CHOOSING A BIBLE

[garywalker]

One of the most intense ongoing debates between Christians of all levels is which Bible translation is the best. This whole debate is fueled by a number of parties. On the one side are those who wish to sell their “latest and greatest” translation to the public. These people are generally motivated by greed rather than a sincere interest in the spiritual well-being of the believer. Proof for this statement is simply in the stringent copyrights that the publishers enforce. Did you know that most modern translations have very strict rules about how you may and may not use the translation!
Then there are those who have a vested interest in a particular translation. Most of the hype surrounding various translations is very emotional, irrational and even fanatical. Then there are the “King James Only” people who regard the King James Version as the only valid and inspired version of the Bible. Although I very much doubt that any translation is inspired by Satan, I have no doubt that we have played right into the Devil’s hands as we battle each other about which is the “right” translation in stead of getting on with preaching the gospel. By this I do not mean that there are not “the good, the bad and the ugly” amongst translations. But I am concerned about the intense passion with which folk defend and promote their translation, often with more zeal than they defend and promote the Gospel.

This article is not intended to be a scholarly and detailed investigation into the subject. There are many books written on this matter by much more qualified people than I. My intent is simply to provide you with a broad background of the issues in order that you may make an informed decision.

First we need to look at the matter of manuscripts. We do not have the original documents that were written by the original men like Moses, David and Paul. Also the original books were not written in English but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So the translators have to use manuscripts that have been copied by hand many times over. One of the debates is about which is the best manuscript. The short answer is there are no “best” manuscripts, yet every translator will claim to have used the “best manuscripts”. What they mean is they are best in their estimation. So you will find the margins of some translations will say something like “the most early reliable manuscripts do not include verse …” They thus create the impression that earlier is better and therefore such verses must be excluded. In theory earlier may be better because they have been copied less times and are closer (in time) to the original. Earlier manuscripts are not necessarily better, especially when the quality of the workmanship is not the best. Thus some of the most relied on manuscripts come from Egypt. In my view Egypt was theologically suspect as it was Alexandrian Christians who brought much of the Greek philosophy and Gnosticism into the early church. Thus a text from this environment will hold less credibility than another for me.
The point is that no single set of manuscripts can be crowned as “the best”. We have more than 4,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and about 300 of each book of the Old Testament. The differences between these texts are small and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. None of the variances between the documents change anything about what we believe. The Christianity and doctrine taught by one is essentially the same as that of another text. We should never build an entire doctrine on one verse only anyway. So if the presence or absence of one verse changes your theology, you have a serious problem. We should and can defend The Faith without relying on any of the verses that are in question. One of the remarkable things about the Bible is just how few and small the differences between the texts are and how many texts we have from many different sources and that they all confirm one another in more than 99% of the words. We can clearly see God’s hand in the preservation of the Bible as we have it today. So the preference for a particular set of manuscripts is a matter of personal preference.

Very few of us have the skills to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the different texts and so have to rely on the judgment of scholars. Yet, the scholars are strongly divided in their views. So how do we choose between the scholars? Well that is not too hard. You simply apply the same criteria you would to any Bible teacher. What is his background? Where does he come from? Is he a liberal, modernist, post-modernist? Is he Reformed, Romanist, Orthodox, Evangelical, Charismatic? In other words what are the background, theological, academic and environmental factors that will color his views and work? In fact, the same questions should be asked about translators. You will be surprised to discover to what degree these factors influence the judgment of scholars who evaluate texts and who do translation work. Amazingly, many believers will trust a scholar’s judgment on texts or swear by a translator’s work but would not endure the same men in their pulpit for one moment!
Most believers do not have the skills even to evaluate the scholars, let alone the texts themselves, yet these same believers will argue emphatically for one text or one translation over the other. So what is my point? Simply this. Don’t let anyone con you into arguing for or against any particular set of manuscripts. Very few people have the skills to do so. And don’t listen to anyone who wants to tell you their translation is based on the best or the only valid manuscripts.

[garywalker]

In choosing a translation we need to understand the difference between the three major methods employed by translators.

The first group are known as “literal” translations. These translations are “true” translations in the sense that they are translated word for word from the original manuscripts. Generally the word order will be changed a bit so that the English will make sense and be grammatically correct. This is because the way sentences are constructed is different in Hebrew, Greek and English. The more literal the translation, the more difficult it is to read. The most literal translation is an interlinear Bible where the English words appear in a line above the Greek or Hebrew. Take for example John 1:3 which in the New King James (NKJV) reads: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” One interlinear (Marshall) reads the same verse as: “All things through Him became and without Him became not one thing which has become” You can see that this version is saying the same as the NKJV but it is a lot more difficult to read. Although not an interlinear, Young’s is an extreme literal translation and He has this verse as: “all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened” In my humble opinion, the best of the literal translations is the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. It is easier to understand than the King James and is probably the most accurate translation of all, but is no longer in print. Electronic copies abound and are free of copyright. You may still find an old copy in a second-hand bookstore.
If we place the literal translations on the one extreme of the spectrum, then we need to place the “paraphrases” on the other extreme. In a paraphrase the translator will write entire sections in his own words, as he understands the passage. This means that the paraphrase will be very strongly colored by the translator’s theology, views and prejudices. Generally paraphrases are not suitable for serious Bible study and their only use is for children and new believers who want an overview of the Bible. The most extreme of these paraphrases is “The Message” by Peterson. I do not generally recommend paraphrases and warn people to avoid “The Message” as far as possible. Occasionally the author captures the essence of a passage, but often misleads the readers entirely, so unless you have a thorough grasp of the passage and are able to sift the chaff from the wheat, it would be best to avoid paraphrases, especially “The Message”.
Somewhere between the literal translations and the paraphrases are the “thought for thought” translations. These can be best described as what an interpreter does when translating what a preacher says into another language. The interpreter will listen to a few sentences of the speaker and then give the content of those sentences in the second language. This allows the interpreter to use idioms and phrases that are common to the hearer but will not be a word for word translation of the speaker’s message. The centre of this group of translations is occupied by the very popular New International Version (NIV). These translations are much easier to read than the literal translations and generally give a good overview of a passage or book. They are however not suitable for expository preaching and a detailed (word for word) study of the Bible.
There are a number of factors that need to be considered when choosing a translation. Obviously accuracy in translating the original into English is the most important ingredient in the mix of facts that need to be considered. Here you cannot beat the literal translations such as the ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASB and the RSV.

