Translations

Today I want to discuss with you not only things from the Bible, but I wish to discuss the Bible itself. In the October 25 edition of U.S. News and World Report there was an article entitled “Is the Bible True?” The article purports to suggest how new archaeological discoveries offer support for some statements and events revealed in the Bible. Let me tell you, I do not need U.S. News and World Report to tell me the Bible is true and accurate. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t care if every science editor on its staff attempted to discredit the Bible, because the Bible is the most unique of all books, and its integrity stands. It is a book whose content claims to come from the mind of Almighty God. Consider what Paul said about the Bible in 2 Tim. 3:16–17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

While many other books might make the claim of being divine, only the scriptures contained within the sixty-six books of the Bible are actually inspired. I am sure that each member of this audience has at least one copy of the Bible. Several of you probably have more than one copy. Of all the books one might own, the Bible stands alone as the most practical. It tells men and women all that is needed. The Bible tells us where we came from and where we are going. The Bible reveals to us why we are here on this earth. It is useful regardless of where we live or when we live. The Bible is applicable regardless of the color of our skin or the nation of our birth.

The Bible is actually a library of sixty-six books. The Old Testament contains 39 books beginning with Genesis and ending with Malachi. The New Testament has 27 books beginning with the gospel of Matthew and concluding with the Revelation of John. Originally, these books were written primarily in Hebrew and Greek by more than 40 different writers spanning 1500 years. The copy that you have is one of many different English translations of these Greek and Hebrew scriptures.

This is where the matter of the Bible becomes muddled. How do we know which translation we should use? You may believe the Bible in its original languages was inspired (which means god-breathed). That is, the scriptures came to man from the very mind and mouth of God. Jesus said in Matt. 4:4, “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Yet, there are so many translations available that it baffles and confuses us. Are these translations an accurate means of knowing the will of God today? Well, some are and some are not. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, with a few sections in Aramaic. Aramaic was a north Semitic language similar both to Phoenician and Hebrew and was the language of the Arameans. The New Testament, however, was originally written in Greek. This seems like such a fundamental thing, but we so often act as if we do not know this. What we read are translations. In my library I have many translations from which to choose. I have a Bible that contains twenty-six different translations in one volume. Often this has become a source of bewilderment. It used to be whenever someone said, “My Bible says...,” he meant he was simply going to read a text from the copy he owned. Not anymore! Today, one can choose a translation that supports various doctrines, churches, or beliefs.

Let me illustrate what I mean. For example, someone who wishes to believe that Jesus will return to earth to establish an earthly kingdom selects The Living Bible Paraphrased as his Bible. He reads 2 Tim. 4:1–2, which says, “And so I solemnly urge you before God and before Christ Jesus — who will some day judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his Kingdom.” This translation teaches that when Christ comes it will be “to set up his kingdom.” Then he clinches it from the same translation by reading Isa. 2:2–4:

For in those days the world will be ruled from Jerusalem. The Lord will settle international disputes; all nations will convert their weapons of war to implements of peace. Then at last all wars will stop and all military training will end.

In this case, a man has found a translation that enables him to teach a false doctrine. He had read it all from his Bible. Then someone else chooses the Amplified Bible as his translation of choice. He reads the text from Eph. 5:19, which says, “offering praise with voices [and instruments].” From his Bible he urges that we can all fully praise God not just with our voices, but with instruments of music as well.

One "Calls upon the name of the Lord" when he arises and is baptized as the servant of God said in Acts 22:16. Saul had been a believer for three days, he had engaged in prayer, nevertheless he had yet to have his sins washed away (Acts 9:5-11). He did not receive forgiveness until he was baptized (not sprinkled or had water poured over his head) for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16).

Good people, has it reached the point that one can have the translation of his choice just like many believe that one can have the church of his choice? I’m afraid this is the direction we are headed. If you believe the doctrine of grace only, you would find comfort in the New English Bible. If you believe the doctrine of faith only, you would delight in Today’s English Version (or Good News for Modern Man) or the Living Bible Paraphrased. If you were in sympathy with the doctrine of Premillennialism, you would like, as we said, the Living Bible Paraphrased. If you would rather observe the Lord’s Supper on Saturday instead of Sunday, the Good News Bible or the New English Bible would certainly give some comfort. If you like the use of instrumental music in worship, the Amplified Bible would “justify” it. If you liked the doctrines of John Calvin, you would certainly rejoice in the Living Bible or the Amplified Bible. If you want to believe that Peter is the “rock” of Matt. 16:18, upon which Christ built his church, then you will like the New English Bible and the New Testament in Modern English. If you would like to hold to the Old Law as effective today, you would like the New English Bible, which says that Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law in its translation of Matt. 5:17. Our Pentecostal friends will no doubt be pleased with the Good News Bible because it indicates that Holy Spirit baptism is for all believers, when it is clear in scripture that it isn’t. If you want to doubt the fact that Jesus is deity, then a number of translations could be found to support that thought. For example, The New World Translation says that Jesus was not God, but merely a god. It has even gotten to the point that if one prefers gutter language you can have a Bible that uses such terms. One might be shocked to read certain passages from the Good News for Modern Man or the Living Bible Paraphrased.

Do you see that the phrase “my Bible says” has come to mean “a translation for everyone and for every belief?” Many of these pseudo-versions are a direct challenge to fundamental truths which have been held dear throughout the entire history of the Lord’s church. Often what is happening now is a new and bold thrust at undermining the faith with denominational dogmas as they gradually make their way into the Bible by way of paraphrases, deletions, insertions, mistranslations, footnotes, and commentaries within the text. Let me caution you to this fact. Denominational creeds are subtle and dangerous even when they exist under their own banner. But they are infinitely more insidious when they are slipped in under the pretext of “translations” and palmed off for being actually the word of God. I’m sure you remember that Paul wrote, “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light,” in 2 Cor. 11:14.

Translations are necessary and they have been around for a long, long time. While Jesus lived on earth, he used a translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. The Old Testament was translated into Greek about 250 BC for the royal library of Alexandria. It received its interesting name from the seventy translators who are said to have made it. Without translations, men could not know the scriptures without being fluent in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. But men and women must be cautious and use extreme care when selecting a translation.

For years the most often used translation of the scriptures was the King James Version, which was translated under the direction of King James of England and completed in 1611. In its day it was a modern version — which, by the way means translation. Whenever you hear someone, talk about a version, such as the King James Version, he is actually referring to the King James Translation. You might be wondering why do we ever need any new translations? Why not just keep the one translation? Why not just keep the King James Version? The answer to that is really very simple. It is because language, English in our case, changes as it gets used throughout the years. Expressions that were once used will fall by the wayside after time, or expressions and words will change in their meanings. Let me give you some illustrations of this happening with the King James Version. How many of you use the word anon in your everyday vocabulary? In the King James Version Jesus said this about man who received the word in Matt. 13:20, “And anon with joy receiveth it.” This word, anon, is not used today; it has dropped from existence and been replaced with immediately. That is, this man “immediately received” the word that was preached to him. Also, what about the word froward? Do you ever use the word froward or do you even know what it means? The King James Version uses it 21 times, but only once in the New Testament. Peter writes in 1 Pet. 2:18, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” Now, you can probably figure out what it means as it is contrasted with men who are good and gentle. But the point I am making is that we do not use this word today. It has completely been eliminated (or perhaps I should say, as far as I know it has been eliminated) from use. Other English words have actually changed meaning since 1611 when the King James Translation came out. For example, in writing about the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, Paul said this in 1 Thess. 4:15, “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” According to this text those who are living when Jesus return will not prevent those who are dead from rising. However, this word prevent, when originally used, meant something entirely different from what it means today. Today this word means to avert or to keep from. However, in 1611 it meant precede or go beforehand. This is why new translations are needed. The English language is a living language. This means that it will continue to develop. Words will be dropped and others, such as byte and Internet, will be added. And words will change meanings. The word stink once meant aroma. But now it means an unpleasant aroma. The only language that does not change is the language that is no longer used. This is what is called a dead language. As long as English continues to be used, there will be a need for updated and fresh translations of the Bible.

