Concerning Translations

by Mitchell Skelton

It seems that recently much ado is being made about Bible translations or versions. It is sad to see brothers and sisters in the Lord dividing over the issue of which version of the word of God one should use. Some brethren insist that the King James Version is the only version we should use, while others are adamant about using any version but the King James. It is in light of this controversy that I would like to offer some suggestions regarding translations.

Keep the issue of translations in perspective.

If everyone would be honest with themselves, I think we all could agree that anyone can be saved reading just about any translation. (There are a few exceptions, the New World Translation, for example.) Even more important is the logical progression of insisting on only one translation. If we insist that only one translation is acceptable, then are we also saying that the type of Bible one uses is an issue of salvation? I think it quite proper to suggest that God did not call us to convert people to a translation or to dispute with brethren about translations, but to save the lost and build up his church.

Be flexible concerning which translation you use.

When doing personal work or one-on-one evangelism, it is always best, if possible, to allow the person you are studying with to use his or her own translation.

Every translation is imperfect.

Few would argue that any one translation is without fault. The real issue that remains is, What version best expresses the original language in this particular verse? Each translation is a work of man and thus is subject to the limitations of man's knowledge and biases. Each translation is also subject to the "subjective science" of textual criticism, meaning simply which Greek text should be used when there is a variant.

Consider the source when someone criticizes a particular version.

The ultimate test of a translation is whether it faithfully represents the original, not whether it agrees with a favorite translation or a particular interpretation. The great majority of those who discuss translations are not qualified to judge for themselves the relative merits of differing Greek texts. To do so would require them to examine and judge the relative merits of the manuscripts on which the different Greek texts are based. Even if one had the ability to complete such an endeavor, it is questionable whether to do so would be an efficient use of a minister's time.

Evaluate a translation on the basis of the translator's purpose and methods.

Any student of the Word should read the foreword or introduction of any translation he is thinking about using. Some examples: The Amplified Bible was never intended to be read in public. Today's English Version is in simplified English for a purpose and that is why it is so different. A paraphrase should be judged and used as a paraphrase, not as a literal translation. The difference between the New International Version and the King James Version is largely a matter of a difference in translation theory and practice.

There is safety in numbers.

All else being equal, in translation there is "safety in numbers." Translations by committees are more likely to be trustworthy in their entirety than those by individuals. However, in particular verses, the best rendering may be from a translation by an individual.

Why not just translate word for word?

A literal translation is not always the best translation, for two reasons: (1) It will most likely be hard to read. (2) A word-for-word translation may not best express the meaning of the original language. There remains value in a more literal translation since it leaves less room for interpretation on the part of the translators and thus gives less opportunity for their biases to become part of the translation. However, there may also be value in a freer translation in that it may better get across the original idea although in different words.

Every translator has biases.

The reader should watch for certain biases to show up in the translation. However, the translator's biases will not necessarily be reflected in the translation. People often assume that liberal translators will offer corrupt translations. This is not necessarily true, for two reasons: (1) The highest value of scholarship is to be honest and deal fairly with the evidence; liberal scholars in general embrace this value. (2) Liberal scholars (defined as those who do not believe the Bible is inspired) have no reason to offer a corrupt translation because they do not believe in the Bible anyway.

For study use more than one translation.

It has been said that the best translation is a variety of translations. Comparing and contrasting various versions is often helpful in understanding a passage. One should avoid the tendency, however, to search through two dozen translations to find one that suits one's predetermined understanding of what a word or verse means.

Don't force people to stop using the King James Version.

Many people have used the King James for more years than many of us have been alive. It is not necessary nor wise to force these people to quit using it. However, if this version is used, the meaning of antiquated words and difficult passages must be explained. Furthermore, the minister needs to find a way to help people understand that what really matters is the original text of which the King James Version is a translation.

Don't force people to use the King James Version.

In my opinion, it is unwise to ask children or people who have never read the Bible to begin their study of Scripture by using the King James Version. To do so places an unnecessary stumbling block in their way. They must learn to read a different language with strange words before they can begin to understand what the Lord would have them do to be saved. There is no evidence that the Lord wanted the language of Scripture to be hard to read.
__________
Much material for this article comes from Coy Roper, Notes on the New Testament.

mskelton, 2004.06.25, 03:49

Acceptable Translations

Joe,
I think you and I agree that the only translation that is acceptable is the one that correctly translates the original into modern language. Sometimes that may require us to use more than one version. However when you say that the KJV is based on the "most authentic texts" I must disagree. Phil Sanders in his book "The Text of the New Testament says, "There were perhaps twenty-five New Testament manuscripts known in 1611 (when the KJV was published); 1,500 in 1885; and now 5,480 Greek manuscripts and fragments." The sheer number of manuscripts allow us to get closer to the original "autographs" of the NT letters. Sanders goes on to say, "While there have been some errors which have creeped into the 5,480 MSS of the NT, we should not be overly concerned. The significant point is that all uncials and most miniscules have transmitted the NT text with conscientious exactness. All manuscripts of all types completely agree on more than 80 percent of the New Testament text."
As for the NIV being Calvinistic I just do not see it. Perhaps you could be more specific. E-mail me and I will be happy to respond.

Mitchell Skelton

... link