The second question is how easy is the translation to read and understand? Many young people have problems with the English of the KJV, ASV and other such translations. Unless you have a thorough understanding of old English you would be safer with a more modern English version. I am often horrified to hear preachers build entire messages on a misunderstanding of some archaic English words. They would be far better off with a slightly less accurate translation of which they understand all the words.

[garywalker]

One of the hottest debates amongst some Christians is the debate around the King James or Authorized Version. Before the KJV there were a number of other English translations. The first was that of John Wycliffe c 1380 which, however, was not printed. After the Wycliffe Bible came others like the Tyndale, Great, Bishops and Geneva Bibles. All had their strengths and weaknesses.

When James I came to the English throne, the Geneva Bible was the most popular with the people while the Bishops Bible was the official Bible of the church. The Geneva Bible was still the best English translation available and was the dominant translation in Scotland. James did not like the Geneva Bible as it had references in the margin which he felt to be politically threatening so when Dr Jon Reynolds suggested a new translation, King James leapt at the opportunity and “authorized” a new translation. He organized the work himself and divided 47 of the best scholars in England into several teams. He also provided strict guidelines such as that the new translation was to be based on the Bishops Bible and that certain ecclesiastical words such as church instead of congregation be retained. The work was completed in 1611 and is referred to by many as the “Authorized Version” because it contained a preface which stated that it had been authorized to be read in churches.
Since first printed in 1611 it has gone through numerous revisions and the copy many read today is not the same as the 1611 version. Some in the King James Only camp claim inspiration for the 1611 version while others bestow this credential on any KJV Bible. However, at no stage did the translators claim that their translation was inspired by God, anointed by The Spirit or without errors. In fact they candidly confessed that the work was imperfect but the best they could do.
Indeed it is a good translation. The very fact that it has lasted for 400 years attests to the quality of the workmanship but does not prove God’s protection on this translation as though it were authorized by the Lord Himself. Even though it is a good translation, it is not perfect and does have real shortcomings. If you use the KJV and are aware of its weaknesses, then it becomes an excellent tool to know God’s word. But if you blindly follow the translators and believe that every English word is inspired and the translators were anointed – you will certainly miss some important nuances and could even build some grave heresy on it’s weaknesses. This is true of any and all translations. Only the original manuscripts as written by the men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to do so, were inspired and these authors wrote under the direct unction of the Spirit. No translation is anointed or inspired. I am not going to try and disprove the KJV only theory as that would be a waste of time because MOST who hold to it are not really interested in the truth. I am writing simply to help those who are open to the truth and want to understand the issues better.
One thing the translators indulged in was that where they had different English words for the same Greek or Hebrew word, they would use as many variations as possible. This they did by way of policy. So for instance the same Greek word is translated in Romans 5:2 as rejoice, in v3 as glory and in v11 as joy. In Ephesians 4:1 the same Greek word is translated as vocation and called. A quick look at a good concordance will show the extent of this problem. Over the years uneducated preachers loved to build entire messages and even doctrines around these variations as though they contained some divinely inspired hidden message.
One of the strengths of the KJV is the poetic nature of the language. It is the translation many of us have memorized verses from and still quote from. In spite of the beauty of the language it is also a problem. Firstly because English is a living language that is constantly changing. Thus very few modern readers understand all the words in the KJV correctly. Many words have changed their meaning completely over these four centuries. Take the word “let” for instance. It used to mean hinder or restrain. Now it means allow which is the complete opposite. The word strife used to include the concept of selfish ambition, it no longer does. So we can go on. The other problem with the language is that many have come to believe that God only speaks in King James English. So we become more “spiritual” when we pray or preach in King James. This is simply not true. Neither is it true that thee and thou is more respectful than you. Our respect for the Lord is not shown in thee and thou but in a real fear of the Lord which permeates our whole life. And when we use King James English to impress others with our super-spirituality we have become full-blown Pharisees!
Many malign modern translations saying that they stem from a conspiracy to change God’s Word. These dear folk will then tell us that the KJV translators had no ulterior motives. The truth is they had a number of clear instructions from the King. Underlying some of these mandates was the fact that the new translation should not jeopardize the status quo as far as the monarchy and the church is concerned. Thus the word episkopos is translated once as overseer and six times as bishop. Overseer would be more correct but they chose to introduce the word bishop because it sanctioned an office that had been created by their system.

So, if you are in the process of choosing a translation don’t be deceived into believing there is only one valid translation. There are a number of good translations but, sadly, no best translation. The KJV is one of the better ones, but in my very humble opinion, not the best. Choose wisely. Changing translations is very hard as you will still remember how it was in the old one.

[Loubee70]

Gary, I never gave this much thought, but I do have many differnet versions and compare the verses.