A thorough way to evaluate translations is on a passage by
passage basis. Any translation can be helpful and useful in the places it is
accurately translated. Some read a few passages in a translation, and decide by
those few spots, the whole translation is flawed and useless. Since no
translation is perfect, you could render every translation useless by that
approach.
Let’s look at some passages from several translations. They
are going to be inaccurate in the place we are focusing on. Although these
translations in these particular spots are not helpful, it does not mean they
are useless throughout. From our list, we will also notice that the same
translation that may be problematic in one passage becomes very helpful in
another.
Psalm 51:5 (HCSB,
also see NIV2011) “Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was
sinful when my mother conceived me.” The HCSB has taken liberty to
translate a meaning that is not intended by God. It should read, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me.” (ESV, also see ASV, NASB, KJV, & NKJV) The passage is
using figurative language and not teaching original sin. For a more in-depth
study on Psalm 51:5 see my cousin, Ron Daly’s blog: http://exegeticalessays.blogspot.com/2011/01/psalm515.html
Acts 22:16 (HCSB)
“And now, why delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away
your sins by calling on His name.’” The word ‘by’ is not in the
Greek, and is merely an attempt at explanation by the HCSB. Neither the ESV,
ASV, NIV, NASB, KJV, nor NKJV use the word ‘by’.
John 3:16.
Everyone’s favorite verse right! A verse that SO SO many misunderstand and
misinterpret. The NIrV is a wonderful translation for young children, being at
a third grade reading level. How wonderful for an 8 or 9 year old child to have
a copy of God’s word they can actually read and understand! I would recommend
it to any person that is at an elementary grade reading level. However, in John
3:16, it inaccurately conveys the message. (NIrV) “God loved
the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes
in him will not die but will have eternal life.” Is this the way you
read John 3:16? The word ‘so’ is not expressing the measure of God’s love
but rather the manner of God’s love. An accurate way to say it would be,
“This is the way God loved the world” or “God loved the world in this way” such
as in the HCSB. Notice that the very version that was less than helpful in
Psalm 51:5 and Acts 22:16 is the MOST helpful in John 3:16. Don’t throw away a
version simply because it is flawed in a few places. Furthermore, the NIrV is
very accurate by excluding the word ‘begotten’ and using the phrase ‘one and
only’.
Luke 2:14 (NKJV,
also KJV) “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace,
goodwill toward men!” I’m sure many have heard this verse quoted
especially around the holidays. Here is the question we want to ask, “Is God
giving peace and goodwill to humanity at large/everyone?” The KJV/NKJV answers
with a resounding, ‘YES!’ Let’s look at the NIrV. “May glory
be given to God in the highest heaven! And may peace be given to those he is
pleased with on earth!” The NIrV does a fabulous job in this passage
explaining that the ‘peace’ is given to those who God is pleased with, not humanity
at large/everyone. (Also see ESV, NIV11, ASV, NASB, HCSB) Note: this is more of
a manuscript question rather than a translation issue, but I believe it is
helpful none the less.
None of these translations are perfect in every passage, and
we will look at more in future blogs. At the same time, none of these
translations are utterly useless. For this very reason, I always strive to
encourage others to use multiple versions. If one of the translations you use is
incorrect in a passage, often another translation will be there to object.
May God bless us all as we strive to learn what
the Holy Author intended :)
Monday, February 11, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Do Man-Made Organizations Have a Right to Preach the Gospel?
Right off the bat let me eliminate some things lest someone
misunderstand/misquote me. I do not believe it is a sin to attend lectures
, enroll in school, or even buy from the bookstore of a religious organization
(such as the Guardian of Truth Foundation or Florida College). I don’t believe
purchasing a service is condoning an organization.
I believe secular organizations have a right to exist, if they do a secular work. Publishing material, selling material, and teaching math, English, health, business, etc., are all secular works that are not assigned to the local congregation. However, preaching the gospel is a religious work, not a secular work. Preaching the gospel is specifically assigned to the local congregation (1 Timothy 3:15) and individual Christians (Acts 16).
