May-June 1997
Lost in the Translation?
Are modern translators conspiring to corrupt the Scriptures and lead believers away from the true faith?
by Keith Stump
What Bible are you quoting from?" the caller demanded.
"The NIV--New International Version," I answered.
"Well, there's your problem!" he replied. "That's a New Age Bible, translated by devil worshipers."
"How's that again?"
"Devil worshipers! It's a perversion of God's Word! It's not the real Bible. They deliberately used corrupt texts, filled with blasphemies."
"Why would they do that?"
"To water it down! To make Jesus less than God, and to exalt Satan!"
"Could you give me an example of where they do that?"
"Everywhere! Those New Age versions are filled with that sort of thing! The King James Bible is the only true Word of God!"
The conversation didn't end there, but it didn't go anywhere either. The caller could not be dissuaded from viewing the King James Version of the Bible as the only "godly" version, the only "true" Bible.
All modern translations are, in his words, "Satanic attempts by homosexuals and heretics to pervert God's Word!" "True" Christians, he alleged, don't use them.
Not all King James Only advocates are as crudely outspoken as this caller. But they all have one thing in common: a belief that the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 is the only legitimate English-language translation of the Bible.
It's an alarmingly prevalent notion that is troubling many church fellowships and diverting time and energy from the larger priorities of God's kingdom.
It cannot go unchallenged.
A Bible for Every Occasion
There is one point we can all agree upon--Bible publishers are pouring out new versions at a dizzying rate.
Some are new translations. Scholars have gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts in a fresh attempt to communicate their meaning in modern English. An example is the New International Version (NIV) of 1978.
Other versions are revisions of existing translations. The Revised English Bible (REB) of 1989, for example, is a reworking of the New English Bible (NEB) of 1970. (See box "Popular English Versions.")
These translations and revisions are being published in a wide variety of formats. Whatever your age, reading skills or lifestyle, you can find a Bible to fit your needs--Bibles for preschoolers, teens, women, men, couples, singles, senior citizens, the functionally illiterate--replete with notes to help the reader understand and apply the texts in his or her particular life situation.
Christian booksellers explain that many Americans do not read well, and many are unfamiliar with even the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. They don't find the King James Bible--with its "thees" and "thous" and archaic vocabulary--interesting, relevant or understandable.
So publishers are issuing Bibles that speak to the unique needs of these people--readable translations that present the truths of the Bible in basic language and in fresh ways, and help readers discern the Scriptures' relevance in their personal lives. Their stated objective is to make the Bible easier to read and easier to comprehend--in other words, more attractive.
And it's working. Nationwide, Bible sales are at record levels. The Good News Bible, for example, has sold well more than 100 million copies.
A cause for rejoicing?
Not according to KJV Only advocates.
Grand Conspiracy
KJV Only proponents charge that these modern translations deviate from fundamental biblical truths.
Books like New Age Bible Versions by Gail A. Riplinger, Final Authority by William P. Grady, and the writings of Peter Ruckman are outspoken in their allegations of grand conspiracies against the Word of God.
They allege that modern translators either deliberately mistranslate the original texts or choose corrupt texts from which to translate. Why? To downplay the divinity of Christ and lead people away from the true Christian faith.
Informed Christians might be inclined to dismiss such paranoid suspicions and move on to more important things. But it's not that easy.
As James R. White observes in his insightful book The King James Only Controversy: "KJV Only advocates, due to the nature of their beliefs, are often disruptive of the fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of 'God's one true Bible' needs to be heard by all. Anyone who does not 'know what they know' needs to be told quickly, and most often, forcefully."
KJV Only advocates see themselves standing firm for "truth" against a tide of "modern liberalism." You're either with them, or against them. There is no middle ground. This approach is fostering discord and confusion within congregations nationwide.
To many KJV Only advocates, the KJV has become a sacred symbol. A 17th-century translation has become the focus of their religious faith. One hears more about the KJV than about Jesus Christ.
Not surprisingly, few are interested in considering an alternate viewpoint. When, for example, I recommended that my caller read James White's The King James Only Controversy, he retorted, "I don't waste my time with heretics!"
The KJV Only advocates' style of reckless and uninformed criticism must be distinguished from the informed judgments that have long been a part of serious textual criticism. Textual criticism based on facts and evidence is valuable and has had a positive impact on our understanding of the Bible.
Amazing Accuracy
The KJV Only controversy feeds on ignorance regarding the origin, text, transmission and translation of the Bible. The antidote is education.
The specific errors and misrepresentations of the KJV Only position are too numerous to address in one article. Books like White's King James Only Controversy present a detailed analysis of the new translations and lend support to their reliability.
White examines the differences between the KJV and modern translations, focusing on the verses most commonly cited by KJV Only advocates. He points out that when there are differences in wording, there are good reasons for it. Rarely is it simply the whim or bias of a translator. The vast majority of modern versions reflect responsible translation practices and may be used with confidence.
KJV Only advocates overlook the fact that none of the thousands of existing biblical manuscripts is free from errors--including those from which the KJV was translated. This is due mainly to scribal mistakes when the manuscripts were being copied.
While early Christians greatly revered the books of the New Testament, this did not always guarantee scrupulous, exact copying of the texts. The task of modern textual criticism is to detect those mistakes.
(There are fewer problems with the Old Testament text. The meticulous work of Jewish scribes has resulted in carefully copied manuscripts of the Old Testament text.)
When KJV Only advocates charge that modern translations add or delete words and passages, their assumption is that the KJV is the standard by which all other versions should be judged. They choose to ignore the logical, rational reasons for the differences.
When a modern translator seems to add or delete a word or phrase, it is because the texts from which he worked included or did not include the disputed word or phrase. At issue is the reliability of the texts, not some nefarious personal agenda.
