Recently a
dear Friend and Christian brother posted a graphic on Facebook
which showed what appears to be a glaring difference between
the KJV and the NIV Bible translations. And on the surface,
there does seem to be a great gap in Biblical truth between
the two translations. But is there really?
The Bible is God's message of hope, assurance, and eternal life to all who will believe and receive His pardon of all sins.
In other words, God has a message for us. And even if the translations do not have the same exact wording, the message is the same. I could use ten words to say, "Good morning" to you - or I could just say, "Good morning." Different wording - but the same message.
In my writings and studies I use at least three translations: NASB, NKJV, and KJV. Mostly I use the NASB and NKJV. But often I find that the KJV, in some Scripture passages, expresses the message I want to convey better. So I use that translation in those instances.
God used 40 men living in various geographical locations, over a period of 1600 years, to write His Bible. What they wrote was not the KJV Bible, nor any other translation. The original writings, i.e., autographs, were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. None of the original autographs exist today. However one example of the consistency of the scribes and copyists down through the millennia is that the book of Isaiah found in the caves of Qumran in 1947 (Dead Sea Scrolls), written in the time period between 356 BC and 100 BC, has been proven to be virtually the same as the book of Isaiah in our Bibles today.
Let's consider the Bible from God's viewpoint. He inspired 40 men, they wrote the Bible we have today. God inspired the Bible to be written to bring His message of salvation and eternal life to all people. It is His way of speaking to us today. Before the Bible, God used prophets to speak to the people. Once the Bible was written, He no longer used prophets - but uses His Bible to bring His message of hope and eternal life to all the world.
If God is powerful enough to inspire His Bible to be written, just as He wanted, by those 40 men - is He not powerful enough to also protect His Bible writings when scribes were copying them? If we deny that fact, then we are saying that God lost control and that man took over to translate the Bible. If that is true, then we are talking about a small god. Yet you and I know that our God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and all places present (omnipotent). God inspired His Bible and was there with the men who wrote the books of the Bible. And God has been there whenever His Bible has been translated to allow more people around the world to read His message to us.
Consider this point. If the Bible still only existed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as it was originally written - how many people today would be studying it? If that were the case, most likely the Bible would have disappeared thousands of years ago. But it has not disappeared. It is still by far the most read book in the world. Only God could do that. And that is why God has guided His Bible to be translated into many languages and into many translations. Anyone who claims that his translation is the only Bible translation - is putting himself above the power of God to protect His Bible. And I would not trust that person.
In 2018 I received an e-mail from the Christian ministry CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) which led me to consider a very important question:
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 PowerPoint, online projectors, and smart phones) 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 investigate the reason for many churches moving to the NIV, we would find that they had been misled by strong marketing campaigns. The large Bible publishing houses decided to make the NIV the chosen Bible translation, possibly prompted or abetted by a younger group of professors in the various seminaries. So the publishing houses' marketing was tuned toward that end. Soon we saw the Christian bookstores following the marketing trends established by the publishing houses - and the bookstore shelves began to be filled with NIV translations - while the shelf space for NASB, NKJV, and KJV Bibles dwindled.
So, what is the difference between the different Bible translations? And which is better for me?
Basically the difference between the various translations is found in the style, or method, of translation: Formal Equivalence translation and Dynamic Equivalence 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), etc. Here the translators used a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought method of translating Scripture into modern English, at times omitting words - or melding the message found in several sentences into one shorter, more reader friendly, sentence. Same message - fewer words.
And because they sometimes chose to combine verses to fit into more grammatically correct 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 a 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 all those years. Since my NASB Study 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 l 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. Several months ago, in our Tuesday Night Bible Study, we were looking at Psalm 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 all of 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 Levite, 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. Instead of land, they were given the honor of serving God and His people in His temple - and for that service God gave them a portion of the sacrifices to sustain themselves.
In other words, others prospered materially in land, but the Levite sought no such portion of material blessings from God - he only sought God. Since God was his portion instead of land and/or wealth, then it did not matter if others prosper materially. Asaph was prospering spiritually and he would leave his material needs in God’s hand as his ancestors had done.
That is an example of a "word" study we did in our Tuesday Night Bible Study - 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 both are 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 1960s/70s when many young people, i.e., hippies, etc., who had dropped out and found their solace in drugs and decadence - the Good News Translation and the Living Bible did serve a purpose, at least in Southern California. For that was when a lot of young people with no church background, no Christian experience - began to search for something better than the drug scene.
Being virtually lost, they were easily drawn into some of the larger "seeker friendly" mega-churches. And, praise God, many of them found their way 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 - began feeding them spiritual milk (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Hebrews 5:12-14).
Calvary Chapel began using the more readable paraphrase Bibles and at the same time created Maranatha! Music to give that generation Christian songs they could understand and sing. Then over time he gradually began to wean 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
The Bible is God's message of hope, assurance, and eternal life to all who will believe and receive His pardon of all sins.
In other words, God has a message for us. And even if the translations do not have the same exact wording, the message is the same. I could use ten words to say, "Good morning" to you - or I could just say, "Good morning." Different wording - but the same message.
