Bible Translations (Help)

[MW]

I agree with you that describing it as harsh is too strong. But I think that we should be gentle to the tender consciences of young Christians in an area that is a real challenge for those recently converted. Whatever version we advocate, we should in that situation be careful to qualify our recommendation with a recognition that there is a substantial range of excellent translations, rather than burdening new believers with extra rules.

Sure. But my comment relates to the assessment of people saying harsh things.

Of course, this is the real necessity. And yet.... If a new Christian has started to go to church that uses, say, the, ESV, and hears that this is a terrible translation, will they not end up doubting the orthodoxy and fidelity of their church, and be tempted to abandon it? That's not a hypothetical question, it's the kind of issue that one runs into quite regularly with young men particularly.

I don't see how this is a problem. The reality of division exists. In every other case we train people to understand the differences and why one chooses the position that has been taken. There is no reason to create a "safe space" when it comes to this particular issue. If those who advocate for certain versions do not feel their case is strong enough to defend it they might want to have a fresh look at it for themselves.

Which doctrines do you have particularly in mind? Perhaps I'd have better phrased it as no dogma depends on which translation you use, but that's a loaded term. Certainly I struggle to think of any doctrinal variety that's significant to a new Christian, even if there are nuances for those delving deeper. Once someone has read their Bible a few times they can fret about those issues. Any doctrine that hangs on a single verse is less central by definition, as well.

If a new Christian is sitting under the ministry of the Word he should be taught the whole counsel of God, not given a watered down version of the reformed faith. The reason why there is so much doubt and anxiety is because souls are not being taught the faith. Instead they are left to work out things for themselves.

I have many doctrines in mind. Nearly every chapter in the Confession of Faith is challenged by modern versions. Three that readily come to mind from the Confession itself is the whole section on the use of "testament" in the covenant of grace, the lamb of God being slain from the beginning of the world, and the only begotten Son. I could go on as I have a whole notepad of them.

 

[davejonescue]

The problem seems though, that even if someone were to take a newer Christian by the hand, and go over it step by step, every detail about a translation (or which one is the best,) it will still ultimately be the opinion of the person taking them by the hand, and this does little in the age of the internet where every single translation is contested to a certain degree. This may be the reason that there is a push for him to use the translation he is currently comfortable with, spending more time reading, and rereading the word, and less time going down the rabbit hole of which translation is "the one" out of them all. The ones he has mentioned, NIV84 and ESV, have been and are used by a variety of respected Pastors and Scholars.

 

[Pictet]

I don't see how this is a problem. The reality of division exists. In every other case we train people to understand the differences and why one chooses the position that has been taken. There is no reason to create a "safe space" when it comes to this particular issue.

There is an order of learning and catechesis. A new Christian should learn key doctrines before peripheral ones. It is more important to comprehend the meaning of the atonement than the order of the decrees, for instance. This is an issue like that. It is possible to be an excellent, well-trained, well-informed, Bible-loving Christian reading any of the translations in this thread - as indeed evidenced by the different posters who have contributed their thoughts. Should we train people in this issue? Absolutely! But not till they have a solid comprehension of other more significant issues. If they want to explore it, that's fine. But if they are simply asking for a recommendation of a Bible translation, then that is not the time to get into the more recondite aspects of textual criticism.

If those who advocate for certain versions do not feel their case is strong enough to defend it they might want to have a fresh look at it for themselves.

I'm mystified by this comment. I'm sure we're all capable of defending our chosen translations plenty strongly enough. I haven't personally weighed in on this, precisely because I think that it is unhelpful in this context. There are plenty other threads dealing with the merits and demerits of Bible translations in general, and it would be easy to start more.

If a new Christian is sitting under the ministry of the Word he should be taught the whole counsel of God, not given a watered down version of the reformed faith. The reason why there is so much doubt and anxiety is because souls are not being taught the faith. Instead they are left to work out things for themselves.

This is misleading. Again, there is an order of catechesis. Look at the catechetical works of our Reformed forebears, or the differing levels at which they wrote for different audiences. In order to build a building, you start with the foundation. In learning doctrine, you start also with the foundations. That's not a refusal to teach the whole counsel of God, or to water things down! Taller towers need deeper foundations!
And in this context, a newer Christian should be soaking in the word, not reading long arguments about textual criticism for which they are not yet equipped! And they should be wrestling through grace and sin and repentance and the death and resurrection of Christ, key aspects of anthropology, soteriology, the christian life and so on. That is precisely the way to learn the faith deeply and well.

