Psalm 11:3

A Concerned Christian Website

  • Blog Stats

    • 109,781 hits

Article on Bible Translations

Posted by nazarenepsalm113 on February 14, 2009

The article featured will be by Pastor Gary Gilley but I wanted to let everyone know where I stand on this issue as well.
The which version is best bible discussion can get very heated very quickly.
I use a King James Bible. Always have probably always will.
I also use a New King James Bible which I like as well.
Here is part of the problem as I see it.
The King James Bible has been good to go for around 400 years or so.
I can see why we perhaps wanted to change the language a bit to make it more readable.
Good point but I also don’t buy the excuse that you cant (or our kids) understand the King James Bible.
Its very readable and why are we constantly lowering the bar with our children instead of raising it?
For instance if your kids are required to read classic literature such as “Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens do you think they will be able to find a newer version that’s easier to read?
Of course not.
So we really need to get over the thee and thou conflict that is often bought up when reading Gods word in the King James Bible.
I am also not a King James Bible only person.

We really need to realize that Erasmus who wrote the Textus Receptus was a Dutch Humanist as well as a Roman Catholic priest until the day he died. He also was in a hurry when he wrote the Textus Receptus using a limited amount of manuscripts because he had a deadline.
So I do not buy into a Catholic conspiracy with the Westcott Hort text since Erasmus lived and died a Roman Catholic priest. Wescott and Hort were liberals but they were not Roman Catholic.
The facts about Erasmus are there and part of history now.
That also doesn’t mean I don’t think there is a problem noticing that the King James is good for 400 years or so and then a couple different translations come up which is fine.

Now we have around 50 different translations of the Bible in English and I can assure you that our English language has not changer that much to require so many translations.

That’s part of the problem why so many translations in such a short time?
And there are some really bad ones out there.
The Message Bible which is used often ( seems to be Rick Warrens fave) is a poor new age paraphrase Bible.
Its what Eugene Peterson thinks the Bible says.
Then go do some research on Eugene Peterson.
I avoid The Message like the plague and I cringe when I hear people quote it.
And now we have the Green Bible which focuses more on creation.
What????
Can you say paganism.
On the other side of the coin I think Gail Riplingers book (which I own) “New Age Bible Versions” is very poorly written full of misquotes, bad research and generally some very weird conspiracy theory.
I have read and watched hours of Ms Riplingers debates (back when she debated) and read a lot of her counter arguments against guys like James White.
I find her attitude and fruit to be very unscriptural and un Christlike.
Not that our enemy satan is not trying to tear down Gods Word and go back to his original ploy “Did God really say”‘?
You will find the enemy very alive and well within the Emergent Church and much of their teachings.
Anyway that’s my two cents and I’m not going to part fellowship with someone who uses a NIV even though I personally would not use a NIV because I don’t think its as good as a King James Bible.

Comments are closed on this blog now so if you have a beef feel free to email me.

Here is Gary’s article part One and Two.
Its full of fine and balanced solid research information. And then we will be moving back to more topics of the Emergent Church-Thanks Tim

The Bible Translation Debate – Part 1
(December 1996 – Volume 2, Issue 14)

There are many Christians who are confused over the plethora of Bible translations that are available today, especially to the English reader. A visit to any well-stocked Christian bookstore would result in discovery of translations such as: the King James Version, the New King James Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible, the American Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the Geneva Bible, the New International Version. In addition one would run across several paraphrases such as the Living Bible, the Phillips translation, and recently released, the Message. If all of this is not overwhelming enough, we find that these translations come packaged in wide variety of “reference Bibles.” Reference (or study Bibles) are not translations as such, but rather Bibles that incorporate certain footnotes and study aids along with whatever translations chosen. Some of the more popular include, the Life Application Bible, the International Inductive Study Bible, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, The Scofield and the Ryrie Study Bible. In recent days a new study Bible has appeared for almost every niche in the church. There is the Full Life Study Bible and the Spirit-filled Life Bible for Charismatics; the Catholic Study Bible for Catholics; The Children’s Ministry Resource Bible for children workers; African Heritage Study Bible for American Blacks; The Experiencing God Study Bible for the mystical; The Woman’s Study Bible for women; the Overcomers Bible for those involved in 12-step programs; the New Geneva Study Bible for the Reformed; The Student Bible for the student; and of course, Ryrie and Scofield for the dispensationalist. Unfortunately, this is only a sampling of offerings. It is enough to confuse veteran believers, pity the poor new convert.
By God’s grace, however, let’s say you have made your selection and head to town to make your purchase. As you enter the bookstore you are suddenly sidetracked again as your eyes behold a copy of Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions. To your grave astonishment you find that Riplinger has denounced the very Bible you had intended to buy as corrupt, and perhaps, even of the devil. As a matter of fact, all translations, except the 1611 KJV are part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in a one-world religion by destroying God’s Word, according to Riplinger (It might be added at this point that Riplinger’s work has been largely discredited even by those who agree with her basic position). At this point, you collapse on the floor, crawl to the nearest Barnes and Nobles and purchase a cheap novel. It is just too difficult to read the Bible.

