Help in Choosing a Translation
By Pastor Howard Merrell
To say that confusion exists in the mind of many today concerning the choice of what translation of the Bible they ought to use is an understatement. There are wide extremes of opinion concerning this. Some folks will whole heartedly use any book that has the word “Bible” on the cover while on the other extreme are folk who have come to love one translation and refuse to consider any other and condemn anyone who does use another. Before we enter a discussion about the various translations that are available today, we need to understand some terms.
Hebrew - The language in which the Old Testament was written.
Greek - The language in which the New Testament was written.
Manuscript - A copy of a portion of Gods Word. In days before printing the Bible had to be written by hand. These manuscripts are hand written one at a time.
Translation -”The result of translating. Translate means to change from one language to another”(Webster)
Paraphrase - A rewording of the thought or meaning expressed in something that has been said or written before. (Webster)
Commentary - A commentary is someone’s explanation of what they believe a Bible portion says.
Autographs, Original Writings - These are words used to describe the actual document which the Bible writer produced. For example, the original document which the Holy Spirit enabled Paul and his secretary, Tertius, (Rom. 16:22) to write to the Romans.
According to the teaching of the scriptures themselves (2 Tim. 3:16,17, 2 Peter 1:21, Matt. 5:18), the scripture, as it came from the hand of the original writer, was Gods Word completely. No word was in error. Each word and each grammatical relationship was part of the message God wished to give to man. The position of the Covington Bible Church is that the original writings are inerrant.
I
Even though we do not possess any of the autographs today, the fact that they were without error is very important. If we had no assurance that the original was without error then no matter how accurate a copy or translation of that original we possessed we could not be sure that it was reliable. However if we know that the originals were without error and we are sure that we have highly accurate copies and sound translations then we can confidently rely upon them.
While it is not within the scope of this paper to delve into the matter of textual criticism (the study and comparison of manuscripts with the goal of establishing a text which is as close as possible to the original autographs), let me simply say that I am convinced, together with virtually all conservative scholars, that we have a text which can be shown to be so close to the original that we can say with confidence that we possess the Word of God. For those of you who are interested in looking into this matter in greater detail, read the material at the end of this paper.
The Process of translation:
Perhaps two pictures from our culture will help illustrate the problems involved in translation:
When we were kids many of us got involved in some kind of club with a secret code. Cryptic messages were passed between the members, but we could always decipher them, because, as club-members we knew the code. It was just a matter of matching up the symbol written on the page with the symbol for which it stood in the code. Translation from one language to another, especially when the original document is from a significantly different culture, is not like that.
An illustration that better matches the reality is the “Kung-fu phenomenon” When watching one of these flicks—which I don’t recommend for a person to do very often—a character will utter a simple statement, “Don’t come any closer!” for example. That is what we hear. What we see, however, is enough mouth movement for the actor to have recited the Gettysburg Address. Getting a piece of literature from one language and culture into another is not just matching the word in the foreign language with the appropriate word in our tongue.
If we take for example the Greek verb, I think it will help us to understand. In English we have three tenses, perhaps four tenses:
· Present-I am doing,
· Past-I did,
· Future-I will do,
· Past Perfect-I was doing (at one time I did it but now I have stopped).
· Imperfect-continuing action in the past,
· Perfect-an act accomplished in the past which has results that reach to the present,
· Aorist-an action viewed simply as occurring,
· Pluperfect-an act accomplished in the past which had results up to a point in the past,
· Present-continuous action not necessarily going on now,
· Future-action in the future.
I think you can see from this that translation is not an easy job. Sometimes it is necessary to express concepts that are foreign to the thought patterns of a language and/or culture. That is why a word for word translation is impossible. However, a good translation should take every word from the Hebrew or Greek and convey the meaning of that word into the English. Further, a good translation will convey the idea expressed by the grammar of the original language into the grammar of another.
A paraphrase, by contrast, is a very loose translation--an explanation in new words of what something means. A paraphraser is not so much interested in translating words and grammar as he is in communicating thoughts. If something in the original is not easily understood, the difficulty is resolved by the paraphraser and is presented clearly by him. If his conclusion is right so is the paraphrase. The reader, however, may not even know that there was a choice made. A paraphrase is much more a reflection of the translator's thinking than is a translation. Therefore we need to be careful in our use of paraphrase.
As a Pastor, I am concerned that the people to whom I minister:
(1) have every opportunity to study God's Word in a form that is most understandable,
(2) not be led astray by translations which are deliberate perversions of God's Word,
(3) and not be cheated out of any of the fullness of Gods revelation by an inadequate translation or paraphrase.
With these thoughts in mind, I make the following comments:
The King James Version:
The most widely read translation of the Bible in the English-speaking world, the King James, has been used with great profit for almost 400 years. It is an accurate and beautiful translation considered by students of English literature to be a Masterpiece. The KJV is the translation, which many of our spiritual fathers in conservative Christianity have used and quoted, though most of the great theologians, to whom we owe so much, depended primarily on direct contact with the Hebrew and Greek for their works.
There are two shortcomings concerning the KJV, which are worthy of mention. For some people the Old English of the KJV is a problem. We simply do not talk that way any longer. Some people have trouble deciphering some of the word meanings and unfamiliar grammar. The other problem is minor and has to do with the text from which the King James was translated. I have dealt with this matter further in the material at the end of this paper.
It is my conclusion that the KJV is a good solid reliable translation. I can endorse the King James Version for use by the people of the Covington Bible Church. It is a good translation.
The New King James:
The NKJV is a modern update of its venerable ancestor. In the New Testament the translators of the New King James followed precisely the same manuscripts (The Textus Receptus, or Received Text) as were used in the translation of the KJV. Much of the rhythm and feel of the King’s English have been preserved.
