Are There Bible Translations That Are More Favored by God?

Question: In my childhood, I was raised Catholic, then in the Episcopal church. We used the King James version. As so many young adults do, I strayed away from the church for a while. Now, later in life, my wife and I attend a Christian church, that teaches out of the NIV translation. I do enjoy that it’s format is easier to read, especially in the Old Testament.

I have been told by many that the NIV is a “thought for thought” translation, and should not be used. The reasoning is found in Revelations 22, verses 18-20. The argument is that the NIV does omit, change and add to the scriptures. An example would be John 8, verses 1-12. The footnote in my NIV Bible says that earlier manuscripts do not include those verses. Interesting, that my NKJV does include these passages, with no footnotes.

I realize that picking a Bible to use is a personal decision, but an easily read and understood version is more pleasurable to read. I have found that the NKJV that I also have still requires more effort to understand what I am being told. I looked through a New American Standard version and it seemed to be a little easier of a read.

So, my question is, should we only be using a literal word for word translation (KJV, NKJV, or NASB), to stay in God’s favor? I appreciate your thoughts.

Answer: I don’t believe any of the translations you have mentioned keep us more or less in God’s favor.  They are each reliable translations.  There are different views on which manuscript tradition gives us the closest to the original writings of Scripture.  We don’t have the original book of Genesis, or Matthew, or 1 Corinthians, but rather copies of all these books in our Bible, in fact, generations of copies done by scribes to preserve them.  And they aren’t all in one tome or Bible.  We have discovered these manuscripts in various parts of the world, usually kept in churches.

How Translations Translate

A Comparison Between Some of the Major Translations

Excerpts from the various introductions to each version describing how they translate:

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

“The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees. The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various groups of people. The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a “thought-for-thought” translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.”

NEW KING JAMES VERSION

“Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies. Where new translation has been necessary in the New King James Version, the most complete representation of the original has been rendered by considering the history of usage and etymology of words in their contexts.  This principle of complete equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form.  Dynamic equivalence, a recent procedure in Bible translation, commonly results in paraphrasing where a more literal rendering is needed to reflect a specific and vital sense.” (NKJV)

NEW LIVING TRANSLATION

“The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader. The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.” (NLT)

Examples of how each version translates particular passages:

Genesis 3:16

The Hebrew for this verse literally reads, “I will greatly multiply your pain and childbearing.”  As many commentators have noted, increased numbers in childbearing could not be viewed as a punishment for Eve’s transgression.  God is not here saying that she will have more children than she would have had she not sinned.  The phrase is understood as meaning “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing.”  Thus, the “literal” translation can actually be misleading in English and needs to be rendered more as to the intent of this particular way of communicating.

Here is how the three versions translate this passage:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing….” (NIV)

To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception….” (NKJV)

Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy….” (NLT)

In this case, only the NIV and the NLT get it right for the English language.  The NKJV gives a misleading translation in English because of its commitment to “complete equivalence.”

Isaiah 7:14

There is debate in this passage as to whether the word almah should be translated “virgin” or “young woman.”  The meaning of this prophecy in its context to King Ahaz is that when Isaiah’s son is born and before he gets very old, the enemies Ahaz is facing will be removed.  Matthew applies it to Jesus and his birth through his understanding that what happens to a type of Messiah, in this case the prophet Isaiah and his son, will be fulfilled in a heightened way by Messiah.  Isaiah’s wife was not a virgin and his son was not virgin-born.  Jesus’ mother, however, was a virgin and his birth was miraculous.

Here is how the three versions translate this passage:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.  (NIV)

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.  (NKJV)

All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).  (NLT)

Each of the translations yields to the pressure to translate almah as “virgin” to keep in harmony with Matthew.  This is not an accurate translation in the context, but is an example of the difficulty for translators when readers’ understanding is considered over correct translation.  The NLT actually adds a phrase after “Immanuel” to give the meaning of it in the text rather than in a footnote.  This is not in the Hebrew but is a further aid to the reader for understanding the text.

Mark 16:9-20

Here is how the notes in each translation introduce this passage:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)) (NIV)

Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text.  They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them. (NKJV)

[Shorter Ending of Mark]

   Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen.

[Longer Ending of Mark]  (NLT)

This reflects the different philosophies about the original text of Scripture.  The New King James translators subscribe to the view that the “Majority Text” is the most reliable text.  This is not actually one text but a conglomeration of texts that all evidence the same original source from which they were copied.  Is this source the most accurate representation of the original manuscripts Paul or Matthew or Peter wrote?  They would argue that it is.

The translators of the NIV and the NLT on the other hand subscribe to the view that the most accurate representation of the original manuscripts must be deciphered from all the textual families from which manuscript copies have come.  They argue that even though there are more of the manuscript copies that the NKJV resort to (hence, it is called the Majority Text), this family of manuscripts comes from only one part of the world, Byzantium or modern-day Turkey.  This group of translators values manuscript copies from Egypt, Israel, and other areas where manuscripts have been found.  The Sinaiticus, as might be imagined, is from Egypt, and the Vaticanus is also, but gets its name because it is owned by the Vatican.  These manuscripts happen to be much older than the Majority texts, also, and this gives these scholars another reason for valuing them over the Majority Text.  They are closer to the original in time.

The NLT shows that there are other manuscripts that include other endings for Mark and this short ending is included in the NLT.  There are only a few passages in our New Testaments where such a big section of what the King James included in its translation is in question.  John 8, the story of the woman taken in adultery, is another.  And 1 John 5:7 (in the King James Version it reads, “For there are three that testify in heaven – the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.  And we have three witnesses on earth.”).  No modern translations include 1 John 5:7 as it is in the King James version.  Even modern versions of the King James Version (like the New King James Version) do not include it because it has no valid manuscript evidence.

It is hard to make absolutely correct decisions on these passages.  The evidence can be interpreted either for or against their inclusion in our Scriptures.

Ephesians 4:8

Here is how the three versions translate this passage:

This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” (NIV)

Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.” (NKJV)

That is why the Scriptures say, “When he ascended to the heights, he led a crowd of captives and gave gifts to his people.” (NLT)

The Greek reads, “Wherefore it/he says, ‘Rising he took captive captivity and gave gifts to men.’”  Bauer’s lexicon suggests that “captivity” is being used figuratively here of the abstract for the concrete, that is, the abstract “captivity” stands in for the concrete “prisoners of war.”  This is why the NIV and NLT translate “captives” instead of “captivity,” in essence translating the figure of speech.  The NKJV is more literal, but it is questionable if the literal is the intended meaning.

The way Paul translates this reference to Psalm 68:18 is very instructive for the translation process and for Scripture translation theory.  In the NIV Psalm 68:18 reads, “When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men….”  But Paul alters the verse to read “he gave gifts to men.”  One explanation for why he does this is that he is translating the intent and thought of the entire psalm.  In Psalm 68:35 we read, “You are awesome, O God, in your sanctuary; the God of Israel gives power and strength to his people.  Praise be to God!”  Here the concept of the conquering God giving gifts out of the bounty of what has been captured is expressed very clearly.  It is likely that Paul is picking up this thought as part of the psalmist’s intended meaning for the whole of his psalm.  In that case, Paul is translating thought for thought, rather than word for word.  The other possibility is that Paul was aware of a version of Psalm 68 that read different from the versions we have (a targumic rendering of this passage has the verb ‘to give’ rather than ‘to take’ and the Peshitta used this translation).

Philemon 5

The Greek behind this verse reads, “hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints.”  The concept of faith for all the saints seems very awkward.  But this is meant most likely as chiasmus, where love is connected to the saints and faith is meant to be connected to the Lord Jesus. 

Here is how the three versions translate this passage:

I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints. (NIV)

…hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints. (NKJV)

I keep hearing about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all of God’s people. (NLT)

Again, only the NIV and the NLT, it seems, give the sense in English correctly, it may be said, because in English we do not commonly employ this kind of chiasmus.  It would be likely if left untranslated to lead some to believe that we are to have faith toward all the saints.  You could undoubtedly come up with some way of construing this wording that fits with Scripture, but it is unnecessary to do so given the understanding of Paul’s literary construction here.

Conclusions

There is nothing wrong with the “thought for thought” kind of translation.  It is not guaranteed in and of itself to give the best translation in every case, but it is in principle a proper way of representing the original language in English (as well, most likely, in other languages).  The “literal” translation or “complete equivalence” can be somewhat misleading at times.  One would have to study a commentary in order to correctly get the sense or intended meaning of the passage because the “literal” translation does not give it.

Every translation is an interpretation of the text.  Each translation decision one makes is an interpretation of the meaning of the author and how to convey that meaning.  There are various translations that have been done by competent teams of translators and they are quite trustworthy, but like any commentary will have slightly different interpretations of some passages.  This aids us by giving us options to consider as to the meaning of the text.  No translation of this kind should be characterized as damaging to the faith or as inferior in quality.  They are honest attempts at rendering the meaning of the sacred text.

We have not considered here what are commonly called paraphrases, like the Living Bible or The Message.  They are often done by one translator and are not intended to be exact translations, but rather are intepretations of, in some cases, an English translation of Scripture rather than the original text (Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament).  Paraphrases are like sermons on the text that try to make the Scriptures more intelligible to us and can thus be very beneficial.  But they are not translations and so should not be resorted to as authoritative interpretations.

Why don’t we obey all the rules of the Old Testament?

