Recently I received an e-mail from the Christian ministry CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) which led me to consider two questions:
1. Is there really only "one" true Bible translation?
2. Should we trust Christian ministries when we do not agree with them 100% - when we may differ on some aspects of theology?
I believe the apostle Paul gives us the answer to question number 2 in Acts 17:10-11, "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away (from Thessalonica) by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These (the Bereans) were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
To paraphrase that teaching: "Test the teaching and the teacher against Scripture." In all aspects of our Christian life, the Bible, the Written Word of God - is the sole authority. So, regardless of the teacher, be it a local Christian brother or sister or a world renown Bible scholar, theologian, or pastor - the apostle Paul is telling us to always test that teacher and that teaching against what God is telling us in His Bible, His Written Word.
CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) leans more toward a Reform Calvinist theology and there I differ greatly with them. Yet even though I may disagree with my Calvinist and Arminian brethren - that does not mean I will not fellowship and dialogue with them. I have been following CARM and using material from their site for a number of years. And while I do not always agree with them on all issues, I have found them to be a great source of Bible and Christian knowledge from which I can launch my own personal study on a particular issue.
Now let's consider the main question in this blog:
1. Is there really only "one" true Bible translation?
When I received the CARM eNewsletter titled "Can We Trust Modern Bible Translations?" - that piqued my interest. Various churches tend to lean toward different Bibles. When I was saved in the Fil-Am Church of Irvine (CA) in 1987 and when I went to the Fil-Am Church of Corona about 20 years ago, there was no pressure to use any one particular translation.
We had folks reading from a variety of Bible translations - which is no problem most of the time. Our pastor was using the NASB Bible. The only time it presented a problem was during Responsive Bible Reading when we all tried to read from many translations simultaneously. It began to sound like we were speaking in tongues.
To get around that minor problem, we used an overhead transparency projector (before online projection capabilities) to project the Scripture reading on a screen so that we all could read from the same translation. Years later the Corona church decided to have pew Bibles and chose the NIV Bible, to my disappointment. I would have preferred a word-for-word translation which is more helpful when doing an indepth study of the Bible. But that decision was not a game changer.
I believe if we would truly investigate the reason for many churches moving to the NIV, we would find that they had been misled by strong marketing campaigns. The larger Bible publishing houses decided to make the NIV the chosen Bible translation, possibly prompted or abetted by a younger corps of professors in the various seminaries. So the publishing houses' marketing was tuned to that end. Soon we saw the Christian bookstores following marketing trends the publishing houses had created - and the bookstore shelves began to fill up with NIV translations - while the shelf space for NASB and often NKJV Bibles dwindled.
Basically the difference between the various translations is found in the style, or method, of translation. The KJV, NKJV, and NASB Bibles were translated using the Formal Equivalence method of translation, meaning that the translators tried to always stay with word-for-word translations, paying less attention to sentence structure and grammar.
Their goal was to stay as close as possible to the original manuscripts, with the understanding that to truly interpret Scripture, i.e. - it should be interpreted according to the historical, grammatical, cultural, and literal understanding of the original writers.
In our Bill & Dory Gray Christian Ministries Statement of Faith I have written:
In the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation camp, we find the NAB (New American Bible), NIV (New International Version), TNIV (gender neutral Today's New International Version) , NLT (New Living Translation), NJB (New Jerusalem Bible). Here the translators used a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought method of translating Scripture into modern English, at times omitting words. And because they sometimes chose to combine verses to fit into more grammatical sentence structures, they have often been accused of deleting verses.
Actually they, at times, combined two sentences or verses into a more common grammar and word meaning - which led some to think that verses or words have been deleted. The goal of the these translators was to present the same message, but in a more grammatically correct and easily read text.
Most of us typically tend to stay with the translation we used when we first became a believer and began to attend Bible studies. In 1987, when I first believed and received Christ - I only had a King James Bible given to me by Mormon door-knockers. That was the one I took to my first Bible study. And it did not take long for me to start butting my head against a brick wall.
Each night I would read my Bible, alternating between Old Testament and New Testament readings. Then I hit that brick wall, the book of Romans. I could not make sense of it. That week at our Friday Night Bible study I asked Pastor Sam about it. When he saw the Bible I was using, he gave Dory and me each a new Harper's NASB Study Bible - and that has been my go-to Bible for many years. Since that Bible is now over 30 years old, it is getting a wee bit worn and old, but it still works for me.