I have many doctrines in mind. Nearly every chapter in the Confession of Faith is challenged by modern versions. Three that readily come to mind from the Confession itself is the whole section on the use of "testament" in the covenant of grace, the lamb of God being slain from the beginning of the world, and the only begotten Son. I could go on as I have a whole notepad of them.

The lamb slain is certainly the one that comes most easily to my own mind; even there surely the truth is one we can infer from the rest of scripture. But the others, are surely truths that are still derivable from the scriptures in any normal translation? The standard proof texts for the Confession might have been rendered problematic. But then, of course, the proof texts aren't an original part of the Confession, and the assembly did not wish to provide them!

It's a standard protestant, let alone reformed, exegetical principle that as Scripture interprets scripture, that critical doctrines do not hang on single verses. The Confession is highlighting things that arise from the whole teaching of scripture far more than individual verses. For instance, the suggestion that the modern translations don't support the idea that the Son is the 'only begotten' is simply a capitulation to modern exegetical traditions, not something that's actually dependent on the text. Just because a specific word is not present, does not mean that the idea is not present and taught deeply.

In other words I'm still not sure what substantial doctrines you mean, and am not persuaded by your point. Plenty people on this board read modern translations and seem to manage to be solidly reformed!

I love the KJV, even if it's not my translation of choice. But my own conviction is that a new Christian is more likely to miss key reformed doctrines because they can't really understand Paul as rendered in 17th-Century English than they are to go astray because of a few phrases that have been dropped. And that's a conviction I've gained from watching people try it! Give them a Bible in the language of the people (i.e. modern, i.e. any of the major ones), as the reformers would wish, and they will grow much faster. That's especially true of someone from an unchurched background where the whole Bible is new and difficult and exciting all at once.

 

[berechiah2025]

I've been doing something similar. But I think a good translation is the lsb. It's essentially I think or I heard the new NASB. Seems they didn't like the direction it went the last few updates.
So far I have tried it for a few months. I enjoyed what I read so far.
But ESV and 1984 version of niv isn't a bad choice

 

[Alex Moore]

Yes, comparing past iterations of the NASB, the LSB seems to match most closely with the 1977 edition. The two major differences being its transliteration of 'Yahweh' for the tetragrammaton, יהוה‎, of the Old Testament, and its consistent rendition of 'slave' for the New Testament's δοῦλος.

 

[MW]

There is an order of learning and catechesis. A new Christian should learn key doctrines before peripheral ones. It is more important to comprehend the meaning of the atonement than the order of the decrees, for instance. This is an issue like that. It is possible to be an excellent, well-trained, well-informed, Bible-loving Christian reading any of the translations in this thread - as indeed evidenced by the different posters who have contributed their thoughts. Should we train people in this issue? Absolutely! But not till they have a solid comprehension of other more significant issues. If they want to explore it, that's fine. But if they are simply asking for a recommendation of a Bible translation, then that is not the time to get into the more recondite aspects of textual criticism.

Your "order of learning" will not work in reality. The person reading the NIV or ESV will be indoctrinated by the footnotes in their view of textual criticism. As for your catechesis you will take them 6 questions into the Catechism and be faced with the fact that there is a key text missing.

This is misleading. Again, there is an order of catechesis. Look at the catechetical works of our Reformed forebears, or the differing levels at which they wrote for different audiences. In order to build a building, you start with the foundation. In learning doctrine, you start also with the foundations. That's not a refusal to teach the whole counsel of God, or to water things down! Taller towers need deeper foundations!

Yes, deeper foundations that will bear the superstructure. This means you want a Bible that is going to support your confessional theology.

The lamb slain is certainly the one that comes most easily to my own mind; even there surely the truth is one we can infer from the rest of scripture. But the others, are surely truths that are still derivable from the scriptures in any normal translation? The standard proof texts for the Confession might have been rendered problematic. But then, of course, the proof texts aren't an original part of the Confession, and the assembly did not wish to provide them!

