REFORMED WITNESS
Volume II, September 1994, Number 9
Modern Bible Versions
Adapted from a pamphlet by Prof. David Engelsma
There is, at present time, a proliferation of new translations, revisions, and paraphrases of the Bible. One after another, new versions of the Bible pour off the presses, so that it becomes difficult to keep up with them.
It has not always been so. In 1611, the King James Version appeared -- a translation of the bible into English by theologians and ministers in England which is known as the "Authorized Version." For more than 250 years, it was, for all practical purposes, the only Bible in the English language. During the years 1881-1885, the King James Version was revised in England; and this revision, after some changes were made for American readers, became the American Standard Version, published in 1901. In 1937 the National Council of Churches authorized a thorough revision of the 1901 version, and published the Revised Standard Version in 1951. This proved to be a popular bible. In the last few years, many English versions have come on the market: The Jerusalem Bible (1966); The New English Bible (1970); The Living Bible (1971); and very recently, The New International Version -- to name only a few. The justification for all these new versions is the alleged weaknesses of the King James Bible. The King James Version is criticized as containing many, serious errors; as not based on the best manuscripts of Scripture, especially as regards the New Testament; and as being unclear in its language. Due to the development of the English language, it is charged, modern readers can no longer understand the KJV; it fails to communicate the Word to modern readers. The "Preface" of the Revised Standard Version is representative of this criticism. It states: "the King James Version has grave defects... (which) call for revision of the English translations." One of these defects is that "The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying... We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." In addition, "A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic... Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version." The modern versions make the claim that they will give the Word in a clear, up-to-date manner. If the King James Version were the Bible originally inspired by God -- the so-called "autographa" -- there would be no problem with the modern versions. In this case, we would simply condemn them as deviations and demand that men stick with the version inspired by God. but this is not what the King James Version is. It is a translation by men in the early 1600s of certain documents called manuscripts that have come down to us in the original languages of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek. The King James Version is not a perfect translation. It is to be regretted that the translators did not consistently render the outstanding name of God in the Old Testament as Jehovah, but instead gave it as LORD. There is archaic language in the King James Version e.g. "wottest" for "know", "let" for "restrain" (II Thessalonians 2); "conversation" for "conduct"; "take no thought" for "be not anxious" (Matthew 6); etc. It is conceivable that, in time, the English language changes to such an extent that 17th century English becomes unintelligible, and a new translation is not only permissible, but even demanded. God's people must have a Bible in their own language. this was a vital concern of the Reformation. Luther translated the Bible into German. Tyndale translated it into English. The Synod of Dordt saw to it that the Bible was translated into Dutch. If we were stuck with a translation in the English of Chaucer, a new translation would be required. We are not simply against change, all change. This would be a blind, hide-bound traditionalism, neither defensible nor healthy. Think of the necessity, some years back, of changing from Dutch to English in the worship services (in the Protestant Reformed Churches - editor). Some fiercely opposed this change, but we wisely made it. No, we do not simply oppose change, but we do ask: Is the change good? This is the question regarding the modern Bible versions. Are They a Blessing? Or a Curse? To be a good, usable version, a Bible must have three qualities. First, it must be a translation that is thoroughly faithful to the Word of God. It must be faithful to all the words that God inspired as they have come down in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, i.e., it must be the very Word of God, from beginning to end. Since all Scripture is inspired of God, an inspiration that extends to the very words (verbal inspiration -- II Timothy 3:15-17), the translation must be faithful with a faithfulness that extends to the very words. This does not demand a word-for-word translation, but it does mean that where the Spirit has "seed," as of one, the translation must not have "seeds" as of many, and that where the Spirit has "the Word became flesh," the translation must not put "Christ became flesh." This characteristic is fundamental. Whatever lacks faithfulness is worthless, in fact, a threat, for a book purporting to be the Bible, the Word of God, is not the Word, but a word of man. Second, a good version must be clear. It must be clear to "the common man." Every believer, though he be a youth behind the plow, must be able to read and understand the particular version of Scripture. The great translator, Tyndale, put it this way: "If God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plow