It is my conclusion that if the King James is an acceptable translation then the New King James is as well. In fact it has the advantage of being more easily understood by modern ears.
The New Scofield:
(This is not a very popular Bible any longer, however several years ago it was widely distributed in fundamental circles, so I include it here.) The New Scofield is simply the King James with the Marginal readings of the Old Scofield reference Bible inserted into the text. These insertions are few and generally helpful. Most deal with words and phrases, which are unclear to our 20th century ears. The New Scofield is a very useful edition of the basic King James text. The word changes help to more accurately bring God's Word from the Hebrew and Greek in which it was written into 20th century English.
The New American Standard
The NASB is a modern translation which accurately translates the word of God into conservative 20th Century American language. Its translation is not marked by a serious bias as are some others and it has been widely accepted by many conservative scholars of our day. (John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Stewart Custer, and John R. Rice are a few examples). The NASB strives for a high degree of accuracy and literalness in its translation. I find it especially useful in studying. The NASB is translated from a text which was put together using many early manuscripts which were not available to the King James translators in 1611. Because careful use has been made of this wide body of manuscript evidence and because of the high degree of accuracy in translation, the NASB is an excellent translation to read and study.
The chief shortcoming of the NASB is that sometimes its attempt to be literal causes it to sound technical or clumsy.
For those who want a good reliable modern English Translation, I can heartily recommend the NASB. I generally use it in my studying, preaching, and teaching.
The New International Version
The New International is the most popular Bible in the English Language. It is the translation that is most used by the young people here at CBC. Much of what I said about the NASB can be said about the NIV. It is a useful, reliable translation.
Its chief asset is the natural sounding English that it uses to communicate God’s truth. In my opinion that also constitutes its chief liability. If you draw a line with one end of the line representing a very wooden literalistic translation, and the other end a very loose paraphrase, and then place the various translations along that line based on their dedication to literalness of translation, the KJV and the NASB would be toward the literal end, with the NIV somewhere between them and the “Let me tell you what it says.” end the spectrum.
My preference is the NASB because I appreciate its literalness and preservation of Hebrew and Greek idiom. However, the NIV is a useful and reliable translation. I enjoy reading it when I’m reading long portions of the Word.
I mention the above translations, because I am sufficiently familiar with them to endorse them. I would be glad to discuss others with you. Know however that some editions of the Bible are simply one of the basic translations with someone’s notes attached. The Ryrie Study Bible is not a translation by Charles Ryrie. His footnotes, book introductions, chapter headings and outlines are placed along side the text. It is unfortunate that the way Bibles are marketed frequently gives the uninitiated the idea that one can choose a Bible like an ice-cream cone. “I just get what I want.”
Two warnings:
First, a paraphrase should not be used as a persons' only, or primary Bible. The Living Bible, or The message, for example, are paraphrases of the Bible and not translations. Ken Taylor and Eugene Peterson have taken God's Word, digested it and then written what they feels it means. They have done a credible job, by the way. Use paraphrases as you would a commentary, as an aid to understanding God's Word. If you rely totally on one of them you will get your milk and meat second hand--it's good but how much better to get it fresh. If you want to get a modern English version of the Bible, why don't you invest your money in a New American Standard Bible or a New International?
Second there are some translations which are perversions of God's Word. Two of these “Bibles with an agenda” that you are likely to run across are:
The New World Translation is nothing more then Jehovah Witness propaganda.
Today’s New International Version is Zondervan’s latest revision of the NIV. Many masculine pronouns and nouns have been made gender neutral. This is an unwise monkeying with God’s word. I do not recommend it. In fact news of its release almost compelled me to withdraw my endorsement of the NIV. (That would show em!) However, I decided that Zondervan’s unwise caving in to the world’s culture did not detract from the usefulness of their previous product, the NIV. Just make sure when you go Bible shopping that the NIV doesn’t have a “T” in front of it.
In short, watch out. Everything that says Bible on the cover is not
I hope this will help you. If you have any questions, please feel free to talk with me.
For those of you who may be interested in doing some further reading on this subject:
One of the chief concerns of those of us who are seeking to live our lives based on God's Word is: "Do we have a reliable text of the inspired Word of God?" A man who spent most of his life in the study of the Bible and Manuscripts, F. J. A. Hort stated that that portion of the New Testament in which there exists any "substantial variation, can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text." (Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell P.44) Evidence That Demands a Verdict and More ETDaV, are classics. Full of information.
A General Introduction to the Bible, by Giesler and Nix, a standard text giving a sensible conservative view about how the Bible has come to us.
The King James Version Debate, by D. A. Carson, is one of the most sensible and easily understood works I have read on this issue.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon have put together a pamphlet/book that lives up to its name, The Facts on the King James Only Debate.
Most modern translations are based on a text put together basically in the last 150 years by scholars who had access to many manuscripts not even known to exist in 1611. The gist of the matter is this: (The majority of manuscripts tend to agree with the text reflected in the King James, though these manuscripts are of a relatively late date. While those manuscripts which have the earliest dates, though fewer in number, tend to agree with the text reflected in most modern translations.) Dr. Stanley Gundry sums up the matter well, "Which position is correct? Personally I prefer the modern critical text of the Greek New Testament translated by the NASB and NIV. But the differences between these two text types are RELATIVELY MINOR. They do not affect one’s understanding of the Christian Faith. While it is an interesting and significant issue, it should not be exaggerated. " ("What Happened to Those King James Verses?” Stanley Gundry, p.44, Moody Monthly, Nov. 1980)
Also See Howard Merrell's blog entry for October 15, 2009