But one problem is, many people choose a translation on the wrong basis. Most people don’t seem to know how to go about determining which translations are good and which are not. Many people pull a new translation off the shelf and throw it open at any verse and read a few lines to see if it is very readable and understandable. Then if it is much easier to understand than, say, the King James Version, they buy it and use it. However, this assumes that all translations are good and accurate and thus the one easiest to understand is the best. As we have already demonstrated, that is not so. Although we need to be concerned about simple and understandable English, we must not overlook the need is for an accurate translation. What good would a translation do us if it is clear and understandable, but not accurate? What do we want with a translation that teaches error in simple terms?

Some believe that the answer to this difficulty is to just get a so-called “word-for-word” translation. But the truth is that there is no such thing as a word for word translation between any two languages. Such a translation is simply impossible. If there was such a translation, it would make no sense in English. I can best illustrate the problems of a word-for-word translation by noting what is said in Matt. 13:53. In the King James Version we read, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.” That is not too difficult to understand. The term “departed thence “might give someone a minor difficulty, but nothing insurmountable. The New King James Version helps some. In it, the same verse says, “Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that he departed from there.” if we were to consult a so-called word-for-word translation, the verse would read, “And happened then finished the Jesus the parables these went away there.” In doing this, the verse becomes choppy and baffling. This is because Greek and Hebrew (the languages of the Bible) have what grammarians call different syntax, or word order. Greek and Hebrew have a different word order than English, rendering a word-for-word translation nearly impossible to be understood. What may be perfectly good Greek becomes unintelligible English. of course, this is true of most every language. Just recall your high school German or Spanish class and you will remember syntax. Let me illustrate the difficulty of a word-for-word translation by noting another verse. Matt 14:35 read this way in the King James Version: “And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased.” Again, with just a minor effort anyone can understand what this verse says. This verse in The New King James Version says, “And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent out into all that surrounding region, brought to him all who were sick.” This helps a little. Recognized is used for knowledge and sick is used instead of diseased making the verse a little clearer. But if we were to make a word-for-word translation, the verse would read: “And knowing him the men of the place that sent into all the country that and brought to him all the evils having.” There is no disputing the fact that we need translations of the Bible in our native language, but a word-for-word translation is nearly impossible to read and understand. Now, there is such a thing as a literal translation, and a literal translation is different from a word-for-word translation. A literal translation is an attempt to get closer to a word-for-word equivalence. While these are very accurate in conveying the original text into English, such translations make for poor English and often are very difficult reading. A translation that once was very popular among those desiring to restore New Testament Christianity, but as far as I know has since ceased publication, was the American Standard Version of 1901. Translations are necessary!

Before we can find a translation that best communicates what the writers of the Bible intend for us to know, we must first understand the purpose of a translation. I do not mean to alarm you with the statement I am about to make, but translating is done on an idea-for-idea or thought-for-thought basis. I do not mean that the work of translators is to submit their thoughts for the thoughts of the original writers. Some have done this, and instead of giving us accurate translations, they gave us perversions that will keep us from understanding the truth. This is the case of The Living Bible Paraphrased. This so-called translation tells you that it is a “thought-for-thought translation.” This is not what reputable and scholarly men who translate the Bible produce. The Living Bible Paraphrased is a book that passes itself off as a Bible, when in fact it is a running commentary. I can give you a simple illustration of this by reading Acts 23:3. The Living Bible Paraphrased reads “Paul said to him, God shall slap you, you whitewashed pigpen.” The Greek says, “you whitewashed wall.” All reputable translations have “whitewashed wall,” not a pigpen. Men do not have the liberty to substitute their thoughts for the thoughts of the inspired writers.

