The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540’s and into the 1550’s. The reign of Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary") was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was determined to return England to the Catholic Church. In 1555, John Rogers ("Thomas Matthew") and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and persecuted refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.

    In the 1550’s, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to these reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of John Calvin and John Knox, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile.

    The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560.  It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.

    The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes thousands of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians.  Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale’s original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611!  The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims.

34

    With the end of Queen Mary’s bloody rein, the reformers could safely return to England. The Anglican Church, under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of Geneva version Bibles in England. The marginal notes, which were vehemently against the institutional Church of the day, did not rest well with the rulers of the day, however.  Another version, one with a less inflammatory tone was desired. In 1568, the Bishop’s Bible was introduced.  Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, the version never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people. The Geneva may have simply been too much to compete with. 

    By the 1580’s, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to suppress the publication of the Bible in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the Latin Vulgate as a source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims (or Rhemes) New Testament. The Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Doway (also spelled Douay and Douai). The combined product is commonly referred to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version.

    In 1589, Dr. Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke’s Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman Church’s compromise of an English version of the Bible.

    The King James Bible.  The King James Bible was the first Bible to be translated using what might be referred to as "modern rules of translation". Because it is important to understand how the "modern" process of translation occurs, a thorough discussion of the procedures of translation is warranted. The scripture to the right is I Corinthians 13:1 from the first edition of the Authorized Version 1611 in the British Museum. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity…."

    As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, Parliament was asked to authorize a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of Bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original". The Bishop’s Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing came of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603 and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop’s Bible.

    One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining of things pretended to be amiss in the church". He assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan leaders, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original".

35

    The king replied that he: "Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other".

    Accordingly, a resolution came forth: "That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service".

    The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible". These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn". Other men were sought out, according to James "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom".

    Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes while seven others handled the Apocrypha.  Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

    Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators: (Note: The language of the rules has been altered some to make them more readable, but they are essentially quoted here as they were given to the translating committees.
       1.  The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, is to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
       2.  The names of the Prophets, and the holy writers, with the other names of the text, are to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they were commonly used.
       3.  The old ecclesiastical words are to be kept, such as; the word church is not to be translated congregation etc.
       4.  When a word has many meanings, that to be used is that which has been most commonly used by most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.
       5.  The division of the chapters is to be altered either not at all or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
       6.  No marginal notes at all are to be affixed, except to explain the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
       7.  Such quotations of places are to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.  (Note: Perhaps the first concordance.)

36

       8.  Every particular man of each company is to take the same chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them each by himself, all will meet together, discuss what they have done, and agree for their parts what shall stand.
       9.  As any one company has finished any one book in this manner they shall send it to the rest to be considered seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
       10.  If any company, upon review of the book so sent, has doubt or a different meaning of any place, they shall send them word thereof, note the place, and send the reasons.  If there is not consent, the difference to be discussed at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
       11.  When any place of special obscurity is doubted of (Note: If the translators still cannot agree), letters, to be directed by authority, will be sent to any learned man in the land, for his judgment of such a place (Note: In other words, the translators were not to make these difficult decisions without exhausting every resource).
       12.  Letters will be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, advising them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as are skillful in the tongues (to reply); and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford. (Note: This is an attempt to scour the land for those most knowledgeable of ancient languages.)
       13.  The Directors in each Company are to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that Place, and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
       14.  These translations are to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.
       15.  Besides the Directors already mentioned, three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, are to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translations as well as Hebrew and Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

    The work of these committees began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily.  The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor".

    They had at their disposal all the previous English translations: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s...or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance".

    And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch".

37

    The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

    Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface: "Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."

    When the conferences of each of the six companies were finished, nine months were spent at Stationers’ Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

    The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading: "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the form er Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611".

    The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading: "THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio".

    The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

    An introduction dedicated to King James recalled the King’s desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue".  The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD’S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness".

    The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were those of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it never happened. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concordances was "A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation", by John Down- ham, added to a printing of 1632.

    The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and following modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors.

38

    Although the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language (by John Eliot in 1663), the first English language Bible to be printed in America (by Robert Aitken in 1782) was a King James Version. In 1791, Isaac Collins vastly improved upon the quality and size of the typesetting of American Bibles and produced the first "Family Bible" printed in America...also a King James Version. Also in 1791, Isaiah Thomas published the first Illustrated Bible printed in America...in the King James Version.