Question: I got asked a question from a coworker, and had no idea how to answer it. Why don’t Christian’s follow all the rules in the old testament? There were rules on how to treat slaves. Taking a wife from a captured nation. Stoning. Not allowed to eat pork, or bottom dwellers. So because of Jesus Christ death, none of those rules are relevant today? My co-worker said ” wouldn’t that make God fallible, or the person who wrote the old testament.” Which would make the Bible fallible.

Answer:  I don’t know if you are a parent, but as parents raising kids we impose rules that change over time.  We haven’t changed as parents, we aren’t being fallible, but are keeping to our main purpose of raising independent adults.  We have made changes as needed to accommodate that singular purpose.  Here are some examples:

When our child is just a toddler…	When our child is a pre-teen…	When our child is an adult…
Don’t touch the blu-ray machine	Show me how to use the blu-ray	They have their own blu-ray
Love your brother and sister	Love your brother and sister	Love your brother and sister
Hold my hand when you cross the street	Hold your brother’s hand when we cross the street	Hold my hand when we cross the street
Take a nap	You can date when you’re 16	Give me grandkids

You can see that some rules remain the same, some new ones are added, and others change or go away as the child develops into adulthood.  Paul tells us that the Law served as “our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Galatians 3:24-26).  The Law of Moses was there only for the time of the world’s development up until Christ’s coming.

And remember, the Law was for a particular nation, Israel, and the people of God now includes Jews and Gentiles, not one nation but many nations.  Many of the laws for Israel were nationally oriented (laws of punishment for certain crimes, national observances of religious festivals, treatment of slaves, etc.).  But believers live under the laws of many different nations around the world.  God was using also using Israel as a witness to the world of their unique relationship to God, and so some of the laws were designed to set Israel apart from other nations (circumcision required for all males, clean and unclean foods designated, forms of dress, etc.).  Believers today cannot be set aside in the same way.  We give witness to our relationship to God through our moral character, especially our love.

So at this time in our “development” as a race we are under a new law, the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21).  It contains many of the same moral requirements as the Law of Moses (at least nine of the ten commandments, the Sabbath law being altered some), but because of what Christ has accomplished by his sacrifice, all of the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses is no longer pertinent.  Christ’s sacrifice has made all the previous sacrificing obsolete.  He is the fulfillment of all those sacrifices.  And the laws about diet and slavery and so on are also obsolete.

So now we might diagram things this way:

The nation Israel	The Church	The Kingdom
Law of Moses	Law of Christ (1 Cor 9)	Law of the kingdom?
Clean/unclean foods	All foods clean	All foods clean
Scripture to guide	Scripture to guide	No Scripture needed
Love your neighbor	Love your neighbor	Love your neighbor
Sabbath on Saturday	Sabbath on any day (Ro 14)	Perpetual Sabbath?

There will yet be another development in the way we are governed in the kingdom, when Jesus returns.

See what your co-worker thinks of this.  Ask him if he has been a fallible parent if he has changed any of his rules for his kids.

Can Animals Have Compassion?

Question:  Why does the Bible give so little information about the differences between human and animals. Do animals run on instinct or do they have souls. For an animal, the instinct for self preservation has nothing to do with saving another species, sometime putting its own life at risk. Is love an instinct? There are a countless numbers of stories, but the last one I heard was of a whale saving a diver from a shark. Is that not compassion? I’m confused and torn.

Answer:  I suppose the simplest answer is that the Bible was not written to give us knowledge about everything having to do with our existence, but rather about our relationship with God.

It does mention that animals have spirits (Ecclesiastes 3:21–22, Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?).  It reports an incident with Balaam in which his donkey talks to him after being enabled by God to communicate that way to his master (Numbers 22:22-30).

I believe that God gave us the responsibility of “subduing the earth” (Genesis 1:28) and part of that responsibility includes learning what we can about our fellow inhabitants.  Adam seemed to have studied the animals he saw in the garden in order to give them names (Genesis 2:18-20).  You have been learning about animals and their sometimes sacrificial acts on behalf of humans.  That may be an indication that animals can have something more than instinct at work in them.  We’re told in Genesis 3 that the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field.  So perhaps certain animals have abilities that others do not.  Adam and Eve didn’t seem too taken aback by the serpent speaking to them.

Is Isaiah 38:1-4 a Clear Example of God Lying or Changing His Mind?

Question:  How is Isaiah 38:1-5 not either God lying or God changing His mind?

Answer:  Here is the passage:

In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, and said, “Please, O LORD, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.  Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: “Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life.

In a sense that is like asking,  “Why pray, we can’t change God’s mind? ” There is no doubt some mystery as to how prayer works. I would argue that God does sovereignly determine the course of life’s events but knows in His plan that we will pray and plans on answering those prayers.  But what about this particular incident with Hezekiah?

