The Bible Today

As a young Sunday school student, I remember being astounded to learn that the English language had not yet been spoken anywhere in the world when Jesus and his Apostles taught the Gospel — it hadn’t even been invented yet. On the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit allowed people from “every nation under heaven” to hear the message in their own language, English was not one of them. The Bible which we revere and believe to be the inspired word of God is, of course, a translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic1, and Greek Scriptures. This article will focus on English Bible translations and highlight questions to consider when selecting versions for personal study, public reading, and teaching/preaching.

A short history of the English Bible translations

The English language probably came into existence sometime during the 5th century, but it wasn’t until the 1380’s when the first hand-written English Bibles were produced by John Wycliffe. During these medieval times in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the translation of the Scriptures into the common languages of the people and only permitted priests to read the Latin Vulgate translation.2

After the fall of Constantinople by Muslim Turks in 1453, many Greek scholars fled to Western Europe with their Greek manuscripts because the Byzantine Empire, which had been a bastion of Christian culture, was now under a foreign power with a different religion.3The influx of Eastern scholars resulted in a desire among many to examine the Scriptures in their original form rather than in Latin (Wycliffe translated his Bible directly from the Latin Vulgate). By the 16th century, the availability of original language Biblical texts caused scholars to question the authority of the church. Aiding in the Reformation movement was the first printed compilation of Greek texts (based on 6 different manuscripts), published by Erasmus in 1516.

Less than 10 years later, this Greek edition was used by William Tyndale as the basis of the first English translation of the New Testament from Greek rather than from Latin. Additional Bibles soon followed, before the publication of the King James (or Authorized) Version in 1611. What distinguished this from the earlier printed Bibles was that it was the first to be produced by a committee of scholars. The King James Version went on to become the single most influential book in history and remains the version most commonly used by Christadelphians today.

The first major English version produced after the KJV took place in 1881 when the New Testament Revised Version was published. During the more than 250 years between versions, an abundance of original language manuscripts had been discovered and these were added to the source manuscripts used in the translation. Scholars as well as the brotherhood were eager to update obsolete and antiquated words, and remove questionable grammar.4Similar thoughts were expressed in the Preface to the Emphatic Diaglott, published around the same time. Benjamin Wilson wrote, “It is generally admitted by all critics that the Authorized or Common Version of the Scriptures absolutely need revision. Obsolete words, uncouth phrases, bad grammar and punctuation, etc., all require alteration. But this is not all. There are errors of a more serious nature which needs correction.”5

It seems that the release of the Diaglott and Revised Version made the brotherhood aware of past errors in translation. It is somewhat coincidental that the same year the complete Revised Version was published, Brother Roberts and the Birmingham ecclesia added a “Foundation Statement” to their statement of faith.6This clarification which addressed the full inspiration of Scripture included a wise comment about translation errors: “That the book currently known as the Bible… is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation.”7

Since the introduction of the Revised Version, an abundance of English Bible translations have been introduced. Notable modern versions include The Revised Standard Version — RSV (1946), The New American Standard Bible — NASB (1971), The New International Version — NIV (1981), The English Standard Version — ESV (2001), and the New English Translation — NET (2005). Like the King James Version before them, all these Bibles have certain biases and make interpretive translation decisions which they sometimes get wrong. Despite these challenges, God ensures that people can still learn the truth of the Gospel in their own language through the use of translations — errors and all.

There is Scriptural precedent for the use of Bible translations and this fact should reassure us. During Jesus’ ministry on earth, the Jewish Scriptures most widely used in Israel were not Hebrew copies, but was a Greek translation called the Septuagint, which was not an exact word-for-word translation of the Hebrew.8Despite this fact, the inspired writers of the New Testament often quoted Old Testament passages using the Septuagint version9demonstrating that God believed it was sufficiently near the original to be quoted in the inspired word. If this was the method used by the inspired writers, it is clear that in the eyes of God that translation from the original text is an acceptable use of His word.10

How to choose a Bible translation

With so many English Bibles available to us today, it is natural to wonder which is “the best” translation. The answer, of course, depends on who will be using it, and for what purpose. We use our Bibles for many purposes: daily reading, in-depth personal study, and for sharing the truth of the gospel with others. A Bible designed for general reading may have been translated with an emphasis on ease of comprehension, but this may come at the expense of accuracy. Similarly, a Bible that has extensive foot notes and center column references may be a good study Bible, but may be formatted in such a way that makes it is more difficult for some to read. A Bible that is ideally suited for preaching the gospel, likely won’t use words that need explaining or re-defining (e.g., “soul departed”, “go into hell”, etc.).

One of the best ways to understand which translation might be right for you is to read the publisher’s preface at the front of each Bible. Translations will usually include a preface that explains the translators’ approach and methodology for translating words and phrases from the original. The preface will also describe which source manuscripts were used, give information about who sponsored the translation, and share other pertinent information about that particular version. For example, some Bibles are the work of a single person and others are the work of a committee (preferred). What follows are six questions to help you understand differences in Bible translations.

Question 1: What is the Source used in the translation?

Some translations are just that; entirely new translations based upon the available Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Others are not translations, but revisions to existing English Bibles with additional reference to original language manuscripts. Here are some quotes from the preface section of various Bibles:

King James Version — The KJV was not a translation, but a revision of the Bishops’ Bible: “We never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation…, but to make a good one better.”

New American Standard Bible — The NASB is a revision of the ASV and KJV. “In 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.”

English Standard Version — The ESV is a revision of the 1971 Revised Standard Version: “The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work”.

New International Version — The NIV is a translation: “The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.”

New English Translation — The NET is also a translation: “The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original Biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.”

Question 2: What Original Language Manuscripts were used in the translation?

When the King James Version was created in 1611, the translators developed the English New Testament using a compilation of Greek texts from the Byzantine family of manuscripts that had been put together by Erasmus, a Dutch scholar. Erasmus’ compilation, known as Textus Receptus, was the best available at the time, however it was based on just six manuscripts, none of which was earlier than the tenth century.11Of the six manuscripts that Erasmus was able to use, only one of them had the Gospels and only one had part of Revelation (the missing part of Revelation was translated from Latin instead).12

In the 400 years since the publication of the King James Version, an abundance of additional source manuscripts have been discovered, some of which predate Erasmus’ texts by hundreds of years. Today, the New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. Now there are thousands of original language texts, many manuscripts of translation into Syriac, Egyptian and other ancient languages, and even New Testament quotations from early writings and letters. Modern Bibles, beginning with the Revised Version and Diaglott in the late 1800s have benefited from these discoveries. Translations introduced after 1979 use a compilation of texts known as the Nestle/Aland which makes use of 588 handwritten copies of the Greek New Testament, including all known manuscripts dating earlier than the 6th century.13

Not all documents are equally reliable, and since we no longer have the original texts (so called “autographs”) and instead rely on manuscript copies, it is necessary to evaluate the sources. Textual scholars refer to this process as Textual Criticism and its goal is to determine which ancient manuscripts are nearest to the original autographs. In general, older manuscripts are preferred and consequently some verses which are absent in earlier manuscripts are omitted from Modern Bibles and are instead relegated to footnotes. This is sometimes reassuring when, for example, the Modern Versions remove the erroneous “Comma Johanneum” from 1John 5:7-8 as seen in the KJV (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one). At other times some find it disconcerting, for example, when modern version like the ESV has a significantly shorter version of the Lord’s Prayer recorded in Luke than when compared to Matthew.

Question 3: What is the Translation Style and Methodology?

The goal of all Bible translations is to convey the meaning of the ancient texts as accurately as possible. Realize that professional lexicographers, translators, and commentators know more about the Bible and its original languages than even most ardent Bible students. Translators want the modern reader to come away with the same understanding of God’s message as the original hearers. Still, they don’t always get it right. There are a number of challenges to this objective which result in the differences between Bible translations. As we have seen, these variances are sometimes based on different source texts. Other challenges facing the translators include:

  • Hebrew and Greek words and phrases don’t always correspond precisely to English.
  • Sometimes words can have a wide range of meanings depending on the context. For example, the English word “trunk” can mean the front of an elephant, the back of a car, or the bottom of a tree.14
  • Phrases can sometimes carry idiomatic rather than literal meanings. We are familiar with English “Figures of Speech” (e.g., “she laughed her head off”, “he changed his mind”, etc.). Ancient Hebrew and Greek had similar idiomatic expressions which are often translated figuratively.
  • Some ancient words are little used and therefore difficult to interpret. Modern versions have sometimes benefited from archaeological and linguistic discoveries which make the meaning of these words clearer.

One of the most helpful developments in understanding the variances between Bible translations can be found in the extensive translator notes in the NET Bible. From the preface: “The translators and editors used the notes to show major interpretive options and/or textual options for difficult or disputed passages, so that the user knows at a glance what the alternatives are”.

Other variances between English translations can be attributed to the translation approach used by the translators. There are two basic translation styles: literal and dynamic equivalence.

The literal translation style uses a word-for-word approach and is concerned with keeping as closely as possible to the words and sentence structure of the original Hebrew and Greek. Because no two languages use words and grammar in exactly the same way, it is a practical impossibility to have a same word-for­same word translation. The Diaglott and Young’s Literal are probably the closest, but these are extremely difficult to read and are best used for study purposes. The New American Standard (NASB) advertises itself as a translation using the literal approach. “Ultimately, what separates the New American Standard Bible from the various available versions is that the NASB is a literal word-for-word translation from the original languages. In contrast, the others … place the highest priority on ease of reading and a lower priority on word-for-word preciseness.”