shall know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." Clarity is an inherent quality of God's Scripture. The New Testament as is well known, was written in the Greek of the common people -- not the Greek of the universities. This is also a basic requirement of a Bible version, hardly inferior to the requirement of faithfulness. Third, a version should have a good style, a pleasing, smooth-flowing, readable style. The style should also be dignified. There must be a dignity about the version. It is God's Word after all, the Word of the majestic, holy, glorious God. This condemns the slangy, vulgar hip-talk and jive of some modern versions, which , although promoted as "the language of the people," is not the language of the people, but the language of a certain, limited, obnoxious segment of the people. It is certainly not the language of God, and this is what the Bible is. In the light of these requirements, the modern Bible versions are seen to be a curse, not a blessing for the Church. They are doing incalculable harm and threaten to do still more harm in the future. I hasten to add that this does not mean that we may not have them and use them along with the King James Version. I have many versions and use them, even the one that angers me the most and that I can use only to point out its errors -- The Living Bible. But I have reference to the modern versions as replacements for the King James Version and as Bibles that are used regularly in home, school, and church. They fail the test of the first fundamental requirement: faithfulness to the inspired Word. Failing in this, they also fail the second test: clarity -- they do not clearly give the reader the very Word of God. They either corrupt or hide important doctrines of Holy Scripture: creation; the Trinity; the Deity of Jesus; total depravity; predestination; and other truths, as will be demonstrated below. There is a reason for this. The explanation is the apostasy of the Protestant Churches since the days of the King James Version. All of the modern versions have appeared after the 1800's, the age of unbelief regarding the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Scripture. Originating in Germany, this unbelief -- known as "higher criticism" -- spread throughout the world. Since it was unbelief regarding the fundamental doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Scripture -- really, the denial that Scripture is the Word of God -- it extended, to all the doctrines of the Christian religion. Creation was doubted; the Virgin Birth was questioned; total depravity through the transgression of a first real parent was denied. Nothing taught in the Bible was believed any longer. The theologians and ministers who translate the Bible are no longer strong in the Lord and faithful. Their unbelief becomes evident in their translation. It must. Whether the erroneous translations are deliberate or not (and I am convinced that much is deliberate corruption of the Word), the spiritual weakness of the modern Protestant Church is necessarily reflected in their versions of the Bible. Men have helped translate Holy Scripture who personally deny the doctrine of inspiration, the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of the fall, the doctrine of the Trinity, and other truths. It takes a strong church and believing men to translate the Bible; and our age does not abound with such. It is not enough to have expert knowledge of Hebrew and Greek -- this is not even the main qualification of a translator. But one must have a child-like faith that the Bible is the Word of God, an utter dependence upon Scripture as the foundation of the Church, and such a reverence for it that one trembles at its Word. Such men were Tyndale, Luther, the King James men, and the Reformed theologians and preachers of Dordt. Where are they today? The presence of bad translations in the Church and their use by the people is a serious matter. People do not take the threat of bad versions seriously enough. Parents let them come into their homes and schools; and consistories allow them in the pews. The seriousness is simply this, that the Bible is the basis of everything for Protestantism. "Scripture alone" is our confession. It is different for Rome. Their authority is the Church itself, expressing itself through the Pope. Whether there are Bibles or not, is not vital for Rome. But for the true Church of Jesus Christ, for the Reformed Church, Scripture is the sole basis of doctrine and life, the foundation of the Church herself. Since Scripture has this position, the Bible that is in use in a Church will affect and mold every aspect of the faith and life of the church and every aspect of the faith and life of the members of the Church. If the Bible version is a bad one, it will gradually overhaul everything for the worse. There is no more effective, no more certain, no more thorough method for a Church to commit spiritual suicide than to bring in a bad Bible and let it have its way in the congregation. Significant doctrines of the Christian faith have been established on the basis of exact reading of certain texts. If these texts are changed in the version used by the people, the doctrines are jeopardized in the mind of the people and will eventually be lost. When the doctrine crumbles, the edifice of a godly life, built on this foundation of doctrine, will also topple. E.g., the Christian Church has laid down the doctrine of total depravity, over against the Pelagian heresy of the innate goodness of man, on the basis of such passages as Ephesians 