    In 1841, the English Hexapla New Testament was printed (six translations in one book). This textual comparison tool shows in parallel columns: The 1380 Wycliff, 1534 Tyndale, 1539 Great, 1557 Geneva, 1582 Rheims, and 1611 King James versions of the entire New Testament...with the original Greek at the top of the page.

    Consider the following textual comparison of John 3:16 as they appear in many of these famous printings of the English Bible:

• 1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

• Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his onlybegotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting."

• Geneva (1557): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

• Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he ga ue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

• Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

• Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif."

    It is possible to go back to manuscripts earlier than Wycliff, but the language found can only be described as the "Anglo-Saxon" roots of English, and would not be easily recognizable as similar to the English spoken today. For example, the Anglo-Saxon pre-English root language of the year 995 A.D. yields a manuscript that quotes John 3:16:        

    The Bible after the King James Version.  It was inevitable that there would be translations beyond the Authorized Version. Translators are, after all, only human. They make use of available materials and knowledge. Additional sources become available.  Language changes. And the expertise and knowledge of experts increases.

39

    The KJV was the Bible of choice for some 200 years. And the KJV continues to be the best-loved version of the Bible there is. Many love the beautiful style of its language, reminiscent of the days of Shakespeare. Concerning accuracy, it is quite literal and faithful to the texts available at the time of its publication. Certainly anyone who carefully reads and studies from the KJV will learn those things needful to be pleasing unto God.

    But, by the middle 1800s, shortcomings in the KJV led to a movement to translate a new version of the Bible. What were those shortcomings?

    First, the KJV was based on a poor textual basis. Remember that 4 of the most valuable, most ancient, and most complete Bibles were not known to be in existence in the early 1600s. The first rule of translation with relation to the KJV was that the Bishop’s Bible was to be used if possible, and the Bishop’s Bible is a literal English translation of the Latin Vulgate, a notoriously inaccurate version. Certainly most of the variations are trivial and unimportant. But some variations are more important than others. One clear example of an error/addition that ended up in the KJV is 1 John 5:7, which reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." While this is not false teaching, it never was a part of the original inspired word of God. Some have suggested the origin of the statement was a Spanish preacher named Presilium who, in 385, uttered those words in a sermon.  The sentence was picked up and somehow made its way into later Latin translations and was then inserted into the Greek text from which was translated the KJV.

    Second, the English language had changed dramatically over the 250 years since publication of the KJV. Many words had changed or completely lost meaning. Many had dropped from common usage. Some words had simply become cumbersome and unfamiliar. The estimate is that 800 words have changed meaning. Some examples will clarify this point.  Cumbersome words are: "howbeit", "peradventure", "a foretime", "because that". Words that have changed meaning are "allege" for "prove", "communicate" for "share", "suffer" for "allow", "allow" for "approve", "let" for "hinder", "prevent" for "precede", "conversation" for "conduct". 

    Check these words in the KJV and in a more modern edition.
        Carriages (Acts 21:15) means baggage
        Scrip (Mark 6:8) means wallet/bag
        Fetched a compass (Acts 28:13) means sailed around
        Letteth (2 Thessalonians 2:7) means restrains
        Prevent (1 Thessalonians 4:15) means precede
        Charger (Mark 6:25) means platter
        Conversation (James 3:13) means conduct/way of life
        Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) means Holy Spirit
        Superstitious (Acts 17:22) means religious       

    Third, there are errors of translation in the KJV. In the 1600s, the study of Greek and Hebrew had only recently become popular and subjects of serious study. At times, the translators were faced with puzzling problems that they simply could not solve with their knowledge. Some were not solved in that time. Again, examples will suffice.  Mark 6:20 of the KJV says that Herod "observed" John the Baptist in prison, but what is meant is that he "kept him safe". "  Abstain from every appearance of evil" as translated in I Thessalonians 5:22 should more properly be "Abstain from every form of evil".

40

    English Revised Version of 1881.  These and other perceived shortcomings in the KJV became subjects of much discussion and criticism in the middle 1800s. So, in February of 1870, a motion to consider a revision to the KJV was passed by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury in England. By May of that year proposals for the new revision had been agreed upon. Two separate committees were formed, one to translate the New Testament and one for the Old Testament. Each committee, as originally formed, had 27 members. These two committees were shortly joined by two American committees who agreed to review the work in progress and report their findings to the English committees.