When I mention a thought-for-thought translation, I have in mind a legitimate translation. This means arranging the words into proper English order so as to convey perfectly the thoughts of the inspired writers. The job of a translation is to take the thought from one language and put it into the words of another language to express the same thought or idea. The goal of scholarly translators is to take the thought of each verse and put it into good, correct English, not to twist and pervert the words of God to teach the preconceived religious leanings of the translators. Translation involves interpretation to the extent that the translator has to make a decision as to what something means and to put it into equivalent language. Since no translator or translation is infallible, it is good to consult several translations. Also, it is obvious that there is more to determining which translations are good and bad than just checking to see if they are clear and understandable. As a matter of fact, before we choose a Bible translation we should consider some important principles.

First, we must realize that no translation is inspired. This is true of the honored and esteemed King James Version. The beauty of the archaic thee and thou in the King James Version have inspired poems and songs. How Great Thou Art would not sound as breathtaking if it said “how great you are.” But the King James Version is not the version of the Bible used by Jesus and the apostles. They neither spoke English nor used thee or thou in reference to God. Now, please don’t misunderstand me and don’t think I am putting down the King James Version. I would never do that. I am just saying that the translators who worked on it were not inspired or in any way guided by the Holy Spirit. As we noted earlier, it was completed in 1611 at the order of King James I of England. The King James Version is actually a revision of an earlier version by William Tyndale. The translators of the King James Version were all Anglicans; that is, members of the Church of England. This often influenced their work. It is not inspired, but the King James Version is a very good translation.

Another thing we must consider is this. Is this particular translation the work of one man or a group of men? You might be wondering why this is important. Well, if it is the work of just one man, there was no built-in check and balance. That is, the one man would have had no one to review and correct his work. But if there were several translators, then the chances are greatly reduced that religious prejudice would make its way into the translation. That doesn’t mean that presuppositions will be entirely eliminated, but they will be more likely spotted and corrected. Any reputable translation will tell you about the translators. Reputable translations such as the King James Version and the New American Standard Version had scores of scholars working on the translations. The Living Bible Paraphrased had only one man, Kenneth Taylor, as its translator.

Number three, who were the translators? Were they qualified to do this work? The Watchtower Society, the governing body of the religious denomination known as Jehovah's Witnesses, produced a so-called translation several years ago. They will tell people that it is the most accurate translation of the Greek Christian Scriptures available to men. But do you know something? They will not tell you anything about the translators. They won't reveal their names, and they will not divulge their qualifications. It would probably be easier to find out how many communist Chinese contributed to the Clinton-Gore campaign than find out anything about the translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Also, whenever you select a translation find out if parts of verses have been omitted. For example, the translators of the Revised Standard Version seem to delight in omitting certain biblical verses. Whether the last part of Mark 16 or Acts 8:37, these translators revealed their bias. As a matter of fact, these translators decided the letter from Paul to the church at Ephesus was not really addressed to Ephesus. So instead of Eph. 1:1 saying, “To the saints who are in Ephesus,” the Revised Standard Version says, “To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.” It seems these translators decided that instead of a letter addressed to the local church in Ephesus that it was a circular letter. Reject these translations that take such liberty with the scriptures. Also, I would advise that you reject every so-called translation that is nothing more than a paraphrase or a commentary. Good News for Modern Man and The Living Bible Paraphrased are nothing but commentaries, and not good ones. Take, for example, the way Kenneth Taylor paraphrases 1 Pet. 3:21 in his Living Bible: “In baptism we show that we have been saved from death.” This is merely his perverted interpretation of what Peter said. The Living Bible Paraphrased is actually the Living Bible Perverted. Peter did not say that baptism shows we have already been saved. He said that baptism “now saves us.”

God, through his providence, has preserved his word for us today. Throughout the world there are hundreds of translations. In English, we have many translations available to us so that we can freely read and understand the will of God. Be careful in selecting a translation. To be safe, select several and consult them; compare them. You can understand the will of God, and once understood you must obey what God has said.