STARTING OVER

Maybe it would be best to start over with a fresh understanding of Bible translation. The Bible obviously did not come to us in its present form. Rather, as God inspired its human authors His words were written down in scrolls. These original manuscripts (or autographs as they are sometimes called) contained no errors, presenting perfectly the Word of God. However, there are no known originals left. What we possess today are thousands of copies of the original manuscripts (this includes fragments, which in some cases may contain only a verse or two). The problem is that while the manuscripts we study today agree to an incredible extent there do exist differences. It is comforting to note, however, that scholars estimate that the text we have before us is between 98 and 99.9% pure — exactly as originally written. Only about 50 readings of any significance is in doubt, and none of these affect any basic doctrine. So we can have complete confidence in our text.

As the church became more established, certain definable New Testament manuscript traditions tended to become the standards within more or less defined areas. These became known as “text-types” and there were four of them:

The Byzantine text: Preserved by the Byzantine Empire, there are far more manuscripts of this tradition than in the other three combined, but most of them are of relatively late date.

The Western text: Sprang from fairly undisciplined scribal activity, and therefore, considered the most unreliable of the “text-types.”

The Alexandrian text: Prepared by trained scribes, most likely in Alexandria and its regions. This text has excellent credentials.

The Caesarean text: Probably originated in Egypt and was a mixture of the Western and Alexandrian texts.

The Textus Receptus and/or the Westcott and Hort

The problem facing the scholar is deciding which of the texts-types are the most accurate, and then choosing which of the manuscripts within the text-types are the best. Some of the criteria used in making such decisions are: 1) the age of the document. Usually the older the manuscript the more authoritative it is. 2) the length of the reading. The shorter the reading of a given passage the more preferable it is since it has been proven that later scribes, at least, tended to add bits rather than remove them. 3) the difficulty of the reading. The more difficult the reading the more comfortable we are with it since, once again, the scribes were more likely to amend a difficult reading than an easy one. Having said all of this, however, not all scholars agree on the reliability of the texts-types. Among conservative Christians there has developed a major disagreement between two schools of thought:

The Textus Receptus:

In 1516 the Roman Catholic/humanist Greek scholar Erasmus gathered together about six Byzantine manuscripts (none of which contained the entire NT and none of which was written before the twelfth century) and published a Greek NT. He was persuaded to do so by a printer who desired to get a Greek text to market before a competitive version, at that moment being compiled by others. As a result Erasmus was forced to work from a very limited number of manuscripts and in great haste. He, and others, would later revise his work many times over the next century. When the translators of the KJV began their work on the NT it was from a revision of Erasmus’ Greek NT that they did their work. Later, in 1633, another revision of Erasmus’ work contained these words, “The text that you have is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or perverted.” From that point on Erasmus’ revised Greek NT has been known as the “received text,” or the “Textus Receptus.” It is important to note that the text was not received in the sense that God put His stamp of approval on it, or that the official church of that day did either. It was received in that it was considered the standard text of that time. It is also of value to realize that the TR is based on a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late Byzantine manuscripts (it is not based upon the whole Byzantine tradition which consists of thousands of manuscripts). It was compiled by an unsaved Catholic scholar motivated by greed. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript at all. Yet, it was to become the basis for all English and European translations from 1611 to 1881. And the TR is at the foundation of the translation debate today.

