Pastor Buddy’s Blog

Which is the best Bible to use…

Filed in Devotions & Studies, NHL |

Journal,

Not much going on today. CJ and I made our morning round. Had my devotion, breakfast, read the paper, and checked up on emails that needed answering. Took time to look over my fishing gear. I’m working on a plan on giving those? bass a run for their money.

Yup, I’m about to hit the? road again —

Andre and Justin and I will do a bit of bass fishing this afternoon at Lake Buhlow. (After Andre gets off work.) I’m really looking forward to being with my son and grandson. But since this is also my cautionary time with regard to chemo, I’ll need to be extra cautious.

Well, I always like to leave you with something to think about. I sometimes get questions on which Bible translation is the best one to use. A simple answer is that the best Bible to use is the one you will read. However, that is really over-simplistic. There are translations that are better than others.

Let’s have a basic study on the ‘kinds’ of translations. At the latter part of the study I want to share why those who use the King James Version should also have a more modern translation at hand.

Let’s call this study, ‘Which is the best Bible to use.’

There are essentially three kinds of translations: the literal translation, a paraphrase, and what is called a dynamic equivalency. We’ll begin with the least literal and work from there.

A paraphrase seeks to render the original Bible languages into the common language of the reader. Good News for Modern Man is an example. A paraphrase is intended for easy reading. They are designed for those who have little to no knowledge of the Bible.

The most popular paraphrase today is called the ‘New Living Translation’ (NLT).? The original work upon which this translation is based was the Living Bible. This was the work of one man. As paraphrases go, it could not be depended upon for accuracy.

Here is an where the Living Bible became? misleading. Acts 13:48 reads, “When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and rejoiced in Paul’s message; and as many as wanted eternal life, believed.”

Most folk would not catch the problem area here. The problem has to do with the sovereignty of God. The New American Standard Bible gives the proper rendering: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”

Regardless on what we believe concerning the work of salvation, there is a difference between ‘wanting’ eternal life, and being ‘appointed’ to eternal life.

Because of this sort of misinterpretation, the Living Bible was called into question. It underwent a revision into what is called ‘The New Living Translation.” The NLT now reads, “When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for His message; and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers.” (Actually the New Living Bible today is likely the most accurate of the paraphrases.)

A dynamic equivalency translation is also called a ‘thought-for- thought’ translation. The dynamic equivalency translations have become the most popular translations today. The premier case is the New International Version. (NIV)

This form of translation seeks to translate ‘ideas’ rather than ‘words.’ But there is a problem that cannot be avoided. In attempting to translate ‘meanings’ into the language of today’s reader, what happens is that ‘exact’ meanings cannot always be translated beyond the intent of the original Bible language. It is sometimes impossible to translate ‘exact’ meanings without translating ‘exact’ words.

And so what often happens with dynamic equivalency translations is that the Scriptures can become simplified beyond what is meant in the original text.

Now to the ‘literal’ translations. In a literal translation there is a genuine attempt to be as accurate to the original wording of the Scriptures as possible. This is why a literal translation should always be part of the serious Bible student’s library.

A literal translation will not flow as easily as a paraphrase or a dynamic equivalency, but this isn’t really a disadvantage for the Bible student. The plus side is that in doing personal research on Bible terms, the reader often discovers treasures that are not obvious in a less literal translation.

Some literal translations include the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Revised Standard Bible. (My personal preference is the NASB.)

And so, which Bible should the believer use? I would recommend that the believer have both a literal translation and also one or more of the easier reading translations. You will find that they work well together.

Now for some tidbits on those who hold to the King James Version. Many people dearly love the kjv. Yet just as with the paraphrase or the dynamic-equilavency, there are certain problems with the King James Version that should not be overlooked. Sometimes it is a actual case of mistranslation.

First, it is important to understand that the kjv is simply a ‘version.’ It was based in part on earlier Bibles such as the Bishop’s Bible, and even draws some on the Latin.

A second issue is that we do not speak Elizabethans English today. As a living language English is ever changing. Many words used in the KJV do not mean the same thing today. (The New King James Bible is a vast improvement.)

Then there was the problem of King James himself. Most people are not aware that there were certain things in the KJV translation that King James would not allow to be changed because of tradition. A good example is the word Easter. This word is not in the Greek. It should have been translated as Passover.

Finally, we come to? manuscripts. Since the KJV was translated there have been over 5000 manuscripts or parts of manuscripts discovered. These manuscripts were not available to the translators of the King James Version. Modern translations take these later found manuscripts into consideration.

The deeper problem can come from ‘not-so-good’ preaching that is based on a misunderstanding of what is being said in the King James Version. For example, Philippians 3:20 in the kjv reads, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

While this seems very poetic, the Greek text is not speaking of conversation. The Greek word translated as ‘conversation’ in the kjv literally means citizenship. Every modern translation will use the correct word as ‘citizenship’ or ‘citizen,’ or ‘commonwealth.’ (Most have citizenship.) There is a great difference between conversation and citizenship.

Here is a mistranslation found in the King James. In the kjv, Paul supposely says, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” (Acts 19:2) That is not at all what the Greek text says. The NASB gives the proper translation - “Did you receive the Holy Spirit WHEN you believed?” The word ’since’ is a mistranslation in the kjv.

Vincent’s Word Studies brings this out –

“The two verbs are in the aorist tense, and therefore denote instantaneous acts. The [kjv] therefore gives an entirely wrong idea, as there is no question about what happened after believing; but the question relates to what occurred when they believed.”

Those who use the kjv will see this entirely wrong. No one receives the Holy Spirit after believing. Believing in Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit happen at the same time.

This is just something to add to your collection of ‘things to think about.’

Blessings,

Buddy