Today in my writing ministry and in my personal studies, I use both the NASB and the NKJV Bibles. And at time when it better explains the thought I am writing, I will go to the King James Bible. These are word-for-word translations which I still feel are better suited for indepth Bible studies.
This is from the CARM eNewsletter I received last week in an e-mail:
More thoughts on Bible translations from CARM:
In summary, which is more important: the Bible translation you use - OR - the fact that we come together in unity to study God's Word?
And, if you think about it, maybe having several different translations in our Bible studies can be a good thing. Last week in our Tuesday Night Bible Study we were looking atPsalm 119:57-64 and right away, on verse 57, "The LORD is my portion; I have promised to keep Your words" - we found ourselves in an interesting discussion. Rachel Quintans raised the question, "What did the psalmist mean by, 'The LORD is my portion;. . .'?"
We tend to think of a "portion" as being only a part of something. Yet we know that, as believers, we do not have just a portion of God, we have all of God's love and His blessings. So what does "portion" mean in Psalm 119:57 - and in Psalm 73:26 and Deuteronomy 32:9?
In those psalms Asaph, who was himself a Levi, was making a reference to the divisions of the promised land when he said his portion was God. The Levites were not given a land like the other Jewish tribes. In other words, others may prosper materially, but he seeks no such portion of material blessings from God - he only seeks God. If God is his portion instead of land and/or wealth, then it does not matter if others prosper materially, Asaph is prospering spiritually and he will leave his material needs in God’s hand as his ancestors had done.
That is an example of a "word" study we did last week - and, in my view, that is a good reason to have a "word-for-word" Bible translation.
One last thought. We have looked at the Formal Equivalence method of translation which is the "word-for-word" method. And we have looked at the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation which is the "thought-for-thought" or "phrase-for-phrase" method. Both are God's Word and His Bible.
But I warn you to be wary of the "Paraphrase" books which often are called Bibles. The most common paraphrases are the Good News Translation (1966), The Living Bible (1971), and The Message (1993). Those are NOT Bibles. They are paraphrases, more like commentaries than Bibles - even though they do follow the book/chapter/verse structure.
I am not saying they do not have a use. I use commentaries all the time - but not as my primary source of authority. Typically when I am studying a Scripture verse or passage, I will see what several different commentaries have to say - and then I will use those thoughts to lead me into a deeper study from the Bible itself.
In the 1970s, the Good News Translation and the Living Bible did serve a purpose, at least in Southern California. For that was when a lot of people with no church experience, no Christian background - began to be drawn into some of the mega-churches. And even into solid churches such as Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. At that time in their lives, the more meaty translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB) would most likely have driven them back onto the streets and into the drug scene once again.
Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, realizing that the 1960s drug generation was not ready for true spiritual meat - fed them spiritual milk in the beginning.
Calvary Chapel began using the more readable Bibles and at the same time created Maranatha! Music to give that generation Christian songs to sing. And then he gradually weaned them from their spiritual milk diet and into the solid Word of God. Pastor Chuck was a firm believer in expositional teaching through the Bible - and he used the King James Bible in his teachings.
And I said, "Praise God" when he began to wean them from a solid diet of pure contemporary Christian music of Maranatha! Music - and into hymns. In the 1990s, each week he began to lead the congregation in singing hymns. My wife, Dory, who is more musically minded than me, would often laugh and say, "Pastor Chuck is no singer - but he sings with gusto!" We both were happy when he began to integrate hymns into their Sunday services.
So, my Friends, if you are in a church which sings hymns (even if mixed with contemporary Christian music) - teaches expositionally through God's Word using a "word-for-word" Bible (KJV, NKJV, NASB) - and has a strong Sunday School and Bible Study program - PRAISE GOD! For today too many of our churches are leaning toward a "feel good" Gospel and secular sounding Christian music.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
1. Is there really only "one" true Bible translation?
2. Should we trust Christian ministries when we do not agree with them 100% - when we may differ on some aspects of theology?
I believe the apostle Paul gives us the answer to question number 2 in Acts 17:10-11, "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away (from Thessalonica) by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These (the Bereans) were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
To paraphrase that teaching: "Test the teaching and the teacher against Scripture." In all aspects of our Christian life, the Bible, the Written Word of God - is the sole authority. So, regardless of the teacher, be it a local Christian brother or sister or a world renown Bible scholar, theologian, or pastor - the apostle Paul is telling us to always test that teacher and that teaching against what God is telling us in His Bible, His Written Word.
CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) leans more toward a Reform Calvinist theology and there I differ greatly with them. Yet even though I may disagree with my Calvinist and Arminian brethren - that does not mean I will not fellowship and dialogue with them. I have been following CARM and using material from their site for a number of years. And while I do not always agree with them on all issues, I have found them to be a great source of Bible and Christian knowledge from which I can launch my own personal study on a particular issue.
Now let's consider the main question in this blog:
1. Is there really only "one" true Bible translation?
When I received the CARM eNewsletter titled "Can We Trust Modern Bible Translations?" - that piqued my interest. Various churches tend to lean toward different Bibles. When I was saved in the Fil-Am Church of Irvine (CA) in 1987 and when I went to the Fil-Am Church of Corona about 20 years ago, there was no pressure to use any one particular translation.
We had folks reading from a variety of Bible translations - which is no problem most of the time. Our pastor was using the NASB Bible. The only time it presented a problem was during Responsive Bible Reading when we all tried to read from many translations simultaneously. It began to sound like we were speaking in tongues.
To get around that minor problem, we used an overhead transparency projector (before online projection capabilities) to project the Scripture reading on a screen so that we all could read from the same translation. Years later the Corona church decided to have pew Bibles and chose the NIV Bible, to my disappointment. I would have preferred a word-for-word translation which is more helpful when doing an indepth study of the Bible. But that decision was not a game changer.
I believe if we would truly investigate the reason for many churches moving to the NIV, we would find that they had been misled by strong marketing campaigns. The larger Bible publishing houses decided to make the NIV the chosen Bible translation, possibly prompted or abetted by a younger corps of professors in the various seminaries. So the publishing houses' marketing was tuned to that end. Soon we saw the Christian bookstores following marketing trends the publishing houses had created - and the bookstore shelves began to fill up with NIV translations - while the shelf space for NASB and often NKJV Bibles dwindled.
Basically the difference between the various translations is found in the style, or method, of translation. The KJV, NKJV, and NASB Bibles were translated using the Formal Equivalence method of translation, meaning that the translators tried to always stay with word-for-word translations, paying less attention to sentence structure and grammar.
Their goal was to stay as close as possible to the original manuscripts, with the understanding that to truly interpret Scripture, i.e. - it should be interpreted according to the historical, grammatical, cultural, and literal understanding of the original writers.
In our Bill & Dory Gray Christian Ministries Statement of Faith I have written:
WE BELIEVE - That the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. The Bible is the sole authority for our Christian faith and Christian life. The Bible is God's authoritative written revelation to man. We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and that all 66 books of the Bible are without error in the original manuscripts.
We believe Scripture should be interpreted according to its historical, grammatical, and literal sense. We believe that Divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts and words of the Bible, so that the whole Bible, in the original manuscripts, is without error in its moral and spiritual teaching and in its record of historical facts.
Note: Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture meaning: "Verbal" means that every word of Scripture is God-given. "Plenary" means that all parts of the Bible are equally authoritative. Inspiration means that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired.
In the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation camp, we find the NAB (New American Bible), NIV (New International Version), TNIV (gender neutral Today's New International Version) , NLT (New Living Translation), NJB (New Jerusalem Bible). Here the translators used a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought method of translating Scripture into modern English, at times omitting words. And because they sometimes chose to combine verses to fit into more grammatical sentence structures, they have often been accused of deleting verses.
Actually they, at times, combined two sentences or verses into a more common grammar and word meaning - which led some to think that verses or words have been deleted. The goal of the these translators was to present the same message, but in a more grammatically correct and easily read text.
Most of us typically tend to stay with the translation we used when we first became a believer and began to attend Bible studies. In 1987, when I first believed and received Christ - I only had a King James Bible given to me by Mormon door-knockers. That was the one I took to my first Bible study. And it did not take long for me to start butting my head against a brick wall.
Each night I would read my Bible, alternating between Old Testament and New Testament readings. Then I hit that brick wall, the book of Romans. I could not make sense of it. That week at our Friday Night Bible study I asked Pastor Sam about it. When he saw the Bible I was using, he gave Dory and me each a new Harper's NASB Study Bible - and that has been my go-to Bible for many years. Since that Bible is now over 30 years old, it is getting a wee bit worn and old, but it still works for me.
Today in my writing ministry and in my personal studies, I use both the NASB and the NKJV Bibles. And at time when it better explains the thought I am writing, I will go to the King James Bible. These are word-for-word translations which I still feel are better suited for indepth Bible studies.
This is from the CARM eNewsletter I received last week in an e-mail:
English-speaking Christians today rely on a variety of Bible translations. Go to any Bible study and you are likely to find people using the NASB, others the ESV, and still others the NIV. The wording in each is slightly different, but most Christians assume that they are all saying the same thing and so they fellowship in unity without giving it much thought.