2:1, which says that the natural man is "dead in trespasses and sin," and Romans 8:7, which teaches that the carnal mind "is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." This cardinal doctrine is the ground of the humility of the Christian life -- it is the death-blow to all human pride. When the Living Bible translates the former passage so as to omit the word, "dead," and the latter so as to omit the word, "can," thus leaving out the truth that man lacks the ability to obey the law, it undermines the doctrine of total depravity, opens the door to Pelagius, and produces proud people. Think once of the essential importance of the bible of the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses for that synagogue of Satan and its miserable heresy. Everyone is aware, I suppose, that the Bible with which they come to our door is not our Bible, but their own special creation. It is no more the Bible of the Christian faith than is The Book of Mormon or the Koran. The bible of the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses is a deliberate perversion of the Bible, (masquerading as a version) to get rid of the Bible's teaching of the Deity of Jesus and the Trinity. In their bible, they have made John 1:1, where the apostle states that the Word Who became flesh in Jesus Christ "was God," read: "and the Word was a god." This bible has results -- it results in another body than the true Church of Christ, a sect; and its results in the everlasting damnation of all those whom it leads astray. They call their bible, by the way, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. It is not without its grim humor that the Watchtower group pushes its bible by means of the same come-on used by the modern versions: "Read the Word of God in modern-day English." Think also of the importance to Rome in its controversy with the Reformed faith of its own peculiar version of Scripture. Rome's version in English has long been the Douay Bible. Recently, a new Roman Catholic version in English has appeared: The Jerusalem Bible. These versions include the apocryphal books of the Old Testament from which Rome can prove its doctrines of purgatory, prayers for the dead, and meritorious good works, and translate key passages in a way favorable to Rome. E.g., The Jerusalem Bible renders Matthew 1:25 thus: "and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son," etc. In this way, Rome's Bible protects Rome's doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity and undergirds the whole of Rome's Mariolatry. Again, it gives Romans 8:28 as: "We know that by turning everything to their good God cooperates with all those who love him...," thus promoting Rome's fundamental teaching of synergism. So, it should be evident to all that what version the Church uses is an important matter. In opposing corrupt versions, we are fighting essentially the same battle that our spiritual ancestors fought in the Reformation: the battle for the presence and authority of the Word of God. The only difference is that then the Bible was withheld from the church, whereas now it is buried and distorted by multitudes of bad versions. What About Specific Modern Versions? We should demonstrate and prove our charges against the modern versions. We cannot refer to all of them -- time and space forbid it. Let us pick several that are popular, widely regarded as the best, and representative of the others. First, there is the Revised Standard Version. It is the Bible of the "liberal," i.e. heretical, National Council of Churches and reflects the unbelief of the heretical leaders of this group. It weakens the Biblical teachings regarding the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Jesus, and the Trinity. In Isaiah 7:14, it has: "a young woman shall conceive," for: "a virgin shall conceive." In Micah 5:2, where the prophet says that the coming Christ has been "from everlasting," the RSV has: "from ancient days." In John 1:14, 18 and John 3:16, where the original Greek calls Jesus the "only begotten Son", thus teaching that Jesus is the eternal and natural Son of God, the RSV indefensibly translates: "the only Son." In I Timothy 3:16, where the King James Version reads: "God was manifest in the flesh," thus clearly teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh, the RSV merely has: "He was manifested in the flesh." The New English Bible (NEB) appeared in 1970. It was produced by the major Protestant churches in Britain. Louis Cassels, then religion editor for the Associated Press, called it, "The best of all modern translations." It is an attractive book with a pleasing style. I can remember that when I first saw it I thought: "Perhaps, this will be the version that faithfully translates Scripture into good, modern English." I can also remember my disappointment as I began reading in the first chapter of Genesis. Already in the second verse of the Bible, the unfaithfulness of this version is evident. Where the King James Version reads: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," the NEB has: "and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters." The Holy Spirit is removed from Genesis 1 and from the work of creation. In Isaiah 7:14, the NEB has "young woman," for "virgin." It horribly corrupts Isaiah 9:6, a brilliant revelation of Jesus' Deity in the Old Testament. The NEB reads: "For a boy has been born for us... and he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like, Father for all time, Prince of peace." Shades of old Arius -- the Jesus concerning Whom the text really says