Westcott and Hort:

Since 1881 most translations have been based upon the Greek NT text developed by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. These, somewhat liberal scholars, argued that the Byzantine text was of late origin and therefore inferior to the Alexandrian tradition. In their work, the scholars used manuscripts that dated back to the second century, some 600 years earlier than anything used by Erasmus. As a basis they used two manuscripts — the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. These works are believed by many to be the finest and most complete NT manuscripts known to exist. However, they could not have been used by Erasmus for they had not been rediscovered in his day.

While neither tradition is without flaw, most modern translators of the Bible have chosen Westcott and Hort’s work because of its careful scholarship based upon more recent discoveries , its use of much older and more complete manuscripts, and upon the apparent fact that the Byzantine manuscripts did not exist before A.D. 350 and are never quoted by the ante-Nicene fathers. On the other hand the Alexandrian text-types are found in Biblical quotations by the ante-Nicene fathers and in early versions dating back as far as A.D.200.

Honest disagreement still remain concerning which Greek NT is superior. However, among those who love God’s Word there is no conspiracy or attempt to corrupt the Word of God. I believe that all manuscripts can be used and studied, and as was stated earlier, we can have complete confidence in the Bible that is in our hands.

Just a word on the manuscripts behind the OT. When the KJV was translated, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts available were copies made about A.D. 850. Since 1890 many older manuscripts have been discovered, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of our Hebrew manuscripts now date back to 200-300 B.C. Most scholars assume that the older the manuscript the more accurate it is likely to be. If this is true, then modern translations of the OT have a 1000 year advantage over the translators of the KJV. Either way, it is comforting to note, that the Dead Sea Scrolls have given solid proof that the later manuscripts in our possession are accurate and trustworthy.

by Gary E. Gilley

Related Article: Part 2

The Bible Translation Debate – Part 2
(January 1997 – Volume 2, Issue 15)

We now move from the subject of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to the English translations available today. It must be understood that there is no such thing as a true literal translation. Instead, there is a spectrum, a graduation. Translation is not a pure mechanical process, and is never completely divorced from interpretation. The desired end product is a rendering that means what the original means, but is written in a way that we can understand. The translators of Scripture take three approaches:
Literal translations:

These are attempts to render the original languages as literal as possible, even at the expense of readability sometimes. The best examples are the KJV, The NKJV and the NASB.

Paraphrases:

Paraphrases represent the opposite approach, sacrificing accuracy for readability. Works such as the Living Bible, Phillips, and The Message, are all highly readable but represent more the interpretation of the author than a translation of the text. These may have value as a comparison but are of little use as a legitimate translation.

Free translation:

Works such as the NIV attempt to blend the best of accuracy and faithfulness to the text, with readability that gives clear and easy understanding. This necessitates a great deal more interpretation on the translators part than a strictly literal translation. For example, in Rom 8:3-9 the NASB consistently translates “sarkos” as “flesh,” which is the literal translation of the word. The NIV, on the other hand, in its attempt to help us understand what “sarkos” means, translates it in a number of ways: “sinful nature,” “man,” “sinful man,” and “sinful.” While the NIV’s translation may be more easily understood and more similar to the way we talk today, the question is, “Is it accurate?”

A study of the above passage shows that it actually causes more confusion. The NIV’s translation boils down to an interpretation with which many Bible students would disagree. On the other hand, how many modern readers understand what it means to be “in the flesh?” And how many would study to find out? These are the dilemmas that the translator faces. It might be added that both the KJV and the NKJV translates “sarkos” two different ways in this passage: as “flesh” and as “carnal.” So, in this passage anyway, the NASB is the most consistent and literal of the three translations.

The literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV and the NASB, are superior especially for the purpose of serious study because of their accuracy. While they may be more difficult to read in places, the believer who truly desires to understand truth will get beyond this problem, without having to deal with the confusion that the freer translations invite. On the other hand, one might recommend one of the free translations, such as the NIV, for new Christians, children, or for general reading.

THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

A brief history of our English translations might be of interest at this point. It should be noted that godly leaders have always attempted to put the Bible in the language of the people in order that they might “Grow in respect to salvation” (I Pet 2:2). The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and was translated into a Greek version, the Septuagint, approximately 200 years before Jesus walked the earth. The Vulgate was a Latin translation of the whole Bible, by the scholar Jerome in A.D. 405. This version of the Bible was known as the Vulgate because it was in the vulgar, or common language of the people.