    Members of the committees were chosen from various denominations and, like the King James committees, were the brightest and most erudite scholars to be found.  The English committees began their work in June of 1870. The New Testament committee met on 407 days over a span of 11 years, while the Old Testament committee met for a total of 792 days over a span of 15 years. On May 17, 1881, the first installment of the revision reached its conclusion with the publication of the New Testament. Four years later, on May 19, 1885, the entire work was published as the English Revised Version.

    The scholars working on this translation labored under a set of rules that is similar in purpose to those set up for the KJV.

    American Standard Version of 1901.  As translation of the ERV progressed, the committees in America faithfully participated in the review, but in the end, the ERV was an English (as in England) translation. In retrospect, it is difficult to see how the organization of the committees could have produced any other result. The English language in America had developed differently than in England, and even more, the American translators wanted even more departures from the KJV than their English counterparts. The conflicts were resolved with the English agreeing to put the American preferences in an attached appendix to the ERV. The Americans jointly agreed that they would not issue a separate translation for 14 years after publication of the ERV.

    The result was that the American committees continued to meet following publication of the ERV and in 1901 published what is known as the American Standard Version. It differs little from the ERV except for the use of idioms, spelling, archaic spellings and wordings, etc. Naturally, the ASV is preferred in America and has enjoyed a widespread circulation.

    What can we say in favor of the American version? First, the Greek text used as the basis for this translation was a far superior text to that employed by the KJV translators. The translators also had access to all five of the most valuable ancient texts (Vatican, Sinaitic, Alexandrian, Ephraem, and Beza). Accordingly, the major advantage of this translation is the improved base underlying the translation.

    Second, the committees produced a more accurate translation than did the KJV translators because of their intent of translation. These committees were not enjoined to follow any particular previous text, but to simply go to the original (as far as possible) and to select the best rendering of the text. Their intent was simply to be accurate.

    And third, the ERV/ASV committees updated the language of the Bible by using language that more accurately reflected to the 19th century reader the meanings that were intended.

41

    The American Standard Version was not, however, without criticism.  Of course, then as today, there were many that simply believed the KJV was the "only" Bible that should be allowed.  Others complained that, while some archaic language had been removed, too much had been retained, and some had actually been increased. For example, retained were "glory" for "praise" (Matthew 6:2); "dispute" for "discuss" (Mark 9:34); "doctor "for" teacher (Luke 5:17); "allege" for "prove" (Acts 17:3), etc. Increased was the use of such renderings as "aforetime", "would fain", "howbeit", "lest haply", "us-ward", and "you-ward". What the American Standard Version had gained in the use of a superior Greek text, it had lost in the naturalness and beauty of the English language.  Charles H. Spurgeon was typical of many who criticized the translation when he said, "…strong in Greek, weak in English".  But in spite of the criticisms, this translation far excelled the illustrious King James Version.

    Revised Standard Version of 1952.  The beginning of the RSV goes back to 1929. The American Standard Version was printed by Thomas Nelson in 1901 and copyrighted against later changes. After 27 years of publication, Thomas Nelson and Sons offered the copyright to the International Council of Religious Education who accepted the copyright and immediately appointed a committee to look into the advisability of revising the American Standard Version. At length it was decided that a new revision should be made which took advantage of the results of modern scholarship and yet preserved the best qualities of the KJV. By this time, however, America was paralyzed by the depression and no funds were available for the translation. It was not until 1936 that funds were secured and the translation actually began.

    A total of 22 men were involved in the translation. The New Testament group totalled 9 men, including such well-known scholars as Edgar Goodspeed and James Moffatt. This group completed its work in 1943, having met for a total of 145 days over the years, with a lot of additional work being done by correspondence. Yet, because of wartime restrictions, the first edition of the New Testament was not published until February 11, 1946. The Old Testament group continued its work, which finally culminated in the publication of the whole Bible on September 30, 1952.

    Many criticize the RSV for being too literal. Some of the 22 men involved in this translation were notably liberal.  Being liberal does not necessarily remove the ability to accurately translate from one language to another.  However, it does mean that when there is something that might could be translated in different ways, a liberal will generally translate according to his own beliefs.

    For instance, in Romans 11:20, the RSV reads, "...you stand only through faith."  The word "only" is not in the Greek and should not be in any translation; it is an indication of the translators’ theology. Another such example is found in Matthew 19:28, which is rendered in the RSV, "Jesus said to them, Truly, I say to you, in the new world...you will also sit on twelve thrones." The phrase "new world" shows the translators’ beliefs of pre-millennialism. The word is more accurately translated as "regeneration."

    Another criticism concerning the RSV is its treatment of pronouns referring to Deity. In adjusting to contemporary language, thou and thee were altered to you, except in cases referring to Deity. In those cases, the Old English form was retained. (This is purely a matter of preference and would seem acceptable to most.) The problem lies in the fact that many times the RSV translators chose not to use this Old English form in references to Jesus, thereby perhaps stating their opinions doubting the Deity of Jesus! 

42

    There are several places where a rendering reflects more of an interpretation than a translation. Serious students of the word of God wish for only an accurate translation.  To its credit, the RSV translators did have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, giving them older and better manuscripts than any translation had use of up to that time.  Furthermore, it should be said that the RSV does have a good readability compared to other translations. It removed the old archaic words and phrases and thereby often makes the reading more understandable.

    The New English Bible.  The NEB was published in 1970; over 4 million copies were sold the first year. It is very easy to read; some have said it’s just like reading a storybook. It is, in fact, what is called a free translation, meaning that the translators took numerous freedoms as they changed a Greek or Hebrew word/phrase into a contemporary English expression. While this makes for easy reading it inevitably takes away from its accuracy and faithfulness to the text.

    There are several problem areas that must be noted. As a truly English translation it would be expected that British expressions would be found. Examples of this are: (1) Matthew 20:31, NEB reads, "the people rounded on them" which means "the people rebuked them."  (2) Mark 12:15, NEB reads, "trying to catch me out" which means, "why make trial of me?"     (3) 1 Corinthians 16:8, NEB has "Whitsuntide" instead of "Pentecost."

    The translators have added many words. Furthermore, there are several errors that show a regrettable disregard for accuracy and truthfulness. In Acts 20:7, "Saturday night" is used in place of "first day of the week." Genesis 11:1 begins, "Once upon a time," which is far from faithful to the original text. The Greek word for "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14:5,6,13,19 (which refers to actual languages existing at that time) is rendered as "ecstatic utterances," which is certainly a false interpretation and certainly not a faithful translation.

    In 2 Timothy 3:16, the NEB leaves out "of God" and says only, "Every inspired scripture..." Matthew 16:18 is rendered, "You are Peter, the rock, and on this rock, I will build my church." The Greek does not read that way at all. It is possible that these errors could lead to mistakes in doctrine.

    Today’s English Version.  The TEV is also called Good News for Modern Man.  It was first published in 1966, then again in 1967, and a third time in 1971. Like several modern versions, it is quite easy to read since it uses very simple language. But it must be noted that the result of such easy reading versions (just like in many modern, free translations is an inaccurate translation. Being a one-man translation only adds to the error of interpretation and poor translating.

    Acts 20:7 again erroneously uses "Saturday night." In the same verse, "break bread" is interpreted (not translated) as "fellowship meal." The TEV chooses to translate the word "blood" as such only about one-half the time. In several places, the word "alone" or "only" is put with the word "faith," even though it was never found in the original text. Finally, in Acts 8:20, where Peter is talking to Simon the sorcerer, instead of saying, "Your money perish with you," the TEV reads, "Go to Hell!"

    The Living Bible (Paraphrased).  The LB was published in 1971; it is the work of one man: Kenneth Taylor. It has been a very popular book, having sold millions of copies, largely because it is so easy to read and understand. 

    It must be clarified at once that Taylor’s work is not a translation of the Bible; it is a paraphrase -- he states that himself in the title and says this in the preface: "To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used. It is a restatement of an author’s thoughts, using different words than he did.... There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say."

43

    If you are interested in the opinions of Kenneth Taylor, then this book will serve you well. If, on the other hand, you want to find an accurate copy of the Scriptures, this is not one! It is not a translation of the Bible; it is only a commentary, and really not a good one at that. Taylor shows his pre- millennialistic viewpoint in his rendering of Isaiah 2:3, "The world will be ruled from Jerusalem." He denies the importance of baptism when, in Mark 1:4, he changes "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" to "baptism is a public announcement of your decision to turn your back on sin." 1 Peter 3:21 (KJV) tells us that "baptism doth also now save us," whereas Taylor tells us "in baptism we show that we have been saved from death."

    Romans 4:1 (KJV) says, "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" The KJV (and other versions) has most accurately rendered the original words found in the Greek. Note, however, the treatment of this verse in the LB: "Abraham was humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation.  What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith?  Was is because of his good deeds that God accepted him?" Only 2 words in this verse were taken from the original (Abraham, What); Taylor has added 31 of his own!