that He is "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" now becomes "God-like." John 1:1 is corrupted. The NEB reads, in this crucial passage: "and what God was, the Word was." But the original states flatly: "and God was the Word," or as our King James Version puts it: "and the Word was God." The NEB errs noticeably also in passages that teach the sovereignty of God in salvation and in damnation. Romans 8:28 is made to read: "he cooperates for good with those who love God." Acts 13:48 reads: "and those who were marked out for eternal life became believers" (the King James Version correctly has: "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed"). Romans 9:15 is translated: "Where I show mercy, I will show mercy," when in fact the apostle wrote: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," referring to particular persons. What About The Living Bible? The Bible that is all the rage today is The Living bible. It is available in many different forms and editions, e.g., Reach Out, The Greatest is Love, The Way, Living Letters, etc. But they are all the same Bible. The Living Bible is Kenneth Taylor's paraphrase of Scripture, published by Tyndale House, distributed widely by the World Home Bible League, and on sale everywhere. It is at once the worst and the most popular of all the modern versions of the Bible. The Living Bible is, inherently, an attack upon, indeed a mockery of, the doctrine of Scripture's infallible, verbal inspiration by the Holy Spirit. It purports to be a living Bible in distinction from the other versions (which presumably then are dead ones); and it is being received and used as the Bible. However, it is a paraphrase, i.e., it gives what the author conceives to be the sense of a passage; and it gives the sense of the passage in the author's words, quite in disregard of the words which the Spirit inspired. It is not faithful to God's Word; it replaces God's Word with the words of man. If such a "Bible" is acceptable, infallible, verbal inspiration is a farce. The Living Bible is filled with false doctrine. Genesis 6:2 solemnly tells us that "beings from the spirit world looked upon the beautiful earth women and took any they desired to be their wives"; and verse 4 says that "evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women," introducing the nonsense of Greek mythology into Scripture. We will bypass other, similar errors, for the main evil of The Living Bible is that it is an all-out attack on the Reformed faith -- it is Arminianism, the gospel of man's free will. Acts 13:48 reads: "and as many as wanted eternal life, believed." Romans 8:28 reads: "And we known that all that happens to us is working for our good if we love God and are fitting into His plans" -- a rendering which, if correct, would have been enough to have routed the entire Synod of Dordt. Romans 9 cannot be recognized: "This proves that God was doing what He had decided from the beginning; it was not because of what the children did but because of what God wanted and chose" (vs 11); "I chose to bless Jacob, but not Esau" (vs 13); "God's blessing are not given just because someone decides to have them..." (vs 16); "God told him (Pharaoh) He had given him the kingdom of Egypt for the very purpose of displaying the awesome power of God against him" (vs 17); "fit only for destructions" (vs. 22); etc. One only needs to compare these verses with the correct translation in the King James Version to see that The Living Bible has gone through the Scriptures replacing the testimony of the sovereignty of grace with the message of the dependency of salvation upon the will of man. This is every bit as serious as the denial of the Deity of Christ. In addition, The Living Bible represents and promotes the religious movement that downgrades doctrine, preaching, and the instituted Church of Christ, substituting feeling, experience, and individualism. As such, it serves as a powerful instrument of the ecumenical movement. Most significant is the introduction -- by a Roman Catholic priest -- to The Way, the Roman Catholic edition of The Living Bible. Concerning The Living Bible, which he heartily recommends, the priest states: "This present volume departs radically from (the) history of Scriptural translations... Perhaps more than other translations, this translation cannot be used as a basis for Doctrinal or traditional disputes. More than other English versions of the Bible, this one freely departs from a literal translation from the original languages... Most readers of the Bible who choose this translation will not be interested in such technical, theological considerations. They will be looking for spirit and life from the Word of God. We rejoices in our chance to encourage and help those who approach the Scriptures for this reason. We caution those who wish to engage in theological disputes not to use this volume." A genuine Protestant, much less a Reformed man, needs to hear no more. To this "Bible" we are totally and unalterable opposed. If it should prevail among us, the Reformed faith would be destroyed. It may not be the Bible that we use at home, in school, in our personal study, or in any aspect of the life of the Church. Our young people must be aware that it is another arm of the power of the lie that we fight as Reformed saints. It is a wicked effort to destroy God's Word, as wicked as Jehoiakim's burning of the Scriptures that he disliked, or Thomas Jefferson's whittling down the Bible to the sermon on the mount. That Reformed people and Reformed people and Reformed