It was not until 1380 that the first English translation was produced, by John Wycliffe. The English government opposed this work, eventually even passing a law against any English translations. Those who resisted found themselves persecuted. Wycliffe was so hated that his remains were exhumed and burned in 1428.

It would be almost 150 years before another translation of the English Bible was published, this time by William Tyndale. Again the English government and clergy opposed this work, and King Henry VIII issued a proclamation in 1530 that the translation, and circulation, of the Scriptures in the common language of the people be forbidden. Tyndale’s famous response was, “I defy the Pope and all of his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost.” Tyndale was able to follow through on this threat, but ultimately died a martyr for his efforts.

Persecution was unable to stop the translation of Scripture into the English language. In 1535 the Coverdale Bible was published, followed by the Matthews in 1537 and the Great Bible in 1539. The next important translation was the Geneva Bible (1560), which was translated by Christian refugees who fled Britain during the reign of Queen Mary. Since the translation was produced in Geneva, Switzerland it became known as the Geneva Bible. But the real significance of this work was that it contained marginal notes, of both a doctrinal and practical nature, which became very controversial due to their Reformed theology, and their apparent disdain of kings. It was the Geneva Bible which the Puritans studied and brought to America on the Mayflower. The Pilgrims hated the King James Version and would not even allow it in the colonies for years. The Geneva Bible would be the preeminent English translation for seventy-five years. As a side note, it was also known as the “Breeches Bible” because of its reading of Genesis 3:7, “And they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves breeches.” Two other popular translations of the day were the Bishop Bible (1568), which was the work of Archbishop Parker and sanctioned by Queen Elizabeth, and the Douay Bible of 1582 which was a Roman Catholic translation.

It was between 1607 and 1611 that the greatest of all English translations of the Bible — the King James Version — took place. Forty-seven scholars, working in several teams, produced the greatest piece of translation that the world had ever seen. Its accuracy and beauty has endeared the KJV to millions for almost four hundred years. King James I of England had sanctioned a new translation (although it never was given an official civil or ecclesiastical authorization despite the handle, “Authorized Version”). King James was apparently not a believer, lived a very ungodly life and hated the Puritans. However, because of the popularity of the Geneva Bible with its anti-king sentiment, he felt threatened. He called for a new translation; he did away with all marginal notes; and he used some Puritans as translators to insure its acceptability. Although the KJV would undergo numerous revisions over the years (the modern KJV is very different from the original) there would not even be a major attempt at a new translation until the 1881 Revised Version and its American cousin, The American Standard Version of 1901.

These two translations, and almost all that have followed them, are based on the Westcott and Hort Greek NT rather than The Textus Receptus. This fact has set up the debate that still lingers among many, concerning which translation is more accurate (see The Bible Translations Debate Part I).

Some King James-only advocates, refer to the NASB and NIV (and sometimes even the NKJV) as corrupt translations. They usually attempt to point to the differences between the translations that they believe are attempts to subvert the true meaning of the Word of God. For example, they claim that the NASB and the NIV do not use the word “blood” as often as the KJV, which is supposed to prove that the NASB and NIV are soft on the issue of atonement.

Besides being pure nonsense, the fact is that all translations could be challenged by such criteria. For example, even David Hunt, a supporter of the KJV, admits that when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ, the modern versions excel. He says, “There are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare that Jesus is God: Jh. 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; II Thes. 1:12; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; II Pet. 1:1; and Rev. 1:8. The KJV is clear in four of these (Jh. 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; and Heb. 1:8), whereas the NASB and NIV are clear in seven of the eight (the same four plus Titus 2:13; II Pet. 1:1; and Rev. 1:8). . . If the situation was the other way around. . . Some KJV-only advocates would surely accuse the modern versions of down playing Christ’s deity” (Berean Call, Jan, 1995).

I personally believe that the Bible translations debate is blown way out of proportion by some. Rather than fighting over which translation is superior, we might do well to spend more time reading one of the great translations, especially the NASB, the KJV, the NKJV and perhaps the NIV. For further reading on this issue I would recommend:
The Men Behind the King James Version, by Gustavus S. Paine.

The King James Version Debate, a Plea for Realism, by D. A. Carson.

What You Should Know About Bible Translations, by G. Christian Weiss.

by Gary E. Gilley
©2009 SVC

Advertisements

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: