Many people are so wedded to the awkward and archaic language of the King
James Version of the Bible, that any deviation from it is considered treason. The King
James Version is "good," but it is not perfect. There are words in the KJV that have
changed their meaning since it was published more than 400 years ago. There are
words and phrases that are not correctly translated in the KJV, and there is a
definite Calvinistic influence in certain passages. Nevertheless, many people believe
the KJV is a perfect translation. The fact is, there is no perfect translation of the
scriptures. Translators are not supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit in their work.
They do their work based on their academic training and theological presuppositions.
To some extent, all translations reflect the training and theology of the translators. This
is unavoidable because all translation involves interpretation. Translators must determine
what words mean in order to choose the most accurate words or phrases in the receptor
language to represent the words or phrases in the source language.
All translations of the Bible have problems. Some, like the KJV are influenced by
Calvinism. (Acts 2:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 13:48). Others, like the New King James Version
are monuments to tradition. The use of such words as "baptize," "church," "saint," and
"bishop" reflect loyalty to tradition rather than accuracy. The English Standard Version
contains several passages that display loyalty to tradition instead of linguistic
accuracy. "Propitiation" (1 John 2:2), "hell" (Matthew 16:18), "brothers" (Romans 1:13).
The New American Standard Bible, though generally a modified literal version, reflects
a premillennial bias in several passages. "As" (Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1), "will reign"
(Revelation 5:10), and "they came to life" (Revelation 20:4). The 1984 edition of The New
International Version, and to a lesser extent the 2011 edition, suffers from the tendency
to leave important "connectives" and "inferential particles" untranslated because of its
emphasis on readability and English style. (cf. John chapters 6-8)
Many instances of translation shortcomings can be multiplied from all
translations, including the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version,
New Revised Standard Version, etc. But we must ask, "Does the fact that a
translation has 'errors' and other weaknesses disqualify the whole?" If so, no
translation is worthy of use!
A person can learn God's plan of salvation from the KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV,
NASB, NIV (1984 and 2011 editions), NRSV and the ESV if he diligently studies
them. There is no "perfect" translation of the scriptures. Jesus and the apostles
quoted the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures
even though it likewise is imperfect.
Copyright 2014
R Daly
James Version of the Bible, that any deviation from it is considered treason. The King
James Version is "good," but it is not perfect. There are words in the KJV that have
changed their meaning since it was published more than 400 years ago. There are
words and phrases that are not correctly translated in the KJV, and there is a
definite Calvinistic influence in certain passages. Nevertheless, many people believe
the KJV is a perfect translation. The fact is, there is no perfect translation of the
scriptures. Translators are not supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit in their work.
They do their work based on their academic training and theological presuppositions.
To some extent, all translations reflect the training and theology of the translators. This
is unavoidable because all translation involves interpretation. Translators must determine
what words mean in order to choose the most accurate words or phrases in the receptor
language to represent the words or phrases in the source language.
All translations of the Bible have problems. Some, like the KJV are influenced by
Calvinism. (Acts 2:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 13:48). Others, like the New King James Version
are monuments to tradition. The use of such words as "baptize," "church," "saint," and
"bishop" reflect loyalty to tradition rather than accuracy. The English Standard Version
contains several passages that display loyalty to tradition instead of linguistic
accuracy. "Propitiation" (1 John 2:2), "hell" (Matthew 16:18), "brothers" (Romans 1:13).
The New American Standard Bible, though generally a modified literal version, reflects
a premillennial bias in several passages. "As" (Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1), "will reign"
(Revelation 5:10), and "they came to life" (Revelation 20:4). The 1984 edition of The New
International Version, and to a lesser extent the 2011 edition, suffers from the tendency
to leave important "connectives" and "inferential particles" untranslated because of its
emphasis on readability and English style. (cf. John chapters 6-8)
Many instances of translation shortcomings can be multiplied from all
translations, including the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version,
New Revised Standard Version, etc. But we must ask, "Does the fact that a
translation has 'errors' and other weaknesses disqualify the whole?" If so, no
translation is worthy of use!
A person can learn God's plan of salvation from the KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV,
NASB, NIV (1984 and 2011 editions), NRSV and the ESV if he diligently studies
them. There is no "perfect" translation of the scriptures. Jesus and the apostles
quoted the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures
even though it likewise is imperfect.
Copyright 2014
R Daly
Try the Modern Literal Version (MLV) It is trying to be a perfect translation. You can get it here http://www.modernliteralversion.org/
ReplyDeleteAgape