Some argue that these man-made organizations are simply individuals preaching the gospel. Cannot the church send funds to individuals? (Philippians 4:15). If those organizations were no different than individuals, could not the church fund those organizations? However, their refusal to accept funds from local congregations shows they understand they are not simply individuals preaching the gospel. (I do not believe a church may send funds to an organization, because we don’t find that pattern in the Scriptures.)
One organization, Florida College, has a motto ‘Learning, Leading, Living His Way’. Does that sound like a secular organization or a religious organization? Does that sound like a college focused on secular education or religious instruction? Far be it from me to judge the sincerity of the founders and leaders, but one’s actions speak volumes; most notably, the action of their annual lectureship aimed at preaching the gospel.
I do not believe that an organization separate and apart from the church can do the work of the church. God has specified that the local congregation preach the gospel. It may do so by preaching itself, choosing the men, sending the men, welcoming the men, or sending funds. (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:5-8; Acts 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 11:8)
When God specifies one thing, it excludes all others. For instance, when God specified that Noah use gopher wood, it excluded all other types of wood to be used to build the ark (Gen. 6:14). When the Lord specified fruit of the vine and bread for communion, it excludes all other elements, such as soda or pizza (Matt. 26:26ff). Based on the New Testament, we don’t ever find God authorizing (giving the right of action to) human established organizations to preach the gospel. It is simply not there. In addition to that, he does specify an organization to do that work, the local congregation.
We get specific authority in Noah and the ark. We understand it when it comes to the elements of the Lord’s Supper. But for some reason it is missed entirely when speaking of who has the authority (right to act) to preach the gospel.
In a packet I received from L.A. Stauffer about the Restoration Movement this past summer, there is a quote from a local congregation that expresses my sentiments well. “The church in Connelsville, Pennsylvania got the heart of the issue with a letter stating 10 resolutions and containing lengthy comments about the resolutions. In essence the letter said: ‘That the church of Jesus Christ, is, in its constitution and design essentially missionary, we conceive to be an axiomatic truth. Not a missionary society, but emphatically and preeminently the missionary society—the only one authorized by Jesus Christ; her constitution the Holy Scriptures; the end for which she was established, the conversion and sanctification of the world. For this purpose she is fully commissioned by her great Head, and fully qualified to fufil that commission. To affirm that she is not competent, is to charge her all-wise Founder with the inconsistency of assigning her a duty she is unable to perform. If, then, she is authorized and competent, all other societies for this purpose are not only unscriptural, but they are unnecessary and uncalled for. Unscriptural, because they appropriate to themselves the duty and honor which rightfully belong to the church; unnecessary, because the end for which they are instituted the church is fully able to accomplish’” (Attitude and Consequences in the Restoration Movement, Homer Hailey, p. 167, underline emphasis mine- Daniel Duvall)
My hope is that something here has provoked thought in your mind, and you will pray about these things. I personally have complete confidence in the Lord’s local bodies and individual Christians to preach the gospel adequately without the addition or aid of human organizations. I believe it with all of my heart. Peace and love in Jesus.
I believe secular organizations have a right to exist, if they do a secular work. Publishing material, selling material, and teaching math, English, health, business, etc., are all secular works that are not assigned to the local congregation. However, preaching the gospel is a religious work, not a secular work. Preaching the gospel is specifically assigned to the local congregation (1 Timothy 3:15) and individual Christians (Acts 16).
Some argue that these man-made organizations are simply individuals preaching the gospel. Cannot the church send funds to individuals? (Philippians 4:15). If those organizations were no different than individuals, could not the church fund those organizations? However, their refusal to accept funds from local congregations shows they understand they are not simply individuals preaching the gospel. (I do not believe a church may send funds to an organization, because we don’t find that pattern in the Scriptures.)
One organization, Florida College, has a motto ‘Learning, Leading, Living His Way’. Does that sound like a secular organization or a religious organization? Does that sound like a college focused on secular education or religious instruction? Far be it from me to judge the sincerity of the founders and leaders, but one’s actions speak volumes; most notably, the action of their annual lectureship aimed at preaching the gospel.
I do not believe that an organization separate and apart from the church can do the work of the church. God has specified that the local congregation preach the gospel. It may do so by preaching itself, choosing the men, sending the men, welcoming the men, or sending funds. (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:5-8; Acts 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 11:8)
When God specifies one thing, it excludes all others. For instance, when God specified that Noah use gopher wood, it excluded all other types of wood to be used to build the ark (Gen. 6:14). When the Lord specified fruit of the vine and bread for communion, it excludes all other elements, such as soda or pizza (Matt. 26:26ff). Based on the New Testament, we don’t ever find God authorizing (giving the right of action to) human established organizations to preach the gospel. It is simply not there. In addition to that, he does specify an organization to do that work, the local congregation.
We get specific authority in Noah and the ark. We understand it when it comes to the elements of the Lord’s Supper. But for some reason it is missed entirely when speaking of who has the authority (right to act) to preach the gospel.
In a packet I received from L.A. Stauffer about the Restoration Movement this past summer, there is a quote from a local congregation that expresses my sentiments well. “The church in Connelsville, Pennsylvania got the heart of the issue with a letter stating 10 resolutions and containing lengthy comments about the resolutions. In essence the letter said: ‘That the church of Jesus Christ, is, in its constitution and design essentially missionary, we conceive to be an axiomatic truth. Not a missionary society, but emphatically and preeminently the missionary society—the only one authorized by Jesus Christ; her constitution the Holy Scriptures; the end for which she was established, the conversion and sanctification of the world. For this purpose she is fully commissioned by her great Head, and fully qualified to fufil that commission. To affirm that she is not competent, is to charge her all-wise Founder with the inconsistency of assigning her a duty she is unable to perform. If, then, she is authorized and competent, all other societies for this purpose are not only unscriptural, but they are unnecessary and uncalled for. Unscriptural, because they appropriate to themselves the duty and honor which rightfully belong to the church; unnecessary, because the end for which they are instituted the church is fully able to accomplish’” (Attitude and Consequences in the Restoration Movement, Homer Hailey, p. 167, underline emphasis mine- Daniel Duvall)
My hope is that something here has provoked thought in your mind, and you will pray about these things. I personally have complete confidence in the Lord’s local bodies and individual Christians to preach the gospel adequately without the addition or aid of human organizations. I believe it with all of my heart. Peace and love in Jesus.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Why I Don't Recommend the KJV/NKJV
I believe the subject of Bible translations is important.
Think about why you chose the certain version of the Bible you currently use.
Why do you use that certain version? The most typical responses I receive are,
‘that is the version I have always used’, ‘that is the version my mom
suggested’, or ‘that is the version my preacher told me I should get.’ Is that
not the same logic of reasoning that some use to support why they go to a
certain church? Many Baptists are simply Baptists because that is all they
know, their family are Baptists, or because they were taught by a Baptist
preacher. I don’t believe that to be sufficient reasoning on which to base
one’s church choice. If that reasoning doesn’t work for the church you choose,
why does it work for the Bible translation you choose? Consider the following.
Have you ever played the telephone game? It is a game where you line up several people in a circle, line, or shape of some sort. You start by telling the first person a story, a rumor, a sentence, or some other type of message, where only that person can hear it. They pass the message on to the second person, and so forth. By the time you get to the last person, the message is usually completely different!
What does this have to do with Bible translation? Well, it is the best way I know how to explain the usage of Greek manuscripts. In the telephone game, whose message is the most reliable? It is those who are the start, isn’t it? The message can never get more accurate. It can only get less accurate. Even if person 11 tells person 12 exactly what they heard, it can never be more accurate than say, person 2 or 3. When it comes to manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts are the most reliable because they are closer to the original sources. (Also note: The scribes were not young children, and changes are happening between 1000s of manuscripts and 100s of years. My point is not that the text changed as much as the telephone game, but that the earliest copy is the most reliable.)
So, what does this have to do with the KJV/NKJV? Everything really; the KJV/NKJV uses only 7 Greek manuscripts out of over 5,700 that we currently
have. None of the manuscripts used are newer than the 11th century. We currently have over 300 manuscripts that predate any used in the KJV/NKJV. Yes, over 300! Some date as early as 125AD! That means this particular manuscript was no more than about 20-30 years after the last apostle died. The KJV/NKJV takes none of those into account. Again, think of the telephone game. The older the manuscript, the closer it is to the original and the more accurate it will be.