Yet, there is a vocal movement which claims that all of these modern Bible translations are corrupt. They insist that the old King James Version (KJV 1611) is the only true Bible in English today. Some extremists go even further, claiming that the KJV is the only pure Bible today in any language! However, contrary to these claims, our modern translations exist for some very good reasons:
Bill Gray Note: While folks mention the KJV 1611, virtually all King James Bibles today are the KJV 1769. The KJV 1611 was replaced by a newer translation in 1769.
"In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James version in which many small changes were made. These changes were of five kinds: (1) Greater and more regular use of italics, (2) minor changes in the text, (3) the adoption of modern spelling, (4) changes in the marginal notes and references, and, (5) correction of printers' errors." (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html)
The English language has changed, making the KJV difficult to understand and easy to misunderstand. Scholars in the English-speaking world have learned a lot about the original Greek and Hebrew languages since the 1611 translation. Only a couple dozen, mostly late, manuscripts were available to the KJV 1611 translators. Today, we have thousands of copies (manuscripts), many of which are far more ancient (than those used to translate the KJV 1611).
For these reasons, it makes perfect sense to produce new translations in modern English based on all the available data (all the currently known manuscripts). But how can we know that these translations are accurate? It’s easy. The same way we can know that the KJV is accurate. You could go back to the original languages and check for yourself. If you lack that ability (as most Christians do) then you compare different independent translations and see how they render the same passages. This way you can be quite confident that the translations accurately reflect the original.
The "King James Only" movement, which advocates the use of only the King James Bible, is incorrect and divisive. It actually attacks a vital tool in knowing for sure what the original says: i.e, having multiple, independent translations!
Next week, we will be releasing a new series of articles on "CARM (dot) org" dealing with this important topic of “King James Onlyism.” In it, we will demonstrate that, while the KJV is a fine translation, it is not the only translation Christians can trust. We will also discuss how God has preserved His Word and how that Word can be accessed today through a variety of English translations. Some tough questions about manuscript differences will be addressed as well.
Bill Gray Note: Parenthetical edits, italic and underline emphasis in the e-mail text above are mine.
More thoughts on Bible translations from CARM:
A Brief History of Bible Translations
https://carm.org/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations
by Luke Wayne, 4/17/18
Unlike religions such as Islam, where the Qur'an is only truly the Qur'an (when) in the original Arabic - Biblical Christianity has always believed that God's word can and should be translated into the common languages of all men. In any language in which the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are faithfully rendered, they are still the word of God, and so the Scriptures should be translated into any language necessary to bring the Gospel message to all people everywhere.
The Old Testament:
Translation of Scripture is older than Christianity itself. The Old Testament Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible were brought into other common languages centuries before the coming of Jesus Christ, and indeed were a great help to the early church. After the time of Alexander the Great, Greek became the common language of much of the ancient world. Many Jews dispersed throughout that world began to speak Greek as their primary language. This eventually led to the need for a Greek translation.
The Torah (the books of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy) was translated into Greek in the third century BC, with the other Old Testament books shortly to follow. The Septuagint (Greek translation) is often quoted verbatim in the New Testament and was very important to the early church. Gentile Christians knew nothing of Hebrew, and so the Septuagint was their Bible. Indeed, after Christians embraced and so effectively used the Septuagint for their own teaching, worship, and evangelism - the Jews rejected it and sought to produce new Greek editions to suit their own community's needs. Even these, however, are often classified by some scholars as revisions of the Septuagint rather than new "from scratch" translations.
In the third century AD, Origen of Alexandria collected these various Greek editions (along with the Hebrew text of his day) and published them all side by side in parallel columns with notations of key differences in a massive work known as the Hexapla. The Hexapla had a profound influence on future copying of the Septuagint, and scholars give it a central position among the editions of the LXX (Septuagint).
It was based on the assumption that, while the Septuagint should be revered as the word of God even in its peculiar readings, there is also value in the study of other translations. They, too, are the word of God, even when they differ from the Septuagint, and the church is richer from knowing them. The wide popularity and influence of the Hexapla shows that this view was held by many early Christians.
Bill Gray Note: Hexapla is the term for a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible in six versions, four of them translated into Greek, preserved only in fragments. It was an immense and complex word-for-word comparison of the original Hebrew Scriptures with the Greek Septuagint translation and with other Greek translations. The term especially and generally applies to the edition of the Old Testament compiled by the theologian and scholar Origen, sometime before the year 240 AD. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla)
Origen's third century Hexapla is very similar to our current Interlinear Bible available to us today in bookstores, which is typically a Bible containing Hebrew, Greek, and English translations - side by side.