This isn't a proof text. I chose it because it is in the very text of the Confession. The Revelation of John draws many points of biblical theology to a conclusion; and that conclusion is unique in many ways. I doubt you will find another place that says the same thing. You could prove part of the proposition from Heb. 13:8, but Rev. 13:8 is specific to the sacrificial lamb, and has its own thematic pointedness within the overall presentation of Revelation.

It's a standard protestant, let alone reformed, exegetical principle that as Scripture interprets scripture, that critical doctrines do not hang on single verses. The Confession is highlighting things that arise from the whole teaching of scripture far more than individual verses. For instance, the suggestion that the modern translations don't support the idea that the Son is the 'only begotten' is simply a capitulation to modern exegetical traditions, not something that's actually dependent on the text. Just because a specific word is not present, does not mean that the idea is not present and taught deeply.

You are changing the parameters by the introduction of the adjective "critical" to qualify doctrines. Young Christians learn more than critical doctrines. One only needs to spend some time in a modern commentary to see that doctrines are affected by text and exegesis. Again, if not the doctrine itself, the way it is stated, some component part of the doctrine , or the way it fits into the system will have to be adjusted. The catechist/teacher needs to understands this.

In other words I'm still not sure what substantial doctrines you mean, and am not persuaded by your point. Plenty people on this board read modern translations and seem to manage to be solidly reformed!

Look at the Westminster Confession's use of the word "testament." It is a direct statement about the use of the word in Scripture. Now try to find something that approximates to this statement in the NIV or ESV. You can't. They directly contradict the Confession.

Again, look at the only begotten Son. It does not appear in these Bibles. The Confession makes clear statements. These Bibles offer no Scriptural support for it. The statements are left hanging on thin air.

 

[berechiah2025]

Yes, comparing past iterations of the NASB, the LSB seems to match most closely with the 1977 edition. The two major differences being its transliteration of 'Yahweh' for the tetragrammaton, יהוה‎, of the Old Testament, and its consistent rendition of 'slave' for the New Testament's δοῦλος.

Your "order of learning" will not work in reality. The person reading the NIV or ESV will be indoctrinated by the footnotes in their view of textual criticism. As for your catechesis you will take them 6 questions into the Catechism and be faced with the fact that there is a key text missing.



Yes, deeper foundations that will bear the superstructure. This means you want a Bible that is going to support your confessional theology.



This isn't a proof text. I chose it because it is in the very text of the Confession. The Revelation of John draws many points of biblical theology to a conclusion; and that conclusion is unique in many ways. I doubt you will find another place that says the same thing. You could prove part of the proposition from Heb. 13:8, but Rev. 13:8 is specific to the sacrificial lamb, and has its own thematic pointedness within the overall presentation of Revelation.



You are changing the parameters by the introduction of the adjective "critical" to qualify doctrines. Young Christians learn more than critical doctrines. One only needs to spend some time in a modern commentary to see that doctrines are affected by text and exegesis. Again, if not the doctrine itself, the way it is stated, some component part of the doctrine , or the way it fits into the system will have to be adjusted. The catechist/teacher needs to understands this.



Look at the Westminster Confession's use of the word "testament." It is a direct statement about the use of the word in Scripture. Now try to find something that approximates to this statement in the NIV or ESV. You can't. They directly contradict the Confession.

Again, look at the only begotten Son. It does not appear in these Bibles. The Confession makes clear statements. These Bibles offer no Scriptural support for it. The statements are left hanging on thin air.

So are you recommending the NKJV or KJV? Dose this not contradict the very Important statement of only begotten Son.

I am usually a NKJV reader. But lately I am considering using the lsb
[automerge]1749498628[/automerge]

Your "order of learning" will not work in reality. The person reading the NIV or ESV will be indoctrinated by the footnotes in their view of textual criticism. As for your catechesis you will take them 6 questions into the Catechism and be faced with the fact that there is a key text missing.



Yes, deeper foundations that will bear the superstructure. This means you want a Bible that is going to support your confessional theology.



This isn't a proof text. I chose it because it is in the very text of the Confession. The Revelation of John draws many points of biblical theology to a conclusion; and that conclusion is unique in many ways. I doubt you will find another place that says the same thing. You could prove part of the proposition from Heb. 13:8, but Rev. 13:8 is specific to the sacrificial lamb, and has its own thematic pointedness within the overall presentation of Revelation.



You are changing the parameters by the introduction of the adjective "critical" to qualify doctrines. Young Christians learn more than critical doctrines. One only needs to spend some time in a modern commentary to see that doctrines are affected by text and exegesis. Again, if not the doctrine itself, the way it is stated, some component part of the doctrine , or the way it fits into the system will have to be adjusted. The catechist/teacher needs to understands this.



Look at the Westminster Confession's use of the word "testament." It is a direct statement about the use of the word in Scripture. Now try to find something that approximates to this statement in the NIV or ESV. You can't. They directly contradict the Confession.

Again, look at the only begotten Son. It does not appear in these Bibles. The Confession makes clear statements. These Bibles offer no Scriptural support for it. The statements are left hanging on thin air.

Also if you don't mind. What problems with the ESV per say is loosely worded or maybe not done right that it isn't in accordance with the catechism. Where the KJV Version dose. (I assume this by my previous comment. Do U prefer the KJV)

I could be wrong but I do genuinely want to know. You gave a very deep answer I kinda (being honest) don't understand because if my lack of knowledge.

I am interested to learn.
Thanks

 

[Alex Moore]

So are you recommending the NKJV or KJV? Dose this not contradict the very Important statement of only begotten Son.

I am usually a NKJV reader. But lately I am considering using the lsb
[automerge]1749498628[/automerge]

Also if you don't mind. What problems with the ESV per say is loosely worded or maybe not done right that it isn't in accordance with the catechism. Where the KJV Version dose. (I assume this by my previous comment. Do U prefer the KJV)

I could be wrong but I do genuinely want to know. You gave a very deep answer I kinda (being honest) don't understand because if my lack of knowledge.

I am interested to learn.
Thanks

Hi, Berechiah! I am unsure as to whether the first part of your comment is directed at Rev. Winzer or myself.

If intended for me, and in answer to your first question, please see my response to Jimmy below. Also, both the KJV and NKJV (in accord with the confessions) properly render the Greek term μονογενής as 'only begotten.'

If you are asking my opinion of the LSB, though I applaud it for its employment of formal equivalence, I would not ultimately recommend it for textual, ecclesiastical, and literary reasons. If you are not asking my opinion, please ignore this.

Grace and peace!

Hi Jimmy, I'm delighted to hear that you're walking with the Lord! Before suggesting an English translation, I would recommend you keep two points in mind.

First, that certain portions of holy scripture are difficult to understand, and that this is not necessarily due to the quality of a given translation, but rather, to the underlying text itself. The apostle Paul, for example, lays out many concepts in his epistles which are explained in lengthy, (and what we may refer to today as) run-on sentences. There are also field-specific terms used throughout the Bible, for temple instruments, architectural features, fishing, agriculture, etc. As well as precise soteriological terminology, like justification, sanctification, or propitiation.

A biblical translation ought to convey these concepts and words accurately to the reader, and to avoid interpreting, or smoothing over, the text as much as possible. The more 'dynamic' (or, thought-for-thought) the translation, the more human assumptions enter the text. This is not to say that man's interpretations are always wrong, but simply to recognize the reality inherent to dynamic equivalent translations (e.g., NLT, NIV, MSG).

Secondly, the Lord intends, first and foremost, that we learn to understand the scriptures in a communal setting, as part of the church. The most important scriptural reading you intake each week is on the Lord's day, hearing your pastor(s) herald the word. This is the primary way that the Lord has determined to convey his words to the hearts of his people.

Translations available in a vulgar tongue (e.g., English, Spanish, German) are an absolute blessing from God, and edify us throughout the week. However, our expectation when reading privately, should not be complete and total ease of comprehension. Again, certain portions of the Bible are just plain difficult to understand. This is not a problem in need of fixing, but an eternal truth in need of growing into. Within the word, there is milk, and there is meat. So, if something in a non-NIV translation does not make immediate sense, do not be discouraged; you are not alone. I am right there with you.

Having clarified this, I would strongly recommend a formal equivalence (or, word-for-word) translation. In English today, these include: the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Also, due to the ever-changing nature of modern textual and translational approaches, as you mentioned, I would also highly recommend using a translation from the traditional text, meaning, one rendered wholly from the Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts. These include the KJV and the NKJV.

Now, for reasons of maximal accuracy, literary beauty, and ecclesiastical responsibility, I would encourage English-speaking Christians to use the KJV. The NKJV is an excellent translation, however, it is comparatively inferior to its predecessor in these areas.

To reiterate, if something does not make sense during study, it is okay. Seek explanation from your pastor, and from those men more mature in the faith, whether they be local brethren, or reliable, reformed commentators of the past. Do not assume everything will make immediate sense. We grow into the scriptures throughout our Christian race.

In closing, I would be more than happy to clarify any one of these points further, provide resource links so that you can read more about the topic on your own, if desired, or answer any follow-up questions you may have. I pray that this is helpful. Grace and peace, brother!

 

[MW]

So are you recommending the NKJV or KJV? Dose this not contradict the very Important statement of only begotten Son.

The KJV (or AV). John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." 1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him."

Also if you don't mind. What problems with the ESV per say is loosely worded or maybe not done right that it isn't in accordance with the catechism. Where the KJV Version dose. (I assume this by my previous comment. Do U prefer the KJV)

There are many places. I am sorry but I don't have time to list them all. Two clear examples that come to mind for the Catechism are Q. 4, God is a Spirit, ESV. "God is spirit," Jn. 4:24; and the doxology of the Lord's prayer, which is omitted in the ESV.

 

[berechiah2025]

Hi, Berechiah! I am unsure as to whether the first part of your comment is directed at Rev. Winzer or myself.

If intended for me, and in answer to your first question, please see my response to Jimmy below. Also, both the KJV and NKJV (in accord with the confessions) properly render the Greek term μονογενής as 'only begotten.'

If you are asking my opinion of the LSB, though I applaud it for its employment of formal equivalence, I would not ultimately recommend it for textual, ecclesiastical, and literary reasons. If you are not asking my opinion, please ignore this.

Grace and peace!

Yes I was asking you. That's a very good point! Thanks for sharing. I'll look into it. I was struggling before with versions in the past. But I will definitely look at your post a. Compare too.

I do love my NKJV

Thanks again
[automerge]1749584737[/automerge]

The KJV (or AV). John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." 1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him."



There are many places. I am sorry but I don't have time to list them all. Two clear examples that come to mind for the Catechism are Q. 4, God is a Spirit, ESV. "God is spirit," Jn. 4:24; and the doxology of the Lord's prayer, which is omitted in the ESV.

John 4 - KJV Parallel Bible

kjvparallelbible.org

This is very interesting what you have said. This website is from who is on YouTube called ward on words.
It seems he made website to compare manuscripts the Byzantine and Alexandrian

Strangely enough after website is correct both manuscripts show a spirit. I have logos and I will look at it later on but definitely "A" was in it should not have been left out.

Very interesting

Thanks for sharing

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I am neither a KJV only nor a TR only advocate. However...I consistently tell the congregation I serve to always have the KJV next to them when reading any other translation because of the second person pronoun issue in modern English. Contrary to popular thought, the use of “ye”, for example, in the KJV is very important. As for the NIV, I never recommend it; the awful translation of τη σαρκι μου as “my sinful nature” in Rom. 7.18, and then, τη δε σαρκι as “my sinful nature” in Rom. 7.25 disqualifies it for me. This is not nit-picking. But I am persnickety about Christians referencing themselves as “fallen”, when in reality they usually mean “finite”. Rom. 7 presents enough challenges without unwarranted and avoidable opacity.

 

[berechiah2025]

I am neither a KJV only nor a TR only advocate. However...I consistently tell the congregation I serve to always have the KJV next to them when reading any other translation because of the second person pronoun issue in modern English. Contrary to popular thought, the use of “ye”, for example, in the KJV is very important. As for the NIV, I never recommend it; the awful translation of τη σαρκι μου as “my sinful nature” in Rom. 7.18, and then, τη δε σαρκι as “my sinful nature” in Rom. 7.25 disqualifies it for me. This is not nit-picking. But I am persnickety about Christians referencing themselves as “fallen”, when in reality they usually mean “finite”. Rom. 7 presents enough challenges without unwarranted and avoidable opacity.

I think I understand.
Wording sinful nature is such a loose word that it nearly gets us off the hook. "It's not me it's my sinful nature."

But if you would not mine to elaborate a little more if you ever get time.

My church uses the niv 1984 version.
I hope they might change to the ESV or something like they. I don't see them going for NKJV to be honest.

Thanks again for the reply. Very informative and thaught provoking