More on Bible Versions
Editor’s Note: This post was originally written in 2006, and so the conversation has continued, and newer versions have become available. But with that in mind, some of the principles will still be useful for you to think about. See also Choosing a Bible.
Wise King Solomon once said, “Of making many books there is no end” (Ecc. 12:12). He might well have been talking of English versions of the Scriptures. For about three centuries the Authorized (or the old King James) Version of 1611 (the OKJV) was the Bible used by the Protestant church. But during the last century there has been virtually an explosion of translations and paraphrases, each claiming its own distinctions and benefits. It is impossible in a brief note to argue the pros and cons of which English Bible is best. For some this is a heated topic on which they hold a narrow and dogmatic view. Even a thorough discussion of the subject would not change their thinking. However, let me make a few comments to explain my own position.
No English translation is flawless. But some are definitely better than others. In this newsletter, and on the Wordwise website, the New King James Version is used almost exclusively. The New Testament of the NKJV was produced in 1979, with the whole Bible made available three years later. I like it because it is consistently clear and accurate. And though the English has been updated for the modern reader, it retains much of the phrasing and word order of the OKJV, so those who use the latter can follow easily when it is read. Many today use the New International Version (NIV). It is certainly very readable, but I find it paraphrases too often, giving us an opinion about the text, rather than the actual text. I prefer a more literal rendering of the original languages. If I were not using the NKJV, I would likely choose the New American Standard Bible (NASB) for study and preaching.
I recognize there are some who insist on using the “King James only.” They believe the OKJV is always correct and accurate–some even going so far as to consider it inspired and infallible Scripture. But I simply cannot agree. There have been numerous revisions of the 1611 text over the years, and the version most often used today was produced in 1769. (So it must be asked which OKJV is the inspired and infallible Bible?) Even the 1611 translators admitted that “some imperfections and blemishes” might be found in their work. Men such as John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon spoke similarly. And John William Burgon, a critic of Westcott and Hort’s revision of 1881, said, “We do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text.”
Without question some benefits have been lost with the proliferation of versions. Bible memorization and the congregational reading of the Scriptures have suffered. On the other hand, the many versions have their use in Bible study, especially for the reader who lacks a knowledge of the original languages. A comparison of several translations or paraphrases will often give a better understanding of the text. Though we cannot dictate which Bible others must use in most settings, there is value in encouraging God’s people to choose the best version possible. In the church, it will benefit the listener if he has before him the version being used in the pulpit. If pew Bibles are provided, this should be kept in mind.
Certainly, I would strongly advise people to steer clear of a paraphrase for regular reading. (In a paraphrase, the translator expresses the meaning, phrase by phrase, in his own words, as opposed to seeking the most accurate rendering of the words used in the original Hebrew or Greek text). Yes, there are figures of speech and unique constructs in the original languages which must be accommodated. But getting as close to the wording of the original is possible is to be preferred. According to the Lord Jesus, not only the words of Scripture were divinely inspired, and therefore completely authoritative, but also the letters of each word, and even the parts of each letter (Matt. 5:18)!
Many of the modern versions seem intent on bringing the text of the Bible down to the level of all, even if it will mean a misrepresentation of the original. An insightful criticism of this practice has come from a rather unexpected source. In the May 1990 edition of the Reader’s Digest, Prince Charles is quoted as follows: “It should not be our task to express our worship (whether in word or song) in terms of the lowest common denominator. We exalt the separateness of God by unique expression reserved only for Him….A good many changes were made [in modern Bible versions] just to lower the tone, in the belief that the rest of us wouldn’t get the point if the Word of God was a bit over our heads. But the Word of God is supposed to be a bit over our heads. Elevated is what God is.” Well said!
The misguided tinkering of modern translators is both wrong and dangerous. Often it is motivated by a desire to make God’s Word acceptable to those following the fashion of the day. A couple of examples.
A few years ago the concern was that some would find the message of the gospel too violent and gory because of the Bible’s many references to the shed blood of Christ. Thus, in Today’s English Version (1966), “having now been justified by His blood” (Rom. 5:9, NKJV) becomes “By his death we are now put right with God,” and “you were…redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ” (I Pet. 1:18-19, NKJV) becomes, “You were set free by the costly sacrifice of Christ.” That which to God is “precious” has been wrenched from the text because it might offend some. The words of the Apostle Paul are relevant here: “Do I seek to please men?…If I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).
More recently, an insistence on absolute gender equality has caused some to alter references to “brethren” and the like. Paul’s “I beseech you therefore, brethren…” (Rom. 12:1, NKJV) has become, “Brothers and sisters…I encourage you…” (God’s Word, 1995), and “Dear Christian friends, I plead with you…” (New Living Translation, 1996). The audacity of the former in describing itself officially as “God’s Word,” and of latter in calling itself “living” (which the Word of God is, Heb. 4:12), is most troubling–in view of the fact that Paul never mentions “Christian friends,” or “sisters.” And it would seem to come perilously close to adding to the Scriptures, a practice condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19).
It is hoped these few thoughts will aid you in settling on a clear and reliable text of Scripture for daily use.