That’d be a heck of a party.
But surely some people still read the KJV. Right? It’s poetic.
Yes, they still read it in pockets of south Alabama and Georgia. They also use “thees” and “thous” in their prayers. And if you interview any of them, I wouldn’t mention poetry.
What then, shall not these souls make merry on this blissful occasion?
Yeah… I don’t think you’ll find any birthday parties for the KJV even among these good brethren. Here’s why:
5 Reasons Even People Who Read the KJV Are Not Celebrating Its 400-Year Anniversary
- We can not know with any certainty the actual date of the KJV’s birth. Therefore it is unwise at best — and sinful at worst — to commemorate the birth of the KJV on any given day.
- As Christians we are expected to celebrate the birthday of the Bible every day (or at least every Sunday) — and not just one day out of one year. We celebrate by reading the word and learning from it.
- The Bible never authorizes any birthday celebration for books — itself included. We seek to celebrate where the Bible celebrates and sit in silence and dispassion where it is silent and dispassionate.
- The observance of the KJV’s birthday most definitely originated in some obscure pagan holiday, ritual, or ceremony which involved evil spirits, immoral sexual acts, and/or Harry Potter.
- By celebrating the 400-year anniversary of the KJV, we would be admitting that it was not indeed the Bible from which Paul read. And we’ve kind of got a lot riding on that.