We see the same pattern with Hezekiah as we do with Jonah, when God tells the people of Nineveh through Jonah that in three days they will be destroyed but he only tells them that so they can have a chance to repent.  He only sends Isaiah to tell Hezekiah he is going to die so that Hezekiah has a chance to pray for another option. And then God rewards prayer with an answer.

As with much prophecy in Scripture that is negative in scope, there is this implied opportunity to change the outcome if Hezekiah responds, just as there was an implied opportunity for the people of Nineveh to respond and change the outcome. We are not used to these kind of prophetic situations so we don’t understand the implications. If Hezekiah doesn’t respond the way he did he does die as God foretold. God’s communication is not intended as unalterable. Hence,  no lie or changing of mind.

Interestingly,  we learn that Hezekiah had to go have a poultice applied to his wounds in order to be healed.  A supernatural healing through natural means.

Do We Believe There Can Never Be More Revelation From God?

Question:  I should know the answer to this already, but why do Christians think there can never be more revelation from God (as opposed to the Mormons, who are just fine with God revealing more ideas and are willing to give them equal weight to the Scriptures)?  I am assuming we base our idea on “do not add or take away from the Scriptures”.  Is that it?

Answer:  Not necessarily.  It is more, I think, that our experience has been that nothing anyone else has offered as prophetic or Scripture (since the apostles) has equaled the apostles’ work and it has been the church’s experience that everything we need we have found in the New Testament and Old Testament.  Or, as in the case with “scriptures” like the Latter Day Saints have produced, we have found them in contradiction to our Bible. 

We believe that God orchestrated getting into our canon (our accepted list of books) all that we needed for formulating our doctrinal understanding of the gospel and who God is.  We certainly respect the doctrinal traditions of the church and writings of other important church leaders, but we see them more as witnesses to the final authority of Scripture and guides to its interpretation.  Anything that claims to be Scripture must pass muster with the existing Scriptures, and none so far have passed that test.

This does not mean that there haven’t been and might still be revelations that speak to particular needs.  It is more doctrinal revelation that seems to have ceased or been made unnecessary.  We do not equate the other kinds of revelations with Scripture since they are more time bound or related only to one specific situation.

 The Revelation 22:18,19 warning seems related specifically to the book of Revelation, not the Scriptures generally.  You might note that the same kind of warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, and Scriptures have surely been added since then.

How Do We Know that What David or Solomon Wrote Was True?

Image via Wikipedia

Question:  How do we know that everything David or Solomon wrote is true?  How do we know that one of the Psalms was not written while David was contemplating sleeping with Bathsheba or a Proverb was written after Solomon got in a fight with his 57th wife?

Answer:  There are three issues here in regards to the question of truth.

1. Does inspiration of Scripture guarantee that what we have is an accurate record of what they wrote?  The answer is yes.  Inspiration guarantees that what is attributed to David and Solomon is accurately so attributed and accurately recorded.  This, however, does not guarantee that what they wrote is true, just that it is accurately recorded.  The words of Satan are accurately recorded, also, but that does not guarantee that what he said is true.
2. Did David and Solomon express their true feelings when writing?  Yes, absolutely.  When David says in Psalm 139:5 that he feels hemmed in by how much God knows his every motive, that is a true feeling.  But by the end of the psalm he is inviting God to know him in this way.  His feelings have changed in the course of his meditation on God’s knowledge and you can see the change chronicled in the psalm.  This encourages us to express to God our true feelings, even if they are not the best feelings to have and are in need of change.
3. Did everything David and Solomon wrote have the character of normative truth (true for all people and all times)?  Yes and no.  David wrote, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1).  Had God actually forsaken him?  No, but that is how it felt.  When Jesus quotes this verse as He is dying on the cross, however, He is stating a truth that David’s experience forshadowed and it is really true for Jesus, because He bore our guilt before God and God forsook Him as penalty for our guilt.  When Solomon wrote, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly” in Proverbs 26:4 and then, in 26:5 wrote, “Answer a fool according to his folly,” he was demonstrating part of the genius of proverbial wisdom.  There are not always normative absolutes for every situation and Proverbs is not trying to give such absolutes, but rather principles that are normally true but not exhaustively true for every situation.

If we keep these considerations in mind we will be more discerning when reading Scripture and not confuse others or ourselves about what authority Scripture has.  It is our authoritative standard for truth.  Everything in it is not therefore true, but only those portions that are intended as normative truth.  Because, for example, the Bible does not purport to give normative truth about all things astronomical, when it says that the sun rises it is not to be understood that Scripture is asserting that the sun revolves around the earth.  But when it tells us that the only way to heaven is Christ and faith in Him, that is definitely within the realm of intended normative truth for us.

Randall Johnson