Also, did you know that out of the seven manuscripts used in the translation of the KJV/NKJV, none of them had the last 6 verses of Revelation… those verses were translated from the Latin Vulgate into English and account for one of the biggest blunders in translation history. In Revelation 22:19, the KJV/NKJV reads, “…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” The word ‘book’ is not found in any Greek manuscript that has Revelation 22:19. It should be the word tree; very interesting that it appears in a verse telling of what happens to one who adds to or takes away from the words in that book.
A question that comes up when one buys a different translation is, “Why is that not in my Bible?” Even many will have a footnote that reads, ‘omitted’ for some reason or another. The reason the word omission is used is because that verse or part of the verse was in our first English versions but no longer in newer ones. Since the older versions (KJV/NKJV) are relying on the later less accurate manuscripts, which is actually the guilty party? In fact, it is not that newer versions are taking from God’s word, but that the older versions have added to God’s word.
Certainly, the manuscript evidence is not the only reason I don’t recommend the KJV/NKJV, but I believe it to be a very important one. The fact is, no translation can be any more accurate than the manuscripts it is translated from. If you want the best version, it has to be from the best manuscripts we have today. The KJV/NKJV simply fails in that area.
I am not saying that there is an English version that is perfect. However, some are much more helpful than others. Personally, I suggest multiple translations in study, but I don’t recommend the KJV/NKJV.
Have you ever played the telephone game? It is a game where you line up several people in a circle, line, or shape of some sort. You start by telling the first person a story, a rumor, a sentence, or some other type of message, where only that person can hear it. They pass the message on to the second person, and so forth. By the time you get to the last person, the message is usually completely different!
What does this have to do with Bible translation? Well, it is the best way I know how to explain the usage of Greek manuscripts. In the telephone game, whose message is the most reliable? It is those who are the start, isn’t it? The message can never get more accurate. It can only get less accurate. Even if person 11 tells person 12 exactly what they heard, it can never be more accurate than say, person 2 or 3. When it comes to manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts are the most reliable because they are closer to the original sources. (Also note: The scribes were not young children, and changes are happening between 1000s of manuscripts and 100s of years. My point is not that the text changed as much as the telephone game, but that the earliest copy is the most reliable.)
So, what does this have to do with the KJV/NKJV? Everything really; the KJV/NKJV uses only 7 Greek manuscripts out of over 5,700 that we currently
have. None of the manuscripts used are newer than the 11th century. We currently have over 300 manuscripts that predate any used in the KJV/NKJV. Yes, over 300! Some date as early as 125AD! That means this particular manuscript was no more than about 20-30 years after the last apostle died. The KJV/NKJV takes none of those into account. Again, think of the telephone game. The older the manuscript, the closer it is to the original and the more accurate it will be.
Also, did you know that out of the seven manuscripts used in the translation of the KJV/NKJV, none of them had the last 6 verses of Revelation… those verses were translated from the Latin Vulgate into English and account for one of the biggest blunders in translation history. In Revelation 22:19, the KJV/NKJV reads, “…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” The word ‘book’ is not found in any Greek manuscript that has Revelation 22:19. It should be the word tree; very interesting that it appears in a verse telling of what happens to one who adds to or takes away from the words in that book.
A question that comes up when one buys a different translation is, “Why is that not in my Bible?” Even many will have a footnote that reads, ‘omitted’ for some reason or another. The reason the word omission is used is because that verse or part of the verse was in our first English versions but no longer in newer ones. Since the older versions (KJV/NKJV) are relying on the later less accurate manuscripts, which is actually the guilty party? In fact, it is not that newer versions are taking from God’s word, but that the older versions have added to God’s word.
Certainly, the manuscript evidence is not the only reason I don’t recommend the KJV/NKJV, but I believe it to be a very important one. The fact is, no translation can be any more accurate than the manuscripts it is translated from. If you want the best version, it has to be from the best manuscripts we have today. The KJV/NKJV simply fails in that area.
I am not saying that there is an English version that is perfect. However, some are much more helpful than others. Personally, I suggest multiple translations in study, but I don’t recommend the KJV/NKJV.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)