In my writings and studies I use at least three translations: NASB, NKJV, and KJV. Mostly I use the NASB and NKJV. But often I find that the KJV, in some Scripture passages, expresses the message I want to convey better. So I use that translation in those instances.
God used 40 men living in various geographical locations, over a period of 1600 years, to write His Bible. What they wrote was not the KJV Bible, nor any other translation. The original writings, i.e., autographs, were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. None of the original autographs exist today. However one example of the consistency of the scribes and copyists down through the millennia is that the book of Isaiah found in the caves of Qumran in 1947 (Dead Sea Scrolls), written in the time period between 356 BC and 100 BC, has been proven to be virtually the same as the book of Isaiah in our Bibles today.
Let's consider the Bible from God's viewpoint. He inspired 40 men, they wrote the Bible we have today. God inspired the Bible to be written to bring His message of salvation and eternal life to all people. It is His way of speaking to us today. Before the Bible, God used prophets to speak to the people. Once the Bible was written, He no longer used prophets - but uses His Bible to bring His message of hope and eternal life to all the world.
If God is powerful enough to inspire His Bible to be written, just as He wanted, by those 40 men - is He not powerful enough to also protect His Bible writings when scribes were copying them? If we deny that fact, then we are saying that God lost control and that man took over to translate the Bible. If that is true, then we are talking about a small god. Yet you and I know that our God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and all places present (omnipotent). God inspired His Bible and was there with the men who wrote the books of the Bible. And God has been there whenever His Bible has been translated to allow more people around the world to read His message to us.
Consider this point. If the Bible still only existed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as it was originally written - how many people today would be studying it? If that were the case, most likely the Bible would have disappeared thousands of years ago. But it has not disappeared. It is still by far the most read book in the world. Only God could do that. And that is why God has guided His Bible to be translated into many languages and into many translations. Anyone who claims that his translation is the only Bible translation - is putting himself above the power of God to protect His Bible. And I would not trust that person.
In 2018 I received an e-mail from the Christian ministry CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) which led me to consider a very important question:
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 PowerPoint, online projectors, and smart phones) 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 investigate the reason for many churches moving to the NIV, we would find that they had been misled by strong marketing campaigns. The large Bible publishing houses decided to make the NIV the chosen Bible translation, possibly prompted or abetted by a younger group of professors in the various seminaries. So the publishing houses' marketing was tuned toward that end. Soon we saw the Christian bookstores following the marketing trends established by the publishing houses - and the bookstore shelves began to be filled with NIV translations - while the shelf space for NASB, NKJV, and KJV Bibles dwindled.
So, what is the difference between the different Bible translations? And which is better for me?
Basically the difference between the various translations is found in the style, or method, of translation: Formal Equivalence translation and Dynamic Equivalence 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 Written 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" means: "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), etc. Here the translators used a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought method of translating Scripture into modern English, at times omitting words - or melding the message found in several sentences into one shorter, more reader friendly, sentence. Same message - fewer words.
And because they sometimes chose to combine verses to fit into more grammatically correct 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 a 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 all those years. Since my NASB Study 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 l 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 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 several newer KJV translations, the latest being 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 Authorized Version (KJV 1611), the most broadly distributed version, also called King James Authorized Version (KJAV); was the work of fifty-four scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. A number of revisions were soon made, in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769); and the Revised Version of the New Testament in 1880 and of the Old Testament in 1884. The two were combined and called the English Revised Version (1885). (History of the Bible - Septuagint, LXX, Versions of the Bible - http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/septuagi.htm)
The English language has changed, making the KJV difficult to understand and easy to misunderstand. Scholars in the English-speaking world have learned much more 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 (at CARM) will be releasing a new series of articles on "CARM.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: Some 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 read) 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 (356 BC - 323 BC), 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 (in verse 2) 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. Several months ago, in our Tuesday Night Bible Study, we were looking at Psalm 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 all of 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 Levite, 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. Instead of land, they were given the honor of serving God and His people in His temple - and for that service God gave them a portion of the sacrifices to sustain themselves.
In other words, others prospered materially in land, but the Levite sought no such portion of material blessings from God - he only sought God. Since God was his portion instead of land and/or wealth, then it did not matter if others prosper materially. Asaph was prospering spiritually and he would leave his material needs in God’s hand as his ancestors had done.
That is an example of a "word" study we did in our Tuesday Night Bible Study - 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 both are 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 1960s/70s when many young people, i.e., hippies, etc., who had dropped out and found their solace in drugs and decadence - the Good News Translation and the Living Bible did serve a purpose, at least in Southern California. For that was when a lot of young people with no church background, no Christian experience - began to search for something better than the drug scene.
Being virtually lost, they were easily drawn into some of the larger "seeker friendly" mega-churches. And, praise God, many of them found their way 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 - began feeding them spiritual milk (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Hebrews 5:12-14).
Calvary Chapel began using the more readable paraphrase Bibles and at the same time created Maranatha! Music to give that generation Christian songs they could understand and sing. Then over time he gradually began to wean 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