    There are innumerable other places that are erroneously and inaccurately rendered. There are examples of vulgarity that in no way resemble the words given or spoken originally. Certainly, Kenneth Taylor’s LB is not a reliable or acceptable translation, in fact, it is not a translation at all. No individual should place his faith in the written opinions of one man, even if the word "Bible" is found on the cover.

    The New American Standard Bible.  The NASB was published in 1971; it was translated by a group of 58 men who held "the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired of God." It was their desire to follow in the tradition of the ASV of 1901 by translating from the best available texts as accurately and literally as possible.

    Since the time of the ASV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts had been found. The translators of the NASB thus used all available scholarship to arrive at a more accurate work than was possible before. Even though it is quite literal, it is still presented in a clearly understandable (and dignified) contemporary language.

    As stated earlier, there is no perfect translation; the NASB does have a few places that probably could have been translated better. Two are worth mentioning: (1) Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The NASB makes an obvious mistake by translating "destroy" as "abolish." The word "abolish" means to replace, and the Bible teaches us clearly that the old law was abolished, or replaced. "Destroy" is the better and more accurate word. (2) Revelation 1:1, John wrote that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was "signified," meaning that it was revealed to him in signs. The NASB uses the word "communicated," which is not as strong or accurate as the KJV rendering.

    The New International Version.  The NIV was completed in 1978, having been translated by a group of over 100 men of various religious groups. They (like those of the NASB) "are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures which they believe to be God’s Word in written form."

44

    The manner of its translation should be noted. According to Jack Lewis, one of its translators, "The NIV has attempted to steer a middle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrases of Phillips, the NEB, and Taylor on the other. Loyalty to the text has been defined in terms of a compromise between the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literalness, rather than in terms of Lightfoot’s translation rule which stated, "the same English words to represent the same Greek words" and "as far as possible in the same order."

    In other words, the NIV is a relatively free translation, attempting to take a Greek/Hebrew phrase and render it in English similar to the way we would say it today.  Keep in mind that a translation cannot be both literal/extremely accurate to the original text and excessively smooth and easy to read in modern English. The NIV is attempting, as best as it can, to be somewhere in the middle. As such, their final result is true to their intent.

    There are some problem areas that should be mentioned. In its attempt at smooth and pleasant reading, many Hebrew or Greek words are translated in several different ways. One example of its inconsistency is in its treatment of the Greek word sarx, which means flesh. In the NIV, sarx is rendered flesh only 30 times out of the 138 times it is found in the Greek. The most frequent translation of the word is sinful nature, which is more of an interpretation than a strict translation. (Some feel that such is also an indication of the doctrine of original sin.)

    In Ephesians 1:13, the NIV states, "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." This rendering contradicts the teaching of Galations 3:27 that we are in Christ at the point of baptism. Romans 10:10 in the NIV says we believe and are justified and we confess and are saved. The original Greek makes it clear that in each instance (belief and confession) there is a looking forward to justification and salvation, not a reception of them.

    The New King James Version.  The NKJV, published in 1982, is the work of 130 translators from several different religious groups and countries. All participating scholars signed a petition stating their belief in the verbal inspiration of the original autograph texts. Their purpose was to maintain the tradition of the KJV while updating many of the problems contained therein. It has done that; numerous archaic and obsolete expressions have been replaced by more modern terms.

    The NKJV seeks to be as literal as possible in its faithfulness to the original texts.  The main criticism of this version, though, is in its choice of texts from which to translate. The translators of the NKJV chose to use the same manuscripts as those used by the King James translators in the early 1600’s. As has already been established, numerous discoveries have since been made that have enabled scholars to come closer than ever before to the original inspired text of the Bible. It seems irresponsible to maintain allegiance to a set of manuscripts that are proven to contain scribal changes and additions, especially when better, more accurate manuscripts are now available.

    Summary.  What shall we say then? Do all of the variations and differences between versions of the Bible render some more important and valuable than others?  Is the KJV the "only" usable translation, as many believe? Or are we duty-bound to use the latest and most "up-to-date" version? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle?

    It is certainly possible to use some versions and find other than the whole truth.  Throughout this study, errors in various versions have illustrated the humanity of their translators. But make no mistake. God’s truth is still published under the title of "The Holy Bible".  It is very appropriate to use several versions in your study. Find one that you truly like, one that will make you spend more time in the study of God’s word, and use it. Cross-reference your "favorite" with other translations to ensure accuracy.  Remember that Paul praised the Bereans because they continued to study the word daily.  We can do no less.

46

47