My grandson plays games with his grandfather; and, that rascal, if he is losing, feels free to change the rules; so, the new version promotes a score that’s favorable to him! Similarly, when one political party is losing (speaking of children!), they attempt to change the rules— rewrite the Constitution to a version that is favorable to their cause. Outrageous as it is, they cite these reasons:
1. That document is out of date, it’s archaic. Below is an article from the Atlantic, stating the case for a new version to the old Constitution:
“America, we've got some bad news: Our Constitution isn't going to make it. It's had 224 years of commendable, often glorious service, but there's a time for everything, and the government shutdown and permanent-crisis governance signal that it's time to think about moving on.”
— By Alex Seitz-Wald and National Journal (cited in the Atlantic, Nov 2013).
2. That document was written by men (all men, no women); therefore, it is not a credible authority.
3. Some of the language is …out of date, we should have a document that’s easy to read.
We the citizens, who have enjoyed the wisdom, liberty, and protection afforded by the old Constitution, find these arguments against its credibility ridiculous, unfounded, and foolish (and perhaps unpatriotic). Rascals! Imagine the anarchy, and chaotic mess at best, if we were to have multiple governing documents and authorities, and each person choosing the one that best suits him! (Judges 21:25).
It’s easy to hear a parallel argument about multiple bible versions, with each person choosing the one that suits him, on that particular day. I hear, “The old Bible, it served its use, but times are a changin.” And, they say, “That old document was written by men! – all men, only men! – we need a more inclusive authorship which incorporates a diversity…”
While their argument may seem sound to some, and it may initially appeal to those who seek to be open minded and fair (which isn’t a bad motive), they don’t consider the fruit of usurping a sole, time tested authority. As with multiple constitutions, and changing the rules mid-game, the 300+ English bible versions lead only to confusion, frustration, and spiritual anarchy. They never lead to equity (since we can’t agree on what’s right and fair) and it drifts and dulls away from the original intent. Nay, despite the tide of progressive activism, it’s far better, whether Constitutional or Biblical veracity, to do a little work, and gain understanding, and stay with the tried and true. Understanding is better than easy.
When the world speaks a new dominant language, and English no longer is the undoing of Babel, perhaps God will at that time, inspire a new version in the new dominant world language (perhaps). But for now, English reigns, and therefore the greatest English text, the tried and true, remains relevant and authoritative. Stay the course.