institutions can smile on it only shows how little knowledge of and love for the Reformed faith there is today. Can We Still Use the King James Version? If modern versions are unsatisfactory, what then? We can and should continue to use the King James Version. It is faithful, completely faithful to the infallibly inspired, sacred Scriptures. No one has ever accused it of unfaithfulness. the King James Version is the Word of God: when you have it before you, you have the uncorrupted Word. You can trust it, rely on it, and safely let it continue to work its work on the Church, on your home and family, on your Christian school, and on your personal Christian life. It is faithful; and this is the main criterion of a Bible version. The King James Version is also clear. There are odd words now and then, words unfamiliar to 20th century Americans; but on the whole it is clear. It is clear in Genesis 1 regarding creation; it is clear in Genesis 3 regarding the fall; it is clear in the gospels regarding salvation in Jesus; it is clear in the historical books; it is clear everywhere. I deny the common charge that the King James Version is impenetrably murky, especially for children. I did not find it so for myself as a child and a youth; I did not find it so for my own family of small children; I do not find it so for the many children and young people in the congregation. Rather, I find that a child can understand the King James Version. Concerning the excellent style of the King James Version, any praise from me would be superfluous. Its beauty is well known. It has molded our thinking, our writing, and our speaking. It has the dignity and solemnity that befit the Word of God. Besides, it uses the words of the Church of the past, the language of the creeds, so that the person who learns the King James Version also becomes familiar with the terms of church history and church doctrine: justification, sanctification, regeneration, predestination, and the like. The new versions are dropping these words; and we may expect that we will shortly hear that the old creed must be scrapped or revised, because "no one understands their terminology anymore." We need feel no compulsion to change Bibles just because change is the order of the day. We are the Church, the only solid reality in all the changing, fickle world; and we are solid because we are builded on the imperishable, unchanging Word of God. In the world, there is a craze for new things; everything old is despised -- every few years a new car with a radically different design; new stereo equipment regularly; a new style of clothing whether the old is worn out or not; even a new wife or husband periodically. This creeps into the church too; every other year a new gospel, now Barthianism, then the death of God message, and who knows what after that; pop-top, throw-away Bibles -- today the Living Bible and perhaps another version next year. This confuses the people of God. One evidence of this confusion is the weakness of the present generation of young people as concerns memorization of the Bible. With all their different versions, they memorize none of them. We should stick to the King James Version, but we must use it, really and diligently use it. The problem today, whether for young or old, is not that the King James Version is dark and hard to understand, but that we are not faithful to read and study it and that parents and churches are unfaithful in teaching it. The appalling ignorance of the Word in our age is not an intellectual problem, but a spiritual one. There is a demand that everything come easily; people want an easy-chair, push-button life, also as regards the knowledge of the Word and things spiritual. The children in catechism, used to the lazy, sit-back-and-relax "instruction" of television, have the attitude, "Now entertain us, and get through to us if you can." Grown-ups desire instant, painless attainment of Christian maturity, and even perfection, by turning the switch of "the baptism of the Spirit" in Pentecostalism. The same thing holds true with regard to the knowledge of the Scripture -- it must be made easy. So, we get "Bibles" with racy covers, striking pictures and comments on all kinds of current events scattered throughout, and a watered-down content. But growth in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ is not easy. Scripture is clear; but it is not easy. God gives us knowledge of the Word through hard study, memorization, and work! This is pastors, adults, and children. Let churches preach and teach the Word; let the parents read and explain it to their children at home; let the Christian school teachers teach it at school; and let every child of God study it daily on his own. Then there will be knowledge of the Scriptures among us as there was in former times.
Translating (the Bible) is certainly not everybody's business as the mad saints imagine; it requires a genuinely pious, faithful, diligent, God-fearing, experienced, practiced heart. Therefore I hold that a false christian or a sectarian spirit is unable to give a faithful translation. Martin Luther
| Back to top | Back to main Reformed Witness page |
The Reformed Witness newsletter is published monthly under the auspices of the Evangelism Committee of the Hope Protestant Reformed Church of Redlands. This newsletter is available to anyone who is interested in the Reformed Faith. If you would like your name added to our mailing list, please write to:The Reformed Witness
Hope Protestant Reformed Church
1307 E. Brockton Ave.
Redlands, CA 92374-3802
or email us: