Questions about Bible Translations
By Keith Greer

Does it matter which Bible translation one uses? Are all translations the same? Many issues are facing the Lord's church in the twenty-first century; but none are more vital than this particular issue. I think we have established a solid case, without reservation--we have God's word. Is this sufficient? Can we be certain that every book with the words THE HOLY BIBLE stamped on its cover is a good copy? Do all Bible translations exhibit equal reverence and respect for the holy sacred writings? How can we know that nothing has been lost, altered, or added during the translation process? Do all translations follow the same guidelines? Are some better than others? If so, why? We will endeavor to answer these questions.

The words "translation" and "transliteration" are often confused.

  1. Translation-"The rendering of an oral or written composition from one language to another."

  2. Transliteration-"The rendering of the letters of one language into the corresponding letters of another language."

    1. Example: The English translation of the Greek word "angelos" is "messenger;" but it is transliterated as "angel." Also, "euangelion" is translated, "gospel," but transliterated "evangel," as in evangelize or evangelist.

  3. Revision-A revision occurs when an earlier literary work is revisited, with a view toward improving it. The King James Version is not really a translation from the original Greek and Hebrew; rather, it is a revision of earlier English translations.

The importance of the subject of translations. The gospel was revealed at a time when the universal language and culture was Greek. The New Testament was written in the common language of the day--Greek. It was not God's intention that the gospel be experienced only through proclamation, preaching, and teaching. He also wanted each individual to study it for himself. Bible truths are the same, no matter what the language in which they are stated. God does not require us to learn the original languages. When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, many spoke Aramaic as their primary language. When Ezra and the priests read the law publicly, it was necessary for them to translate it from Hebrew to Aramaic (Nehemiah 8:8).

Jesus and the New Testament writers often quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament--the Septuagint. The Septuagint translation was completed during the third century B.C. According to tradition, the translation was the work of 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt; thus, its name and the abbreviated form, LXX. The Septuagint translation met the needs of the Jews who lived in regions outside Palestine and who were not fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Greek culture had spread as a byproduct of the conquests of Alexander the Great. In Matthew 22:31,32, Jesus based His argument on the tense of the verb "AM" found in the LXX at Exodus 3:6. He demonstrated that when we have a good translation, we still have God's word. Today, we still have a faithful translation.

Ancient translations of the Bible:

  1. Septuagint: The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, commonly denoted LXX. The work was done in Alexandria, Egypt between 250 and 150 B.C. After the time of Christ, because the LXX was commonly used among Christians, the Jews forsook it and made new Greek translations.

  2. Syriac Peshitta: An Aramaic translation of both testaments, probably the first done by early Christians (Old Testament completed in second century A.D.). The Antioch church in Syria (Acts 11:26) was a hub for early evangelistic efforts.

  3. Coptic Versions: Translations into Egyptian. (By the first century, Coptic had replaced hieroglyphics.)

  4. Ethiopic Version: There is evidence of a translation into the Ethiopian language. Remember, the Ethiopian chamberlain in Acts 8:26-39.

Consider also the Latin Vulgate. Latin, being the official language of the Roman government, and the language of the marketplace, at least in the West, Latin translations sprang up early, certainly well before A.D. 200. We have the MSS, or what is commonly known as the Old Latin version of the New Testament, which dates from the fourth century. By the fourth century A.D., there were so many diverse Latin texts that in 382, Damascus, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, commissioned Jerome to revise the Old Latin text. The work was done in installments, the gospel being completed in 383. By 405, the entire Bible was complete. Jerome's translation, the Vulgate, gained wide acceptance, and not only was the only Bible of the Middle Ages, but also served as the basis for most modern translations before the nineteenth century.

English translations of the Bible:

  1. John Wycliffe was responsible for the first translation of the entire Bible into English. Other translations of the gospels, Psalms, etc., occurred prior to his work. The New Testament was completed in 1380, and the Old Testament in 1388. John Wycliffe died in 1382, so the Old Testament was actually completed by a man named Nicholas Hereford. Wycliffe's translation was based on the Latin Vulgate.

  2. William Tyndale returned to the original Greek and Hebrew when he made his English translation. The Catholic Church opposed his efforts, fearing that such translations into the English vernacular could weaken the Bible's influence. Nevertheless, Tyndale was the first to put into print, any part of the English Bible. He published the New Testament in 1526, the Pentateuch in 1530, Jonah in 1531, and worked on other portions of the Old Testament until 1536, when he was convicted of heresy and executed. Tyndale's version of the New Testament provided the basis for all successive revisions between his day and ours. The King James Version is really a fifth revision of Tyndale's work.

  3. Mike Coverdale, Tyndale's assistant and proofreader, was the first (1535) to publish a complete English Bible in printed form. He oversaw the printing of the Great Bible, so named because of its size, which was authorized in 1538 for use in English churches.

  4. Geneva Bible. Under John Knox's leadership, the Geneva Bible, the first English printing for the people, was published in 1557. It was printed on a smaller page, making it easier to handle, in Roman type, which was easier than Gothic to read. It was also the first that divided the text into verses. Shakespeare's Bible quotes and allusions were from this version.

  5. The Bishop Bible, a revision of the Great Bible, was published in 1568. This work of the Anglican Church bishops was considered a "safe" version for public reading. Although inferior to the Geneva Bible, it was the official basis for the 1611 King James version.

  6. The King James (Authorized) Version (KJV) was published (1603-1625) by order of King James I of England. The king ordered the work in response to the Protestant leaders' expressed desire for a version that would be acceptable to all church parties.

    Six companies, totaling 54 men, were assigned; though only 47 actually did the revision work. Two of the companies met at Cambridge (1 Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Apocrypha), two at Oxford (Isaiah-Malachi, Gospels, Acts, and Revelation), and two at Westminster (Genesis-2 Kings, Romans-Jude). The companies were instructed to base the revision on the Bishop Bible, but to use the other English translations (Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva) when they agreed with the text. Several factors contributed to this effort's huge success.

    • The revisers were choice scholars and linguists of their day, as well as pious individuals.
    • A century of biblical study, namely the efforts of Tyndale and others, was devoted to the translations upon which the work was based.
    • The revision was written in a lofty, eloquent style characteristic of the literary atmosphere of that age. The ASV, NAS, and NKJV are all revisions of the King James text.
      Note: In reality, the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), upon which the KJV is based, has the strongest possible claim to being an authentic representation of the original text.

Consider the following statement by Princeton University Professor Robert Dick Wilson, PhD, an unequaled scholar and master of 45 ancient languages. "For 45 years continuously since I left college, I have devoted myself to one great study of the Old Testament in all of its languages, in all of its archaeology, in all its translations, and as far as possible, everything bearing upon its text and history...Professor Wilson, having long and thoroughly examined the evidence on which the destructive critics base their conclusions, found it utterly worthless. His conclusion: The evidence in our possession has convinced me that 'at sundry times and in divers manners, God spoke unto our fathers through the prophets,' and that the Old Testament in Hebrew, being immediately inspired by God, has by His singular care and providence been kept pure in all ages."

Other Bible translations:

Are they all good translations? In determining the best manuscript evidence to use in the Bible-translation process, there are two distinct camps. "There are two clusters or camps, and these camps differ substantially from each other. In very broad and over-simplified terms, one camp generally follows the large majority (Between 80-90%) of the MSS which are in essential agreement among themselves but which do not date from the fifth century A.D. While the other camp generally follows a small handful (less than 10%) of the earlier (from the third, fourth, and fifth centuries) MSS which not only disagree with the majority, but also disagree among themselves. The second camp has been in control of the scholarly world for the past 100 years." (The New Testament Text, Wilbur N. Pickering, pg.16) Let's examine these two camps more closely.

Wescott/Hort Text of 1881. B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort convinced the English revisers to throw out the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), and adopt in its place their own Greek text (basically composed of two manuscripts, Aleph and B). This continues to influence Bible translations. Beginning with the 1901 ASV texts, followed by the RSV, NEB, TEB, NASV, and NIV, along with many others, they have completely ignored the Majority Text. It has been said that there are more than 5,000 differences between the Majority Text and the Wescott/Hort Text. Some estimate the differences to be as high as 30,000!

Textus Receptus, The Majority Text. The Erasmus text, published in 1516, was the first Greek text. Later, it became the basis for what was to be known as the Textus Receptus. This is the text that was used in translating the KJV and the NKJV. Some claim that the Textus Receptus was the only text used in translating the KJV, but this is not true. These also claim that Erasmus had only a few (six) copies of the eleventh-century MSS from which to work. He did have only a few of the late manuscripts, but let it be known that over 5,000 portions of the Greek MSS are extant, and they constitute 80% to 90% of all texts available to date!

The Good News for Modern Man and the The Living Bible are not translations; rather, they are "paraphrased" Bibles. For example:

Do you see the difference? The Living Bible would have the Bible teach that angels and humans were reproducing! Yet, this violates the Lord's teaching in Matthew 22:29,30-angels have no need for marriage-they are incapable of having flesh-and-blood relationships.

Here, they interject "faith alone" teaching in the text. Romans 16:16 speaks of the "churches of Christ." The Living Bible has only "churches." In 2 Timothy 4:1, Paul wrote about the Lord "appearing and His kingdom." The Living Bible speaks of His "appearing to set up His kingdom," leaving the impression that the kingdom is yet to come. In 1 Peter 3:21, the Living Bible says: "in baptism we have shown that we have been saved," thus denying the saving power of baptism. I think we can see the problem.

Some Bibles, to help the readers, add headings to the text. For example: Revelation 20:4-"...And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." {NASV} The heading over this passage in the Living Bible: Millennial Reign of Christ. Remember, headings, commentaries, and references are NOT inspired; men added them. Often, by reading the reference notes and headings used in some Bibles, you can see where different faiths get their doctrines.

One newer translation is the New World Translation (NWT). In it, Hebrews 9:27 reads: "And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time,.." This reading could be used to deny the "second death," eternal punishment in Hell. In the NWT, Acts 20:7 reads: "On the first day of the week, when we gathered together to have a meal..." This passage, then, becomes useful in defending fellowship halls and social meals paid for by the church. The text says the disciples came together on the first day of the week "to break bread," a reference to the Lord's Supper, not to a common meal. Taking such liberties destroys the true teaching of the text, but helps to support human error.

Recently, another "helpful" translation, the Easy-to-Read Translation, came to market. In this translation, Acts 2:47 reads: "...The Lord was adding those people to the group of believers." Notice that the word "church" is omitted. This promotes the false notion that, in order to be saved, men need only to believe in God-not be part of any "particular" church.

Another passage, 1 Corinthians 7:15, says: "...let that person leave. When this happens, the brother or sister in Christ is free..." Some brethren will love this translation. It supports the false teaching that there is another reason (besides adultery) for divorce that permits remarriage. Such conclusions contradict Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19.

One more from James 2:14: "...if a person says he has faith, and does nothing. Can faith like that save him? No!" A study of the passage reveals that the original reading does not contain the answer (no) to the question asked in the text. Also, the translator took the liberty of defining a "certain type of faith" that is condemned as being wrong. All this is done to support the erroneous "faith only" doctrine.

Other modern perversions:

The Cotton Patch Version, a Bible written in street language. A quote, from Acts 2:36,38: "The Boss said to my boss, be my right hand man while I put your opponents under control: Therefore, let all America know beyond any doubt that God has made that same Jesus whom you lynched, both President and Leader...Rock said to them, reshape your lives and let each of you be initiated into the family of Jesus Christ so your sin can be dealt with; and you will receive the free gifts of the Holy Spirit." This is tame compared to some of the other passages in this translation.

Then of course, there's the Satanic Bible. Following is a quote from the Sermon on the Mount: "Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on the cheek, smash him with the other! Smite him from hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law. He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!" Such so-called translations are little more than blasphemy.

I hasten to add that we need to exercise caution when using the New International Version (NIV), the most popular translation of our time. Consider three examples from the NIV.

A babe in Christ, or one who is immature in knowledge of the Scriptures, can easily be led into error by this translation. By the way, during the Crossroads, Boston Movement, and now, the International Church of Christ cults in the church, the Bible of preference was and is the New International Version.

A translation does nothing more than translates the original language (Hebrew or Greek) into another language so it can be read and understood. I believe we have clearly shown that, during the translation process, some have taken too many liberties. God wants us to understand HIS MIND (Ephesians 5:17)! A Bible translation cannot be considered true if the translators take liberties that change the meaning of the original text.


Go Back to our Main Page