The Dynamic Equivalence style is more concerned with keeping the idiom and general meaning of the original by translating on a thought-for-thought basis. Some translations are freer with this approach than others. At one end of the dynamic equivalence spectrum is the King James Bible and at the other end is the New Living Translation. The NIV is said to be somewhere in the middle. Here is what the publishers of the NIV said about dynamic equivalence in the preface to the 2011 version. “The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the Biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the Biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures”.

The preface to the King James offers similar thoughts about its use of the dynamic equivalence style. “We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done.” One well known example of the KJV’s thought-for-thought approach is found in the phrase, “God forbid”. The original literally reads, “certainly not”, but the KJV translated the phrase using a figure of speech familiar to those in the 16th century.15

Question 4: Is this a translation or a paraphrase?

Paraphrase Bibles typically do not translate specific words, phrases, or the grammatical construction from Hebrew and Greek. Instead, a paraphrase Bible attempts to improve clarity by rewording passages to capture what the translator believes is the essence of the passage. The Message is an increasingly popular paraphrase written by Eugene Patterson. The publisher states, “The goal of The Message is to engage people in the reading process and help them understand what they read. This is not a study Bible, but rather a reading Bible.” As with all paraphrase Bibles, caution should be exercised. While a paraphrase might make a particularly difficult to understand passage make perfect sense, they sometimes accomplish that at the expense of accuracy.

Question 5: How is the translation formatted?

Different Bibles use different formats and this is largely a matter of personal preference. Some Bibles are written in paragraph form while others are in a verse­by-verse format. Some have extensive center column references while others do not. Pay attention to how the Bible identifies quotes from the Old Testament. Is it easy to see that the New Testament writer is quoting from the Old? Many modern versions format Biblical poetry as poetry, not prose. Some versions will include section headings that provide more detail than can be found in chapter headings alone.

Question 6: Are Complimentary Study aids available?

Years ago there were few complimentary study tools for anything but the King James Version. Exhaustive concordances like Strong’s were based on the KJV and this posed a difficulty for those using other translations. Advances in information technology have eliminated this concern. Free online multi-version concordances are easily accessible at sites like biblehub.com and blueletterbible.org. More robust online tools like Logos Bible software are available starting around US$250. While expensive, software is more cost effective than purchasing hard copies of all the tools available on Logos 6,16 for example. If you prefer holding a book, start with good Hebrew and Greek Lexicons for understanding the definition and meaning of the original.17 Modern lexicons are far superior to Strong’s very limited definitions. Additionally, a reverse interlinear can be particularly helpful. A reverse interlinear features the English phrasing as the top-line entry with the original language text beneath it. It makes it practical to use as an everyday Bible since the English lines of text are clear, readable and lucid. In contrast, a conventional interlinear provides the sentence structure of the original language on top with the English written below in an order that is not easy to read.

Concluding Thoughts

Sometimes controversies over Bible translations have arisen in our community. This need not be, especially when we recognize that all versions are imperfect in one way or another. The reality is that God’s saving truth can be discovered no matter which translation is used.

For those of us with a long history of using the King James Bible, it is important to acknowledge that some people find this version difficult to use and understand. If it is our desire to help our congregations, families and friends come to a better understanding of the Gospel, we should recognize and welcome modern versions which may prove to increase their comprehension of God’s Word. Similarly, for those of us who use modern versions, it is important that we empathize with those who have used the KJV all their lives. Many a brother and sister have memorized parts of the King James and take comfort at the familiar phrasing of favorite passages.

When Israel returned to Jerusalem after their captivity in Babylon, Ezra and the Levites gathered the people by in the city square so they could hear the Book of the Law read aloud. Scripture says, “They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading” (Neh 8:8, NASB). We should give thanks to God that we live in an age and in countries where God’s Book is available for us to read freely, and in our own language. Let us make the most of this opportunity.

  1. Aramiac is only used in about 250 verses in Daniel and Ezra.
  2. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.
  3. The Book We Call the Bible, By J. R. Ensey, Advance Ministries.
  4. The Christadelphian Magazine, volume 18 (1881) Brother Thirtle (pages 289-302).
  5. Benjamin Wilson, ‘Emphatic Diaglott’.
  6. Brother Mark Olsen, What Translation should we use? Companion Notes, February 2008. (To be found on the Internet).
  7. The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF).
  8. e g., Acts 15:17, Rom 9:33, Heb 1:6.
  9. “The translation of the Seventy ([LXX] dissenteth from the Original in many places…It is certain, that that [Septuagint] was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found…” The Translators o the Reader, Preface to the KJV 1611.
  10. Benjamin Wilson, ‘Emphatic Diaglott’.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Ibid.
  13. The current edition (in 2015) is the 28th edition: first published in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle.
  14. Many Versions? by Sakae Kubo and WalterF.Specht (Zondervan, 1983).
  15. Brother Mark Olsen, What Translation should we use? Companion Notes, February 2008. (To be found on the Internet).
  16. https://www.logos.com/basepackages.
  17. http://www.logosbiblesoftwaretraining.com/videos/reverse-interlinears/.