Translators, unlike the original writers of sacred scripture, are not guided by
the Holy Spirit in their work. The men who wrote Old and New Testament
scripture were supernaturally guided by the Spirit of God in their work, thereby
insuring the infallibility or inerrancy of the original writings. (Nehemiah 9:30;
1 Corinthians 2:13; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21) All
translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts have errors of various
kinds. Sometimes the errors reflect the theological prejudices of the translators.
At other times the errors reflect the academic limitations of the people who
translate. An error is an error whether it is motivated by theological or
academic considerations. On the other hand, we should be careful not to
harshly judge a translation of the scriptures before we know all the facts.
I have heard preachers say, "You couldn't give me a New
International Version Bible." Why not? "It is shot full of Calvinism." The same
preachers do not hesitate to use Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament when they want to define New Testament words. The fact is:
Joseph Henry Thayer was a Unitarian and did not believe in the deity of Christ.
This fact alone does not make him an incompetent lexicographer. His work must
be evaluated in totality. (I have discussed this in my biblical languages
research blog. http://biblicallanguagesresearch.blogspot.com) The NIV is not
perfect, neither is it "shot full of Calvinism." It is a version written in
understandable, modern, idiomatic English. It was not designed to be a
predominantly modified literal version. The goal of the translators was to
combine readability and accuracy, albeit with mixed results. Nevertheless it is a
good reading Bible and generally accurate. Most of the Calvinists I have known
used the King James Version in their preaching and study. Many of those who
malign the NIV use the New King James Bible, and they seem oblivious to the
fact that many of those who translated it were Calvinists.
I have heard other preachers say, "I wouldn't have a Revised Standard Version
Bible in my library." Why not? "It was translated by theological liberals who denied
the virgin birth of Christ." They usually say this in view of the fact the KJV and the
ASV read "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son" in Isaiah 7:14, but the RSV says,
"a young woman shall conceive and bear a son." First, the RSV does not deny the
virgin birth of Christ. It is translating the Hebrew word almah which means "a girl
of marriageable age, damsel, maiden, young woman." The fact that the
RSV translates almah with the words "young woman" is not a denial of Christ's
virgin birth. Second, it is an attempt to accurately convey what the word almah
means in the Hebrew text. The RSV teaches the Lord's virgin conception and
birth in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27. The RSV, like the KJV, ASV, NIV, and ESV,
is not perfect but it is a good version and is worthy of study. Many of those who
refuse to use the RSV do not hesitate to use the ASV even though some of its
translators were not theologically conservative!
If a translation's acceptance or rejection must be based on the pontifical
pronouncements of the uninformed, no English translation would be worthy of use.
All translations have critics. We should evaluate the critics' statements, and in the
end we would do well to employ the "fish eating technique;" eat the meat and throw
away the bones. Let us avoid making harsh judgments against modern versions of the
Bible, merely on the basis of their modernity or alleged inaccuracy. A translation is
deemed inaccurate if it does not correctly convey the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek words of the original texts. No translation is inaccurate just because it does
not say what I want it to say, in the way I want it said, and for the reason I want
it to read a certain way.
R. Daly
Copyright 2013
the Holy Spirit in their work. The men who wrote Old and New Testament
scripture were supernaturally guided by the Spirit of God in their work, thereby
insuring the infallibility or inerrancy of the original writings. (Nehemiah 9:30;
1 Corinthians 2:13; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21) All
translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts have errors of various
kinds. Sometimes the errors reflect the theological prejudices of the translators.
At other times the errors reflect the academic limitations of the people who
translate. An error is an error whether it is motivated by theological or
academic considerations. On the other hand, we should be careful not to
harshly judge a translation of the scriptures before we know all the facts.
I have heard preachers say, "You couldn't give me a New
International Version Bible." Why not? "It is shot full of Calvinism." The same
preachers do not hesitate to use Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament when they want to define New Testament words. The fact is:
Joseph Henry Thayer was a Unitarian and did not believe in the deity of Christ.
This fact alone does not make him an incompetent lexicographer. His work must
be evaluated in totality. (I have discussed this in my biblical languages
research blog. http://biblicallanguagesresearch.blogspot.com) The NIV is not
perfect, neither is it "shot full of Calvinism." It is a version written in
understandable, modern, idiomatic English. It was not designed to be a
predominantly modified literal version. The goal of the translators was to
combine readability and accuracy, albeit with mixed results. Nevertheless it is a
good reading Bible and generally accurate. Most of the Calvinists I have known
used the King James Version in their preaching and study. Many of those who
malign the NIV use the New King James Bible, and they seem oblivious to the
fact that many of those who translated it were Calvinists.
I have heard other preachers say, "I wouldn't have a Revised Standard Version
Bible in my library." Why not? "It was translated by theological liberals who denied
the virgin birth of Christ." They usually say this in view of the fact the KJV and the
ASV read "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son" in Isaiah 7:14, but the RSV says,
"a young woman shall conceive and bear a son." First, the RSV does not deny the
virgin birth of Christ. It is translating the Hebrew word almah which means "a girl
of marriageable age, damsel, maiden, young woman." The fact that the
RSV translates almah with the words "young woman" is not a denial of Christ's
virgin birth. Second, it is an attempt to accurately convey what the word almah
means in the Hebrew text. The RSV teaches the Lord's virgin conception and
birth in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27. The RSV, like the KJV, ASV, NIV, and ESV,
is not perfect but it is a good version and is worthy of study. Many of those who
refuse to use the RSV do not hesitate to use the ASV even though some of its
translators were not theologically conservative!
If a translation's acceptance or rejection must be based on the pontifical
pronouncements of the uninformed, no English translation would be worthy of use.
All translations have critics. We should evaluate the critics' statements, and in the
end we would do well to employ the "fish eating technique;" eat the meat and throw
away the bones. Let us avoid making harsh judgments against modern versions of the
Bible, merely on the basis of their modernity or alleged inaccuracy. A translation is
deemed inaccurate if it does not correctly convey the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek words of the original texts. No translation is inaccurate just because it does
not say what I want it to say, in the way I want it said, and for the reason I want
it to read a certain way.
R. Daly
Copyright 2013
