| FAQ #15 |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| FAQ #15 |
| FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS |
| Which version of the Bible do you use in order to determine which person is right? |
|
It is not necessary to search around for a particular Bible version in order to determine if the
doctrinal position taken by a certain person or organization is correct of false. Any properly
done translation is quite acceptable. It is preferred that a literal translation of the original texts be
used, however, there are certain non-literal alternatives as long as the final product represents
the original intent and meaning of the Scripture and not a version that has been changed to
represent a particular point of view and doctrine. My primary research Bible is the King James Version, 1611 (KJV), because that is the version I used in my youth and with which I am most familiar. It is probably the greatest English translation ever produced, however it uses a language structure that is almost 400 years old and the meanings of many words and phrases are difficult to discern by the use of the English language as understood today. Many words and phrases mean the opposite of what a person would assume in today's usage, and some cannot be understood even with the use of a dictionary, so, it becomes inaccurate in relation to understanding by the reader. In spite of its difficulties, I still use it as my basic word-search and topical research Bible, and then move on to other versions. My secondary translation, is the New American Standard, which is also my primary version for every-day use. It is a more literal translation, such as the (KJV), but it also has some difficulties. Many times words are selected which I find confusing, although alternate words are sometimes presented in the margins or notes. I find that the alternate words are in many cases better suited than those placed in the translation, so I wonder what the logic was in regards to their selection, but perhaps that is just me. The (NAS) is more readable and more accurate in its use of modern day language and so is of greater value than the (KJV). After those two versions, I use the New King James Version (NKJ) which is a literal translation such as the (KJV) and probably more so than the (NAS). It has removed all of the thee's and thou's and ye's from the (KJV) and uses modern English words and phrases in place of those in the (KJV) that were archaic and confusing as to their meaning. The King James Version, New American Standard and the New King James version are three literal translations that can be compared with each other, and provide a very good basis for understanding the Scripture. I also use the New International Version (NIV), which I find helpful in many instances. It is not a literal translation in the manner of the (KJV), but more like a translation based on ideas, so the words used do not necessarily correspond to the (KJV), (NKJ) or (NAS) and it may reflect some bias in the translation. It is very readable and I believe the (NIV) is the most popular translation in use today. I do not use paraphrase versions, which are primarily New Testament, because they very often stray from the original meaning of the text and incorporate the particular bias of the editor or make an appeal to the reader by presenting the Scripture as something that it is not or making the Scripture to be reflective of current social views in order to make it seem more "relevant" to today's society. That is not true of every paraphrased version, but it is a general idea to keep in mind. There is no particular reason to use a paraphrase version if other more properly done versions are available, and doctrinal positions should not be supported by the use of a paraphrase version.. There are some translations that should not be considered, because they have been created with a hidden agenda. 1. The most famous of this type of translation would be the New World Translation (NWT) done by the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not actually a translation, in the traditional sense (although a translation was apparently done), but is more like a redaction in which the words selected are designed to present the meaning that will support the pre-determined Jehovah's Witness doctrinal beliefs. That type of a translation is, in reality, a deception that hides under the pretense of scholarship. In a number of instances, the same word in the original language is translated differently, in order to support Jehovah's Witness doctrine, which, if the word was translated the same in each text, would reveal the particular doctrine to be in error. 2. Another translation, probably the most infamous, would be the recently released Today's New International Version (TNIV), which has as its sole reason to exist, an attempt to present current social beliefs as having been the original intent and text of the Bible. So, the translators have made it gender neutral, redefined those verses pertaining to the references noting God as being male, have muted the prohibitions in the original texts against homosexuality and have incorporated the radical feminist and homosexual agenda as part of the narrative. That is a not-so-hidden agenda, but what the translators have also attempted to do is create a belief that the Bible is not authoritative and can be said to mean whatever definition a belief system assigns. Of course, the translators would say that this does not apply to the original meaning of the text, or the beliefs of those who would uphold the original meaning of the text, which they would reject. This is not a translation, but a deception in relation to the original text. Reading that particular version will only deceive a person into believing that the Bible says what it does not. Changing words and ideas will not change the original intent and meaning of the Scripture as given by God, and the consequent responsibility of people to understand and accept what was originally written and intended. With this version, Zondervan Publishers have abandoned their historic affirmation of the Scriptures, shown their complete contempt for any claim of biblical accuracy, and, instead, have opted to make a monetary profit on a deliberately corrupted version of the Bible. 3. A somewhat obscure translation which is not actually a translation, is the Joseph Smith Inspired Version (JSIV). Joseph Smith was the organizer, first prophet, seer and president of the Mormon church, recognized as such by the (RLDS) and (LDS) churches. The version was printed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS), which split from the (LDS) church after the death of Joseph Smith. Parts of the (JSIV) have also been used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) but the entire version has not been canonized by them. Joseph Smith did not do an actual translation, but he used the English version of the Phinney Bible, King James Version 1611, and claimed that he translated by "inspiration" given to him by God. Although he claimed that the King James Bible had been radically changed (books added and books removed by corrupt Catholic priests), he did not restore any lost books in his "translation" and removed only one book, the Song of Solomon, which he claimed was not inspired. He changed numerous verses throughout the Bible and conveniently added a verse that referenced his own name in the book of Genesis, something not supported by any manuscript evidence that exists. When translations or versions are used that are presented by a specific organization, in which their particular doctrines are inserted into the text by the clever use of words not original to the meaning of the text, then that version is suspect as to its accuracy and should be avoided. by Gary A. Hand On Doctrine ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: On this website: The Importance And Advantage Of A Thorough Knowledge Of Divine Truth - Jonathan Edwards What Is Biblical Discernment And Why Is It Important? - Grace To You A Call For Discernment - John F. MacArthur Directions How To Hear Sermons - George Whitefield The Duty Of Searching The Scriptures - George Whitefield The Biblical Position On The KJV Controversy - Grace Community Church |
|
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |