Is The King James Version Perfect?

     There  is a relatively large segment  of  religious "fundamentalism" that believes
in what is called KJV onlyism. King James onlyism is the belief that the King James
Version is the only acceptable English translation of the scriptures. Within  this
movement is another group that believes the King James Version is perfect, that is,
free  of  any  kind  of  errors. And  within  the  latter group are men who believe the
translators of the King James Version were directly or supernaturally guided by the
Holy Spirit in their work of translating.

     Congregations of Christ have their share of people who also espouse the concept
that the King James Version is the only translation acceptable for preaching from
the  pulpit  and  use  in  Bible  classes. A  congregation  in  Missouri  published  a
bulletin for years, and on the masthead, the following statement was found, "King
James Version required for pulpit, classrooms, & scripture reading." To their credit,
the statement on the masthead has been changed and now reads, "King James
Version requested for pulpit, classrooms, and scripture reading."

     One brother wrote in June 2009, that in an effort to test the reliability of the "new"
translations, he "began to compare some of these new translations to the time tested
and proven standard of the King James Version." The fact that he compared "new
translations" to another translation in order to determine reliability is striking to
say the least! It  seems to imply  that  the  KJV  is  the  standard, and that being the
standard; it is perfect. The implications of the brother's statement are astonishing.
How can comparison of one translation to another translation be the proper means
to determine accuracy and reliability. A stream of water can be no better than its
source! Therefore, it is imperative that we ask, "Is the King James Version Perfect?"

     There are grammatical, doctrinal, and lexical errors in the King James Version
of the scriptures. This statement is not intended to bash the KJV; it is simply to
state the facts. Many people are quick to point out the errors in the ASV, RSV, NASB,
NIV, NRSV, and ESV, but they often overlook or explain away the errors found in
the KJV. Error is error wherever it's found, whether in the RSV or KJV. And honesty
demands that a person address the error without partiality.

     I. Examples of grammatical errors in the KJV.

     "Repent  ye  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins may be blotted out..."
(Acts 3:19) The  phrase "be  converted" in  the KJV leaves the impression that it is
something that is done to a person, rather than something they are capable of doing;
thereby making the person passive in God's plan of salvation. But in the Greek text,
the verb (epistrepsate) is an imperative aorist active. The person is commanded to do
something; to turn !  Translations such as the ASV-1901; NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV,
and NIV get it right.

     "For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife."
(Mark 6:18) The word Mark uses is not indicating a simple past perfect as the KJV's
translation "had said" implies. The Greek uses the word (elegen) which is imperfect
indicative active. The text says "John had been saying..." Repetitive action in the past
is implied in this context. The NASB, NRSV, ESV and NIV get it right.

     II. Examples of doctrinal errors in the KJV.

     "And the Lord added to the church such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) The
phrase "such as should be saved" is not what the Greek testament says. It says, "the
ones being saved." The KJV's translation of the phrase is influenced by the Calvinism
of the translators. This is an instance of the KJV teaching error because it says
something the Holy Spirit did not say. Doctrine is teaching and in this place, the KJV
does not teach the truth.

     " For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these
are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."
(Galatians 5:17) The text does not say one "cannot do the things that ye would."
The text says, "that you may not do..." Impossibility is not expressed in this passage.
The KJV's translation of the phrase reflects the Calvinism of the translators. The ASV
and NASB get it right.

     III. Examples of lexical errors in the KJV.

     "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of
unicorns..." (Deuteronomy 33:17) The Hebrew word (reem) means "wild ox."
The ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, and  NRSV get it right. "Though  thou  hast  sore
broken us in the place of dragons..." (Psalm 44:19) The Hebrew word (tan) means
"jackal." The ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV and NRSV get it right. "And the sucking
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the
cockatrice' den." (Isaiah 11:8) The Hebrew word (peten) means "cobra, serpent." The
ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, and NRSV get it right. The unicorn, dragon, and cockatrice
are mythical creatures!

     The fact is, the KJV is not a perfect translation. It is a useful translation like most
others, but it has grammatical, doctrinal, and lexical errors. No translation of the
scriptures is perfect, and no translator or group of translators is supernaturally guided
by the Holy Spirit in their work of translating. If they were we would have "inspired"
errors. Who can believe it?

                                                                                                                         R. Daly
Copyright 2015












 

Translating Matthew 1:18-25

     In this article I will  translate  Matthew  chapter  1, verses 18-25. I will produce
two  kinds  of  translations. The  first  will  be modified-literal, and the second will
be   idiomatic.  The   purpose  is  to illustrate the benefits of both literal and idiomatic
translations. The literal translation will be  as  close  to  the  Greek  as  possible, except
for  changes  in  word  order where  necessary in order  to  attain  some  degree  of
readability. The idiomatic translation will be reflect modern English meaning and style.

Modified-literal translation of Matthew 1:18-25.

     "Now the birth of Jesus Messiah was thusly. The mother of him, Mary, having
been engaged to the Joseph, before they came together, was found in stomach
through the Holy Spirit. But Joseph the man of her, being righteous and not wishing
to expose her publicly, planned privately to release her. But while he, having reflected
these things, behold a messenger of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying,
Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary, the woman of you; for the in her
having been conceived is through the Holy Spirit. And she will give birth to a son,
and you will call the name of him Jesus, for he himself will deliver the people of
him from the sins of them. Now this all has become in order that might be fulfilled
the word having been spoken by Lord through the prophet saying, Behold the virgin
in stomach will have and will give birth to son, and they will call the name of him
Emmanuel, which is being translated with us the God. But the Joseph having been
raised from the sleep did as he was commanded by the messenger of the Lord, and
he took the woman of him. And he did not know her until which she bore a son; and
he called the name of him Jesus."  

Idiomatic Translation of Matthew 1:18-25.

"Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. His mother Mary was
engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant
through the Holy Spirit. Now her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and not
desiring to publicly shame her, decided to divorce her secretly. Now while he was
thinking about these things, behold, and angel of the Lord appeared to him in a
dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary to be your wife,
for the child that has been conceived in her is through the Holy Spirit. And she will
give birth to a Son, and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people
from their sins. Now all this happened in order that what had been spoken by the
Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, Behold, the virgin will be pregnant and
she will give birth to a son, and they will name him Emmanuel, which means, God is
with us. When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him and he took her as his wife. And he did not have sexual relations with her until
she gave birth to a son , and he named him Jesus."

     The modified-literal translation  has some  awkward  phrasing  and it is difficult,
though not impossible to read. It is good for study purposes because of its closeness
to the Greek text.  The idiomatic translation is designed to convey the meaning of
the Greek text without adding unnecessary words or becoming a paraphrase. The
former reflects form; the latter reflects meaning and form to a lesser degree. Which
is accurate? Both are accurate in the way they are designed to be. One in form, the
other in meaning.
                                                                                                                      R. Daly
Copyright 2015 

Bible Version Preferences

     I  am  frequently  asked,  which  version  of  the Bible  do I  prefer for general
reading, and sermon or  Bible  class  preparation? Actually,  no  single version is
"perfect" for each of  these  categories.  It is often the case that a translation that
reads smoothly is not  the  best text for "technical"  study. It is likewise true that
a translation that is good for study may not read smoothly.

     I  do  have some 'Bible version preferences," and I will briefly indicate what
they are and give the reasons for my choices.

     For  general  reading  I  prefer  the  2011  edition  of  the New International
Version. It is second to none with regard to readability. It strikes a good balance
between readability and overall accuracy. It is not a paraphrase as some of its
critics often allege! It strives to be an idiomatic version, that is, it tries to say in
modern  English, what  is  stated  in  the  Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It
succeeds most of the time. There are times that the NIV-2011, like all other
translations, uses paraphrase, but it is not a paraphrase. The 1984 edition of the
NIV is good, but it is no longer widely available. I believe, based on my own
research, that the 2011 edition is as readable as the 1984 edition and that it has
a good degree of overall accuracy.

     For study purposes  I  prefer  the  1901  American  Standard Version. I am
aware that it often uses  archaic  English, but  I  mentally  or orally update the
language as I work through it . I am also aware that it is very "literal" and often
reflects the "form" of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. But that is what
I expect when I  am  studying  an  English translation. And that is what I love
about the old ASV. It isn't without its faults, but I am convinced that it is the
best English version for study purposes. Star Bible in Fort Worth, Texas has
recently begun republishing the ASV. It would, in my judgment, be worth the
investment to obtain a copy at least to compare it to the version you currently
use. Charles Spurgeon's assessment of the ASV New Testament still holds true,
"Strong  in  Greek,  weak  in  English."   Many  of   the   modern   exegetical
commentaries still use it as a point of reference. The New American Standard
Bible is also useful though it is not as modified-literal nor as accurate as the
ASV.

     There are a few versions that stand between the NIV-2011 and the ASV.
I call them "mediating" versions.  They  tend  to  be  good  for  both general
reading and study. The Revised Standard Version,  New Revised Standard
Version,  and  the  English Standard Version are in this category. The "best"
of the three is the ESV. The ESV is generally an excellent translation. The
NRSV finds greater acceptance in academic circles. Many of the translation
choices made by the NRSV are outstanding. The main problem with the
NRSV is its tendency to butcher English in order to avoid masculine oriented
language. It is an "inclusive" version, and this sometimes leads to inaccurate
translation choices. The NIV-2011 does a far better job with gender accurate
language.

     Based on my personal research, I am currently convinced that the NIV-2011
is, generally speaking, a good idiomatic version, and the ASV is a very accurate
modified-literal  version. They  approach  translation  method  from  different
perspectives, and this is what makes them great companion texts. I also believe 
the ESV is an accurate version in part because it is based on the RSV, which
was not nearly as bad as many allege. The NRSV is also worthy of study and
the translators used excellent Hebrew and Greek texts for their work. The
student of the scriptures can learn Yahweh's will by using any of the versions
I have mentioned, if they will diligently think through the text and obey it. 
                                                                                                      R. Daly
Copyright 2015










 

A Common Misconception of Bible Translation

     One  of  the  most  common  misconceptions  about  the  process  of  Bible
translation  is  the  opinion  that  the  only faithful method to translate the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts is  "word for word". People who
believe  this  fail  to  understand  that this is  not how languages function. Their
approach to translating the sacred writings is nonsensical and impractical. What
they demand is not achieved by any existing English translation of the word of
the living God. They require what God does not require, and as a result, they
make a law God has not made! (cf. James 4:12)

     The  best  attempt  at  "word for word"  translation (in somewhat readable
English)  is  likely the  American Standard Version published in 1901, and
even  it is not strictly "word for word" as a close examination of the text of the
ASV and its footnotes will show. No English translation including the KJV,
NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV,HCSB, NRSV, and NIV is always strictly
"word for word;" neither can they be and retain a considerable degree of
readable English. I will try to illustrate this with a few examples from the
Hebrew and Greek texts.

     A "word for word" translation of Genesis 1:1, following the Hebrew word
order, reads like this, "In  beginning  he  created  God  the  heavens  and the
earth." Genesis 2:24, "For this he will leave man father of him  and mother of
him and he will unite to (in) wife of him and they will be as flesh one."
Genesis 6:14, "Make for you of ark of woods of cypress nests you make in the
ark and you cover her on inside and outside with the tar (resin)."

     Now a "word for word" translation  of  a  few  verses  in  the  Greek text,
following the Greek word order.  Matthew 1:23, "Behold (see) the virgin in
belly  will  have  and  will  give  birth  son  and  they  will  call  the  name
of him Emmanuel which is being translated with us the God." John 1:1,"In
beginning was (being) the word and the word was (being) with (toward) the
God, and God was (being) the word." Acts 2:47, "Praising the God and having
favor toward all of the people and the Lord was adding to the ones being saved
by day on (to) the same (group)."

     The examples from both the Hebrew and Greek texts demonstrate the
fact, that though many people believe "word for word" translation is the only
legitimate way to translate, it is often the case that one word in Hebrew and
Greek must be translated into English with a phrase. Other adjustments must
also be made such as a change of word order so that we may have God's
word in understandable English.

Copyright 2014
                                                                                                      R. Daly


    

 

The Perfect Translation of the English Bible

     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







   

Tradition and Political Correctness in Bible Translations

     All English translations of the Bible have critics. Some of the critics are informed,
but most are uninformed, and appear to be agenda oriented. The NIV-2011 has its share
of  critics  like  all  other  modern  versions  of   the  Bible. One  of  the  insults  hurled
against the NIV-2011 that will not die is the allegation, "The publication of the NIV-2011
was motivated by political correctness." I  believe  most  English  translations, including
those the critics of the NIV-2011 prefer, display elements of political correctness. What
is "political correctness?" To put it in "plow boy" terms, political correctness is catering
to a "crowd;" seeking to please a "constituency."

     The King James Version contains politically correct renderings. One example will
suffice. Does  anyone  believe  the  KJV  scholars  who  were  on  the  New  Testament
translation committee were not aware that the Greek verb baptizo means to "immerse,
submerge, plunge, dip?" Then  why  did  they   use  the  word  "baptize"  to "translate"
baptizo ? As I have noted elsewhere, "baptize" is not a translation of baptizo. Baptizo
does not mean to "baptize." That's like saying, "Baptizo means baptizo." Baptize is a
transliteration of the Greek word. The "o" was dropped and the "e" added. Hence, from
"baptizo"  to  "baptize."  The   KJV  translators  used  "baptize"  to   represent baptizo
because one of the "general directions" that was given for the preparation of the KJV
was, "The old ecclesiastical words are to be kept..." (A General View of the History
of the English Bible, B.F. Westcott, page 115)  Baptize is an old ecclesiastical word.
Tradition and political correctness have kept it in the text of most English versions. 

     The  American  Standard  Version  contains  politically correct renderings. The
translators of the N.T. committee  were  Greek  scholars. They knew ekklesia means
"congregation, assembly, or community." Yet they used "church" to translate the word
ninety nine percent of the time. Why? One of the original directives given to the KJV
translators stated, "The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word Church not
to be translated Congregation, &c." (A General View of the History of the English
Bible, B.F. Westcott, page 115) The ASV is not free from the influence of tradition
and political correctness.

     The English Standard Version contains politically correct renderings. One of the
most glaring is the way it translates "adelphoi." The ESV incorrectly uses the word
"brothers" to translate adelphoi in  places  where  a  congregation is being addressed.
When congregations are addressed, adelphoi means "brothers and sisters." Why?
Because it refers to the siblings in God's spiritual family! The footnotes in the ESV
acknowledge this fact. (Cf. ESV footnote in 1 Corinthians 1:10; et al) Why would a
group of translators acknowledge the truth in a footnote, and not place the correct
translation in the text? The ESV is not free from the influence of tradition and political
correctness.

     The New American Standard Bible contains politically correct renderings. The
NASB translates the Greek adjective monogenes as "only begotten." The translators are
aware that the word means, "unique, only one of its kind," as indicated in the footnotes.
(Cf. John 1:14; 3:16, etc.) Monogenes has been traditionally rendered "only begotten,"
but that it not its meaning. The NASB also includes "Textus Receptus" readings in its
text, albeit in brackets, even though the oldest manuscripts do not contain them. (Cf.
Matthew 6:13;  17:21;  18:11;  Acts 8:37; etc. )  The  inclusion  of  Textus  Receptus
readings within the text of the NASB accomplishes at least two things: (1) it gives
a  degree  of  comfort  to  the KJV readers, (2) it (through the footnotes), informs the
readers  about the textual problems with the readings. The NASB is not free from the
influence of tradition and political correctness.

     Mere accusations of "political correctness" are not the proper basis to determine the
accuracy, validity, and usefulness of a version of the scriptures. It must be decided on
linguistic grounds.
                                                                                                                      R. Daly
Copyright, 2014
 

"Such As Should Be Saved"

     In the King James Version of the New Testament, Acts 2:47 says, "Praising God,
and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such
as should be saved." Our attention will be focused on the words, "such as should be
saved."

     The Greek text underlying the King James Version New Testament is the Textus
Receptus, sometimes called the Received Text. Theodore Beza published four folio
editions of the Stephens Greek text, and this included some changes of his own. The
1598 edition of Beza's text and the last  two editions of  Robert Stephens, were the
main sources used for the English  Authorized  Version  of  1611. Bonaventure and
Abraham Elzevir published  editions of  the  Greek  text  in 1624, 1633, and 1641,
following editions of Beza's 1565 edition. The Elzevir text became known as the
Textus Receptus or Received Text throughout Europe.

     The words "such  as  should be saved" do  not  accurately  translate the Greek
phrase as it stands in the Textus Receptus. It says, "prosetithei tous sozomenous."
The Majority Text, Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland read exactly the same
as the Textus Receptus. There  is  no  variation  between  them. So, the intriguing
question is, "Why does the King James Version translate the phrase 'such as should
be saved,' when all modern versions  (ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV,
and the ESV) read differently. They say  something  like, "those  who  were  being
saved?"

     The answer lies  in  the  fact  that most, if  not all, of the translators of the King
James  Version  New  Testament  were  Calvinists. And  the  likely culprit as to
the   mistranslation   of   the  Greek  phrase  "prosetithei  tous  sozomenous"  in
Acts 2 :47 is the Calvinistic doctrine of salvation, that is, certain individuals were
predestined to be saved. There is not the slightest hint of this doctrine in the Greek
phrase. The word sozomenous is a present participle and should be translated
"those who were being saved."  The modern versions are correct in the way they
translate the phrase.
                                                                                                       R. Daly

Copyright 2013

"Against her" or "With Her" ?

      Mark tells us that the Pharisees "tested" Jesus by asking him a question which
was " 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?'  "He answered and said to them,
'What did Moses command you?' " (Mark 10:2-3) The Lord told them why Moses
allowed them to divorce their wives. He follows with a quote from Genesis 2:24,
and then he states, "Therefore what God joined together, let no person separate."
(verse 9) The Master's disciples inquired about this and he said to them, "Whoever
divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery epi auten." (verse 11) The
question is: should epi auten be interpreted to mean "against her" or "with her"?

     If it means "against her" the "her" is the wife he divorced. If it means "with her"
the "her" is the wife of the subsequent marriage. According to BDAG (Bauer-
Danker-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, pages 363-367), the Greek preposition epi
has at least 18 uses in the New Testament. This indicates a wide range of meaning
in New Testament literature. So, the key to the correct interpretation of the phrase
epi auten must be sought in the context.

     "With her" is a possible interpretation, (cf. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New
Testament Greek,   vol.  3,   Syntax,   page   272;   The   R.S.V.  Interlinear 
Greek-English   New  Testament,   page  182;  The  New  Greek  English
Interlinear New Testament, page 159), but the more likely meaning is "against
her" for the following reasons. (1) The initial question posed to Jesus was, "Can a
man divorce his wife?" Matthew has the words, "for any cause/reason." (kata
pasan aitian) Initially, the second wife was not in view. (2) Matthew's record
shows the Lord's disciples understood the Lord's words to reflect adultery to be
committed against the former wife. When Jesus explained his teaching, the disciples
said, "If such is  the  case of  the  man  with  his  wife, it is  better  not  to  marry."
(Matthew 19:10) (3) In the context of Mark's record, Jesus speaks of the man
being "joined to his wife," he is not to be "separated" from his wife, and if he
"divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery epi auten." (4) Verse
12 is also important as Jesus turns his attention to the woman. Which woman? The
wife of the verse 11. "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she
commit adultery." This shows that both the man and his wife sin against each other
when they divorce and remarry without the right to do so. The focus is on the
husband  and  the  wife  of  the  first  marriage, so "against  her"  is  the  correct
interpretation of epi auten.

     It is true that a man commits adultery "with" a woman to whom he has no right
to be married, but contextually, in Mark 10 the Lord is addressing a question that
relates to a man's action toward his wife, whom he has no authority to divorce. He
sins "against her" when he divorces her and marries another. His moral and spiritual
hostility is directed toward or against her!   
                                                                                                            R. Daly

Copyright 2013

Holy "Thee" "Thou" and "Thine"

     Many people believe it is more reverential to use the old forms of address such
as "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine," than it is to use  modern  forms  such as "you,"
"your," and "your's" in prayer and song. Why? The main reason seems to be due to
the  long  use  of the King  James Version of the Bible. Tradition, even when wrong,
is like the talons of an eagle holding onto a fish. The grip of tradition is hard to break.

     Is there a biblical way to demonstrate that such language has nothing to do with
reverence or sacredness? Yes. Note the examples in the King James Version where
those  pronouns  were  used  with  reference  to evil  people  or  evil  beings. Think 
through the text and allow God's word to be its own interpreter!

     When Jesus was tested by Satan, he told  the devil, "Get  thee  hence  Satan..."
(Matthew 4:10, KJV) Was the Lord  showing  reverence  toward Satan? Was he
using  a  sacred  pronoun   with  reference  to  the  archenemy  of  righteousness?
The answer  has  to  be  yes  according  to those who believe and teach that such
pronouns are sacred.

     Jesus came into the region of the Gerasenes, and "immediately there met him out
of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit." Jesus said to him, "Come out of the man
thou unclean spirit...what  is  thy  name?" (Mark 5:8,9, KJV) Was  Jesus  showing
reverence to an unclean spirit? The answer is yes according to those who believe
and teach that those pronouns are sacred.

     Paul, the Lord's apostle, was on the island of Paphos "and they found a certain
sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar Jesus...Saul, (who is also
called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all
subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness,
wilt thou pervert the right ways of the Lord...?" (Acts 13:6-10, KJV) Was Paul
using sacred, reverential pronouns with reference to a sorcerer, a false prophet, a
man  full  of  subtilty  and  all  mischief,  a  child of the devil, and an enemy of all
righteousness? The  answer  is  yes  according  to  those  who believe and teach
those are "sacred" pronouns that indicate reverence and respect!

     But someone might respond, "They are sacred, reverential pronouns when used
with reference to deity." The problem is: they are used in the KJV with reference to
both deity and evil men and beings. So, we conclude, the old English forms of
address have nothing to do with reverence or sacredness. It's just the way people
talked in 1611.
                                                                                                             R. Daly

Copyright 2013  




   
         

   

      

What To Look For In A Bible Translation

     Through the years I have been asked the following questions quite frequently,
"Which  translation  is best? and  "What  should  a  person  look  for  in  a  Bible
translation?" I   will  respond   to   both  questions,  though  I  will  devote  more
attention to the second question.

     There is no translation that is "best" in all circumstances. If a person says the
modified-literal  versions  are  best (e.g. ASV, NASB), they  do not  take  account 
of their stodginess. They are designed to reflect Hebrew and Greek style, therefore
they are generally more difficult to read, and because they sometimes follow the
word order of the original texts, they are awkward to the English reader. On the
other hand, if one says the idiomatic (sometimes inaccurately styled dynamic
equivalence) versions (e.g. NIV, NLT) are  best, they  do  not  take  account 
of  the  fact  that they often  leave  words or  phrases  untranslated  that  can
and should be brought over into English. Neither the modified-literal versions nor
the idiomatic ones are without  imperfections. The  translators  are  human  beings,
who  are not directly superintended by the Holy Spirit  in  their  work, and  as  a 
result, their personal limitations are reflected in their work. A person should select
translations that represent both spectrums of translation theory.

                    What  should  a  person look for in a Bible translation? 

     (1) Accuracy. Good translations accurately represent the meaning of the words
in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. When people object to meaning based translation,
they object to both modified-literal and idiomatic translations because both kinds are
meaning  based, and  both  kinds  contain  some  degree  of paraphrase, though the
modified-literal  versions  do  not  have  as  much  paraphrase due  to  their  design. 
Proof  that  the modified-literal versions contain some paraphrastic renderings is
indicated by a glance at the frequent footnotes that say, "The Hebrew says..." or "The
Greek says..." The ASV has a high degree of accuracy in that it correctly reflects the
Hebrew and Greek texts most of the time. But, even the legendary ASV occasionally
misses the mark of strict fidelity. The same is true of the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the
ESV. 

     (2) Readability.  Good    translations    are   readable.  If   they   are   to   be
understood, should  they  not  be  readable?  If  not,  then  what  use  are  they?
Translations should be as fluent as possible. Their mode of expression should be
characteristic of the language into which they are translated. A translation that is
not readable  is  as  useful as reading glasses to a person who is completely blind.
When   we   read   we   should   be   able   to   understand   God's   will   for   us.
(Ephesians 3:3-4)

     (3) Modernity.  The   words   and   phrases  should  be  natural  and  in  the
 language currently spoken. Elizabethan expressions such as "thee," "thou," and
the like are not hallowed, and I fail to see why some people think using such in
prayer, song, and scripture is indicative of sanctity and accuracy. Those words
are not modern and there is nothing inherently reverential about their use. God's
word should be in the currently spoken language of the people for whom the
translation is made.

     (4) Balance. A strictly literal translation would be impractical, and virtually
impossible for the non linguist to correctly use. It would be strong in Hebrew
and Greek, but weak in English. A strict paraphrase would be strong in English,
but very weak in Hebrew and Greek. So, it is necessary to take a more balanced
approach to translation. "As literal as possible; as free as necessary." The ESV
is  advertised as an "essentially literal" version. The NIV-2011 is also balanced
most of the time.  Translations that are balanced are good for reading scripture
publicly and privately. They are also good for study, though the modified-literal
ones are better because of their closeness to the Hebrew and Greek texts.
                                                                                                    R. Daly
Copyright 2013    





    

Mark 16:9-20

     Mark 16:9-20 is the longest disputed portion of the New Testament. The
question is frequently asked:  "Is  Mark 16:9-20  a  genuine part of the New
Testament?" I intend to state some of the relevant facts, and allow them to
speak for themselves.

     Some people believe if it is admitted that Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine
the case for the essentiality of immersion for salvation is weakened. This
is not the case, because other undisputed passages teach the same things
that are taught in Mark 16:9-20. Immersion, like faith and repentance, is
definitely essential to salvation. (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21) The authenticity
of a text is not to be decided on theological grounds, but on the weight of
the manuscript evidence. The things taught in 1 John 5:7, as it stands in the
King James Version,  are taught in other parts of the New Testament, but
that does not mean 1 John 5:7 is  genuine. I John 5:7 does not appear in any
of the oldest  Greek  manuscripts. Only  8  manuscripts have  it, and  it  is
apparently   derived   from   a  late  recension  of   the Latin   Vulgate.  The 
question    is    not:    "Are   the   things   taught   in Mark 16:9-20  true?"
The   question   is:  "Is  Mark 16:9-20  genuine?" The question cannot be
decided on theological grounds, any more than the  authenticity  of  1 John 5:7
can  be  decided  on  theological grounds.

     The  only  way  to  decide  the question is to look at and evaluate the
evidence. What is the evidence for and against the inclusion of Mark
16:9-20 in the corpus of writings known as the New Testament?

     The disputed verses are found in the vast majority of ancient manuscripts,
including codex Alexandrinus, a 5th century manuscript which is relatively
close to Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of which are 4th century
manuscripts. Two   other   5th century   textual   witnesses   that    include
Mark 16:9-20 are Ephraemi  Rescriptus  and  Bezae Cantabrigiensis. At
least two early patristic witnesses bear testimony to part or all of the long
ending  of  Mark. They   are  Irenaeus   about   202 A.D., and   Tatian's
Diatessaron  about  150 A.D.  Justin  Martyr  might  have  alluded  to the
disputed  portion  of  Mark  in  his  Apology, dated about 165 A.D. The
patristic witnesses are important because they are substantially earlier than
any of the current manuscript evidence.

     The  long  ending  of  Mark  is  absent  from  Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,
the two oldest known Greek manuscripts, dated approximately 325 to 350
(375) A.D.  

     The KJV and NKJV include the verses as a part of Mark's biography
of the Lord. Other translations indicate the textual problems with Mark
16:9-20 in a variety of ways. Most include it, but they have a space separating
it from the preceding verses. The ASV, RSV, NIV, NRSV, TNIV, ESV, and
NIV-2011 have a space between the two sections. The ASV has a footnote
that says, "The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other ancient
authorities, omit verses 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different
ending to the gospel." The NIV-2011 says, "The earliest manuscripts and some
other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20." The ESV footnote says,
"Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20."

     What are we to make of this information? Even though the two oldest known
manuscripts (codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not contain the disputed
passages, some of the earliest patristic writings do contain the verses. The
patristic evidence  predates  the  manuscript  evidence  approximately  200
years. But, this  fact  alone  is  not  necessarily  proof  of  their genuineness.
Nevertheless, it does indicate an early belief that the verses are genuine, and
that Mark wrote them.

     The fact is, there is doubt about their authenticity and the modern English
versions accurately state the facts in their footnotes. Truth would not be
served by avoiding the facts.
                                                                                                        R. Daly
Copyright 2013

How Should "Adelphoi" Be Translated?

     Adelphoi,(nominative masculine plural; vocative masculine plural) and  the words
adelphous  (accusative  masculine  plural),  adelphon   (genitive  masculine  plural),
and  adelphois  (dative  masculine  plural) appear  in  the  Greek  New  Testament
approximately 240 times. They are grammatical forms of the word adelphos which
is nominative masculine singular.

     Adelphos has a relatively narrow range of meaning. It can be used to indicate a
male from the same womb as the person referenced. Hence, we read in John 1:41
that Andrew "first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, 'We have found the
Messiah (which is, being interpreted, the Anointed).' " It can also be used of one who
shares close affinity; brother in the sense of a fellow-member of the Lord's body,
congregation, or community. In Ephesians 6:23 Paul said, "Peace be to the brothers."
(ESV-2011) The plural form can also mean "brothers and sisters." That such is the
case seems conclusive in Luke 21:16, "But you will be delivered up even  by parents,
and adelphon " ('brothers and sisters), and relatives and friends." A recurring footnote
in the ESV says, "The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated 'brothers') refers to
siblings in a family."

     The older English versions use the word "brethren" to translate adelphoi. They
did this in recognition of the fact that siblings in a family are meant. In modern English
the word "brethren" is rarely used except in religious circles. It is an archaic word.
It can lend itself to confusion and inaccurate interpretation. Even the word "brothers"
when used in certain contexts can be confusing because it can appear to be speaking
to  or  about  males, when  this  may  not  be  the  intent  of the writer or speaker. In
1 Corinthians 1: 10 Paul wrote, "Now I appeal to you, adelphoi, through the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing..." Inasmuch as Paul is
addressing the whole congregation, adelphoi has to mean "brothers and sisters,"
and should be translated with that phrase. We know this because he said "you all
speak the same thing." The congregation in Corinth had both male and female believers.
Verse 11 names "Chloe and her people."

     Many of the older Greek-English lexicons of the New Testament understood that
adelphoi included  "brothers  and  sisters"  in  contexts  where  a  mixed group was
addressed. Thayer's Lexicon, published more than a hundred years ago says on page
10, that adelphos includes sisters  in  (Matthew 12:46,47).  He  defines  the  word
as "a fellow-believer.." on page 11. Alexander Souter, in his Pocket Lexicon To The
Greek New Testament, published in 1916, says on page 6 that adelphos is "a member
of the same religious  community, especially  a  fellow  Christian  (particularly  in  the
plural)." A Manual Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament by G. Abbott-Smith,
published in 1921/1923/1936  says  on  page  8,  that  adelphos  can  be used "of a
fellow-Christian." These sources are cited only to show that long before the so-called
women's liberation or feminist movement, it was understood that adelphos/adelphoi
could and did include females, hence it is acceptable to translate by using the phrase
"brothers and sisters."

     When a group consisting of both males and females is addressed, as in the apostolic
letters,     it     is   accurate    to      translate adelphoi with the phrase "brothers and
sisters" as in the NIV-2011. To do so is not  in  support  of  feministic  theology. It  is
designed to support accuracy in Bible translation.
                                                                                                                    R. Daly
Copyright 2013



  


 




 

Harshness Toward Modern English Translations

     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 ESV Large Print Thinline Reference Bible

     The English Standard Version Bible, which is a light revision of the Revised Standard
Version made its debut in 2001. It is published by Crossway Publishers of Wheaton,
Illinois. It was revised in 2007 and in 2011. The 2011 revision is the best text edition
of the ESV. It is available in several styles and bindings such as large print, giant print,
single column reference, and now the large print thinline reference Bible. In my judgment,
the large print thinline reference ESV is "hands down," the very best edition of the ESV
that Crossway has made available to the Bible reading public. It was published in
July 2012.

     It weighs approximately 32 ounces, is 6.125 inches wide, 9.125 inches long, and
is about 1 inch thin. The print size is 10.5! This gives the saying "a sight for sore eyes"
an all new meaning. The print is relatively dark, clear, and very readable! It is currently
available in 3 bindings; trutone, genuine leather, and top grain cowhide. All 3 bindings
are nice, but the top grain cowhide is fabulous! It is amazingly supple and fills the hand
like a charm. The large print thinline is hand friendly, light weight, and virtually perfect for
use as a preaching and teaching Bible! The top grain cowhide is a dark chocolate brown.
At a glance it almost looks black.

     It contains all the 80,000 plus references that are in the other ESV reference Bibles.
But, with a stroke of genius, the references are placed at the bottom of the page in the
large print thinline reference Bible. This enables a person to read the text without
distraction. This Bible also has the concordance and maps. The paper used in this edition
is relatively thin, but not ridiculously so.

     The only "complaint" I have regarding the large print thinline Bible is the references.
They are set in type that is quite small. In my judgment, they should have been left out
entirely or made a little larger. Nevertheless, this is not intended to detract from this
very useful edition of the ESV Bible. If you use the ESV as your main preaching and
teaching Bible, the large print thinline reference Bible is highly recommended. It is  a
practical, hand friendly, and very readable copy of God's word! Why not visit a religious
bookstore in your area and inspect a copy? You will likely find one on the shelf  "with
you name written all over it."

                                                                                                              R. Daly

Copyright 2012  

Different Kinds of Translation Accuracy

     There are different kinds of translation accuracy, and understanding this will help
us refrain from making harsh judgments against translations without knowing the facts.
It is common practice for some readers of scripture to judge the accuracy of the better
known English versions based on the opinions of their favorite preacher, professor,
Bible class teacher, etc. Their  opinions  may  be of  value  if they have the training
necessary to make informed decisions, and if they are willing to let the facts speak.

     There is literal accuracy. The American Standard Version, published in 1901 is
legendary for its attempt at modified literal accuracy. We use the phrase "modified
literal" because some adjustments have to be made in order for the resulting translation
to be useful to the English reader. Though the ASV is very literal, even it is not strictly
literal as a glance at the Old and New Testament footnotes indicates. Sometimes the
"literal" translation  of  the  Hebrew,  Aramaic, and  Greek is relegated to the footnotes.
Nevertheless, it  is  as close to being a "word for word" translation that we have in our
language. This is what made it very popular  among  students  of  Hebrew  and  Greek
when it was released. The ASV is generally  so  literal  that  many  people  have
difficulty  reading it for long periods. Acts 19:3-5 demonstrates the overall precision
of the ASV.

     When  Paul  found   the  disciples  of  John  in  Ephesus,  he   asked  them, "Eis ti 
oun  ebaptisthete?" (Daly's Translation: "Into what then were you immersed?")   They
said, "Eis to Ioannou  baptisma." (Daly's Translation: "Into the immersion of John."
Paul, then explained John's  immersion  to  them and verse 5 says, "Akousantes de 
ebaptisthesan eis to onoma  tou  Kuriou  Iesou."  (Daly's Translation: "And  hearing
[this]  they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus.") The ASV translates the
Greek preposition  "eis"  as "into" in the three passages cited. It reads, "And he said,
Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism...And when they
heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." The ASV not only
achieves accuracy in verses 3 and 5; it is also consistent in the way it translates the
preposition in the context. The ASV is an excellent study Bible to this day. Neither
the New International Version, English Standard Version, nor the New American 
Standard Bible are as "literally accurate" in Acts 19:3,5, though both the ESV and
the NASB do acknowledge in footnotes that the Greek eis literally means "into."

     There  is idiomatic accuracy.  The  latest  edition of the New International 
Version, published in 2011 is an excellent example of this kind of accuracy. I have
heard people object to the NIV on the basis that "it is not literal enough to be
accurate." This assumes that  "literal accuracy"  is  the  only  kind of acceptable
accuracy. It isn't. The fact is, the NIV is not a paraphrase nor is it designed to be
as literal as the ASV. The NIV strives to translate into current idiomatic English.
When the NIV translators engaged in their work, it is as if they said, "We know
what the Hebrew and Greek texts say. How do we say the same thing in
understandable English?" The modified-literal translations are more "form" oriented.
They seek to be as transparent to the original texts as possible, while maintaining
some degree of readability, and the idiomatic translations make readability and
understandability the primary goal in conjunction with being as literally accurate as
possible.

     1 Cor. 1:10  is  a  good  point  of  reference  in this regard. The Greek text says,
"Parakalo de humas adelphoi dia tou onomatos tou kurio hemon Iesou Christou 
hina to auto legete pantes kai me e en humin schismata ete de katertismenoi en to 
auto noi kai en te aute gnome." (Daly's Translation: "Now I appeal to you, brothers
[and sisters], through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that you all speak the
same  thing  and  there  be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same
mind and in the same thought.")   The NIV-2011 says, "I appeal to you, brothers and
sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another
in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly
united in mind and thought."  It is both accurate and clear. It translates the text into
good  idiomatic  English.  I  especially  appreciate  the  fact  that  it  translates the
nominative masculine plural adelphoi with the phrase "brothers and sisters." Paul
is writing to a congregation consisting of both male and female believers. In Greek
literature  as  well  as  scripture,  adelphoi  refers  to  siblings  in  a   family.  In
1 Cor. 1:10  the  word  refers  to  fellow-believers, siblings in the spiritual family
of  God.  Neither  the  ASV,  NASB,  or  the  ESV are as idiomatically accurate in
1 Cor. 1:10 as the NIV-2011. The  NIV-2011  excels  in  idiomatic accuracy.   

     There  are  translations  that  attempt to steer the middle of the road between literal
accuracy and idiomatic accuracy. Examples of this type of translation philosophy are
the Revised  Standard  Version, the  English  Standard  Version, and  the New  
Revised  Standard Version. They are called "essentially literal" versions. They attempt
to be literal where possible and idiomatic where necessary. They tend to fall more on the
literal than the idiomatic side of the translation spectrum, therefore, they are good study
Bibles. The ESV is slightly better than the RSV and avoids some of the extremes of the
NRSV. Each is useful if diligently studied.  
                                                                                                             R. Daly

Copyright 2012

Strengths and Weaknesses of Translations

     All translations of the scriptures have strengths and weaknesses. Ideally we want the
strengths to outweigh the weaknesses. We also want the main strength to be fidelity to
the original texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). The question is: what do we mean by
"fidelity to the original texts?" This question must be discussed because many people
believe "fidelity" necessitates that a translation be strictly literal. The problem is, no
translation   is   strictly   literal.   If    it    were   it   would   not   be   readable   or  
understandable to the masses.  Furthermore, that is not how  the translation process
works. For instance, John 3:16, a text known by most people who study the Bible,
literally reads, "This manner for loved the God the world that the Son the unique one
he gave that everyone believing in him may not perish but have life eternal."   Friends,
is it not apparent that the Greek sentence must be arranged in a way that make it
readable in the English language? We want to be sure that the rearrangement does no
injustice to the meaning of Greek text. So, we could translate it in this way: "God loved
the world in this manner, he gave his unique Son, that everyone who believes in him may
not perish, but have eternal life."

     All translation involves interpretation. It is unavoidable because a translator must
determine  what  the  words  in  the  original  language mean, before he can choose the
equivalent in the receptor language that reflects the meaning of the original word or
phrase. Many people object to translations such as the NIV because they believe
interpretation and translation are necessarily mutually exclusive. The fact is, the NIV
contains some translation choices that are among the very best available in any English
version of the scriptures. (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:5-11) The latest edition of the NIV
(NIV-2011), is a marked improvement over the previous edition (NIV-1984) in many
ways! It isn't perfect, but it is imminently readable, and highly accurate most of the time.
I refuse to take part in any uninformed movement that criticizes a translation on the basis
that it is "too interpretative" or  that it is "Calvinistic in its translation choices." Study a
translation on a passage by passage basis. Reject what is inaccurate and accept what is
accurate in any translation.  The KJV  contains  "Calvinistic renderings."  (Acts 2:47;
Acts 13:48; Heb. 6:6) Will the detractors discard it because it is sometimes contains a
Calvinistic slant in certain key texts?

     The ASV-1901 is a highly accurate English version in that it is very close to the
original texts. To this day it remains an excellent study version of the scriptures. Yet, it
uses old English, is not very readable, often contains the word order of the Hebrew and
Greek instead of English word order, and sometimes has textual choices that do not
accurately reflect the meaning of the words in the Hebrew and Greek texts.  The same
things  are  sometimes  true of  the  RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc.  Ideally, we want
translations that are as literal as possible and as idiomatic as necessary. Strive to know
the strengths and weaknesses of the translation(s) you select for use.
                                                                                                        R. Daly

Copyright 2012
                                                                                                     

    

    

"Great Stories From The Bible" CDs Are Now Available

  
      The "Great Stories From The Bible" set of CDs is now available to order. The
project consists  of  2  CDs  containing  many  of  the  great  stories  of  the  Old
and New Testaments read  with  "vocal emphasis."  Instead of a  mere  mechanical
reading  of  the text,  the stories are read  with  emotion  and voice inflection in order
to convey the "feeling" and "power" of the scriptures . The CDs are mailed in durable
plastic flexible cases. The cost is $15 per set consisting of 2 CDs.

     Some     of     the     great     Bible     stories     that     the     CD     contains     are :  
The      Creation     (Genesis 1);     Noah      and      the      Flood      (Genesis 6-8);  
God  Tests  Abraham (Genesis 22);  Moses  and  the  Burning  Bush (Exodus 3) ;
Israel  Crosses  the  Red  Sea  (Exodus 14); Moses  and  the  Glory  of  Yahweh
(Exodus 33:12-34:9);  David  and  Goliath  (1 Samuel 17);  Legion  (Mark 5:1-20);
The    Death    and    Resurrection    of    Christ   (Matthew 27:45-28:20);   The  
Establishment of the Lord's Congregation (Acts 2).

     The purpose of this recording project is to glorify God and to encourage meaningful
reading of God's word. I  incorporate  my  own  translation throughout and I believe all
readers and listeners can greatly benefit  from  the  work that has gone into making  the
reading of the Great Bible Stories available. If  you  would  like  more information, you
may  contact  me  by  e.mailing me at daly_nt_translation_project@live.com or call
me by dialing 317-457-1953. 
                                                                                                                     R. Daly

Copyright 2012

John 7:53-8:11

     The King James Version contains the pericope about the woman caught in the act of
adultery. Many of the modern English translations contain it, either set off from the text or
in brackets, with a note that the earliest manuscripts do not contain it.

     John 7:53-8:11 is not in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, nor is it in p66, a Bodmer
papyrus  dated  from  about  200 A.D. and p75 dated from the early third century. No 
patristic writer prior to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century mentions the passage.
It isn't in the Diatessaron, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Tertullian, and Cyprian. It isn't in
any of the earliest manuscripts from the second to the fourth century. It appears first in
the fifth century in Codex Bezae (D), and no other Greek manuscript contains it until the
ninth century.

     John 7:53-8:11 as it stands in the English versions portrays the Lord as we see him in
the undisputed texts; compassionate, just, and  forgiving.  Many  passionate  sermons
have been preached from this text and others will undoubtedly follow, yet there is little
doubt that the passage was not written by John, therefore not a part of the original text.

                                                                                                                    R. Daly

Copyright 2012

Acts 8:37

     In the King James Version Acts 8:37 reads, "And Philip said, 'If thou believest with
all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said , I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God." This verse is not found in most modern translations, e.g. ASV-1901,
RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV-2011. Some translations include the passage in a
footnote with the explanation that it is likely an interpolation, that is, an insertion in or
addition to the original text. People often assume  that the omission of a passage found
in the King James Version is an instance of subtracting from the word of God. How
can omitting a passage that was not in the original text be equal to subtracting from
the word of God? Omitting  Acts 8:37 from the English text is not equivalent to saying
there is no need for a confession prior to being immersed.  Other passages teach that
one must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. (Rom. 10:10; 1 Tim. 6:12) The issue is
whether the textual evidence is for or against the  inclusion of Acts 8:37 as a part of 
God's word.

     The passage doesn't appear till the 6th century in the manuscripts. It is not found
in p45, a 3rd century manuscript, or in p74, a seventh century manuscript. It is not in
Sanaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or Ephraemi Rescriptus, a 5th century manuscript.
It is not found in the ancient versions, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic. The ancient patristic
writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyrprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, and Augustine
add the reading with a little variation. The Byzantine text omits the reading. Erasmus
included   the  passage  in  his  critical  editions  because  he  concluded  that  it  had
inadvertently been omitted from the textual tradition.  As  a  result  of his inclusion, it
became a part of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
                                                                                                                R. Daly

Copyright 2012
                                                                                
  
 

Yahweh In Translation

     I recently read an article by a preacher in which he objected to the use of Yahweh,
the  personal  name  of  the  deity,  in  translating  the  tetragrammaton  (YHWH)  in
the approximately 6828 times the term occurs in the Hebrew text. His reasoning is
that the use of Yahweh in translation tends to be confusing to most people because
they are not accustomed to hearing and/or reading the sacred name.

     First, I  doubt  that  the  degree  of confusion that he alleges really exists. The
American Standard  Version  published  in  1901  made  a  salient  effort  for
consistency by translating YHWH with the hybrid term Jehovah in all of its occurrences.
Some other English versions also use Jehovah for the Tetragrammaton. The KJV even
uses  Jehovah  a  few times. (cf. Gen. 22:14; Ex. 6:3; 17:15; Jdg. 6:24; Psa. 83:18;
Isa. 12:2; 26:4)  Furthermore, the  Jerusalem  Bible  uses  Yahweh  in thousands of
places, and  the  Holman  Christian  Standard  Bible  uses  it  over 600 times in the
Old Testament.

     Second,  even    if    the   use  of   Yahweh   initially confuses  those  who  lack
familiarity  with  the  name, is  it  not be the duty  of  preachers, who ought to be
exegetes of the sacred scriptures to explain its meaning and use? Do we not do this
with other words and concepts with  which  people  may not be familiar? I believe
much of the confusion regarding the issue of translating the Bible, is the direct result
of those who know failing to adequately inform those who do not know ! There are
ways of teaching our people the reasons why some things are translated the way they
are, and why some things need changing without being too technical and sounding
too academic. The bottom line is, we have the duty to teach people so they can be
informed. (2 Tim. 2:15) We who preach need to stay abreast of important issues,
and Bible translation is such an issue. There  is  no  excuse  for  spiritual and mental
laziness.

     In my judgment, there is one thing confusing about the way most modern versions
address the issue of translating YHWH. It is this: where YHWH occurs in the text, they
put   the  word  LORD   in  all  capitals, except  in  those  instances  when  Adonai
(lord, ruler) and YHWH appear together. When they do occur together, YHWH is
translated GOD. Most people never notice such, and when they do, they have no idea
why Lord with lower case letters appears, and why at other times it is LORD with all
upper case letters. Then at other times we read God with lower case letters and in other
instances it appears as GOD with all upper case letters. Now that is what confuses many
people. They are unaware that such variety is an "expedient" used by translators to
differentiate Lord and God from YHWH.

     So, why not use Yahweh  in  the  places  where  YHWH  appears  in  the  text of
the Old Testament? Why not equip oneself to teach the people about the sacred name
as    we    teach   them   about   words   like   immerse,  congregation,  hades,  and
countless other words and concepts in our writing, preaching, and teaching?

                                                                                                               R. Daly

Copyright 2011