It must be understood that the proportion of the Greek New Testament about which there is agreement among the texts is astonishingly large, while the number of seriously disputed passages is surprisingly few. And--notice this--not one of those variants affects an article of faith or fundamentally alters the clear message of Scripture! The bottom line, as Neil R. Lightfoot observes in How We Got the Bible, is that "none of the major translations are so bad, and no Greek text is so faulty, as to lead one from 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'"
No Translation Is Final
In addition to these textual considerations, KJV Only advocates also fail to appreciate the fact that, by definition, no translation is ever final. English is a living language. Living languages change. Words take on new meanings or fall into disuse.
Modern translations use contemporary English to relay the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew. "Love is patient" (1 Corinthians 13:4, NIV) is clearer to the modern reader than "Charity suffereth long" (KJV). Moreover, no translation is perfect. Translators are human. All translations contain errors. And that includes the KJV.
It would be negligent to fail to point out that the KJV contains literally hundreds of errors--many of them glaring and obvious, but fortunately not subversive of any key point of doctrine. There are problems in the texts from which the KJV was translated (such as Erasmus' Textus Receptus), as well as mistakes in translation.
Is this "King James bashing"?
No. The King James translators were human. They made errors just like other translators before and after. They would be the first to admit the need for periodic revision and correction over time.
Still, the KJV has much to recommend it. For nearly 400 years, the King James Version has been the household Bible of the English-speaking world, renowned for its majesty of style and superb prose. Even those unmoved by its spiritual content are vocal in their praise of its literary merit.
This article is in no way meant to discourage the reading and study of that venerable translation. But it does oppose those who would condemn and vilify others for using another version.
All versions contain errors, whether because of translation mistakes or the use of faulty texts. Yet invariably the Word of God still comes through with stunning clarity.
A Personal Choice
The vast majority of modern translations stand squarely within orthodox Christianity and preserve the historic doctrines and traditions of the faith. The innumerable conversions to Christianity by their readers attest to their effectiveness.
One's salvation does not depend on a fallible 17th-century Anglican translation of the Bible. Converted Christians lived and died for 15 centuries before the King James Version made its debut.
The use of a particular translation is a personal choice. The important thing is that we use whatever translation we favor.
Modern translations can--and do--bring men and women into a relationship with God and an understanding of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. And for longtime Christians, modern versions can bring home God's Word with new force and help keep its study fresh.
It is comforting and reassuring to know that the Word of God has been preserved through the ages with amazing accuracy, and is accessible today in versions that speak to us.
The NIV On TrialKing James Only advocates allege that modern translators often delete words or phrases to hide doctrines and subvert the true message of the Bible. If that were indeed their objective, they've done a poor job. As author James R. White observes: "In each instance where the NIV lacks a phrase in its text that is found in the KJV, that same material is found elsewhere in the NIV New Testament. The importance of this should be clear: if the NIV (or any other modern translation) is attempting to 'hide' something, why include the very same material in another place? Such a translation procedure simply makes no sense at all, and yet this is the constant accusation of KJV Only materials against modern translations" (The King James Only Controversy). Does the NIV downplay key doctrines? Let the NIV itself respond to a few of the allegations:
ALLEGATION: "The NIV downplays belief in Jesus." RESPONSE: "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)
ALLEGATION: "It downplays the deity of Christ." RESPONSE: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Colossians 2:9)
ALLEGATION: "It downplays the blood of Jesus." RESPONSE: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Ephesians 1:7)
ALLEGATION: "It denies that Jesus came in the flesh." RESPONSE: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." (1 John 4:2)
ALLEGATION: "It teaches a works-salvation system." RESPONSE: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
ALLEGATION: "It downplays Christ's second coming." RESPONSE: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30)
ALLEGATION: "It downplays the reality of Satan the devil." RESPONSE: "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8)
ALLEGATION: "It's soft on magic and the occult." RESPONSE: "Butthose who practice magic artstheir place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 21:8)
ALLEGATION: "It's soft on homosexual sins." RESPONSE: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenderswill inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
ALLEGATION: "It downplays the inspiration of Scripture." RESPONSE: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching." (2 Timothy 3:16) |
Popular English VersionsMore than 100 English translations have appeared in the past century. They reflect various methods of translation--from a strictly literal word-for-word style to a thought-for-thought style in modern language. There is no best way to translate from one language to another. The serious Bible student uses several versions, one serving as a check on the other. Here are a few of the most popular: The New International Version (NIV) is an excellent thought-for-thought translation, widely accepted by evangelicals since its publication in 1978. It has surpassed the KJV as the most widely used English translation of the Bible. The New King James Version (NKJV) of 1982 is a popular revision of the 1611 KJV, updating difficult and archaic words while preserving as much as possible the cadence and thought flow of the original. The New English Bible (NEB) of 1970 is a thought-for-thought translation, seeking "dynamic equivalence" in modern English of the original. It was extensively reworked as the Revised English Bible (REB) of 1989. For a more literal, word-for-word style of translation, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of 1990 and New American Standard Bible (NASB) of 1971 are recommended. The Good News Bible (GNB), also called Today's English Version (TEV), of 1976 uses simple, everyday English in a thought-for-thought translation. The Contemporary English Version (CEV) of 1995 is lucid and lyrical in style, designed to be read aloud and heard without misunderstanding. The Living Bible (LB) of 1971, also known as The Book, is a free paraphrase emphasizing readability rather than fidelity to the exact wording and grammar of the original text. It was revised in 1996 by 90 leading evangelical scholars as the New Living Translation (NLT) in response to criticism over perceived faults and imperfections. The Amplified Bible (AB) of 1965 features thousands of alternate readings in brackets to help the reader understand the text. |