The New Testament:
From the beginning, the New Testament was built upon the necessity of translation. Not only does it command the Gospel be preached to all nations, the New Testament itself models translation to the common tongue. Every time it quotes the Old Testament, it does so in Greek, rather than the original Hebrew. In several places in the Gospels, words of Jesus or others are given in their original Aramaic and then immediately translated, and it is likely that other portions of Jesus' words were originally in Aramaic as well.
But the New Testament offers them in the Greek language that the original readers would have known. Acts 22:1-21 presents a speech of Paul that it explicitly says he gave in the "Hebrew dialect" - but it records the speech in a Greek translation so that the reader can understand it. The New Testament is itself an exercise in bringing all things into the common, everyday language of the readers. It is no wonder that that Early Christians took up the cause of translation in earnest.
In summary, which is more important: the Bible translation you use - OR - the fact that we come together in unity to study God's Word?
And, if you think about it, maybe having several different translations in our Bible studies can be a good thing. Last week in our Tuesday Night Bible Study we were looking atPsalm 119:57-64 and right away, on verse 57, "The LORD is my portion; I have promised to keep Your words" - we found ourselves in an interesting discussion. Rachel Quintans raised the question, "What did the psalmist mean by, 'The LORD is my portion;. . .'?"
We tend to think of a "portion" as being only a part of something. Yet we know that, as believers, we do not have just a portion of God, we have all of God's love and His blessings. So what does "portion" mean in Psalm 119:57 - and in Psalm 73:26 and Deuteronomy 32:9?
In those psalms Asaph, who was himself a Levi, was making a reference to the divisions of the promised land when he said his portion was God. The Levites were not given a land like the other Jewish tribes. In other words, others may prosper materially, but he seeks no such portion of material blessings from God - he only seeks God. If God is his portion instead of land and/or wealth, then it does not matter if others prosper materially, Asaph is prospering spiritually and he will leave his material needs in God’s hand as his ancestors had done.
That is an example of a "word" study we did last week - and, in my view, that is a good reason to have a "word-for-word" Bible translation.
One last thought. We have looked at the Formal Equivalence method of translation which is the "word-for-word" method. And we have looked at the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation which is the "thought-for-thought" or "phrase-for-phrase" method. Both are God's Word and His Bible.
But I warn you to be wary of the "Paraphrase" books which often are called Bibles. The most common paraphrases are the Good News Translation (1966), The Living Bible (1971), and The Message (1993). Those are NOT Bibles. They are paraphrases, more like commentaries than Bibles - even though they do follow the book/chapter/verse structure.
I am not saying they do not have a use. I use commentaries all the time - but not as my primary source of authority. Typically when I am studying a Scripture verse or passage, I will see what several different commentaries have to say - and then I will use those thoughts to lead me into a deeper study from the Bible itself.
In the 1970s, the Good News Translation and the Living Bible did serve a purpose, at least in Southern California. For that was when a lot of people with no church experience, no Christian background - began to be drawn into some of the mega-churches. And even into solid churches such as Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. At that time in their lives, the more meaty translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB) would most likely have driven them back onto the streets and into the drug scene once again.
Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, realizing that the 1960s drug generation was not ready for true spiritual meat - fed them spiritual milk in the beginning.
Calvary Chapel began using the more readable Bibles and at the same time created Maranatha! Music to give that generation Christian songs to sing. And then he gradually weaned them from their spiritual milk diet and into the solid Word of God. Pastor Chuck was a firm believer in expositional teaching through the Bible - and he used the King James Bible in his teachings.
And I said, "Praise God" when he began to wean them from a solid diet of pure contemporary Christian music of Maranatha! Music - and into hymns. In the 1990s, each week he began to lead the congregation in singing hymns. My wife, Dory, who is more musically minded than me, would often laugh and say, "Pastor Chuck is no singer - but he sings with gusto!" We both were happy when he began to integrate hymns into their Sunday services.
So, my Friends, if you are in a church which sings hymns (even if mixed with contemporary Christian music) - teaches expositionally through God's Word using a "word-for-word" Bible (KJV, NKJV, NASB) - and has a strong Sunday School and Bible Study program - PRAISE GOD! For today too many of our churches are leaning toward a "feel good" Gospel and secular sounding Christian music.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Click on the image to enlarge:
No comments:
Post a Comment