Mid-week Devotional
Which Bible Version?
Pastor Wes
Join our Facebook page to keep in touch.
Hey church, first of all, I apologize this video will be a little longer than I intend our midweek Devotional or prayer emphasis to be, but we’re going to talk about a super important issue that has come up a bunch recently- and I believe what I’m sharing with you will be super helpful to you. Listen at 1.5 speed if it helps. So, what’s the big deal over bible versions? Is one version better or more accurate than another? This is actually a really a complicated subject, one that could be debated over for hours, but I’m going to do my best to quickly give you some things to consider concerning versions of the Bible.
The first thing you must realize is that the original texts of our modern-day Bible, consisted of Hebrew in the Old Testament (with a little bit of Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra due to the Assyrian invasion), and then Greek in the new testament. So, if anyone ever tells you of their particular Bible version- “If it was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me” they probably could stand to learn a little more about the history of Bible translation.
Now, surprising to many, is the fact that we don’t actually have any of the original manuscripts from which we have composed our modern Bible. Instead, we have copies of the originals. The originals probably eventually wore out, or were destroyed in some of Israel’s wars. Now, before you get skeptical, let me tell you that it was serious business during Biblical times, for the scribes in their work of copying God’s word. Their lives were devoted to the work, and there were many who copied it over and over. They were the printing presses of the day. Because of their work, there have been found thousands of manuscripts of the books/letters/scrolls comprising the Old and New Testament.
Now among these manuscripts, there is some variation. When compared one to another, some are missing this particular sentence, or one has added a clarifying sentence, or another might stick out as showing a human error in copying- when compared to the other hundred that did dot the “i” and cross the “t.” (Again- the Bible wasn’t written in English, the “i” and the “t” analogy is just an analogy) Using archeological clues, the manuscripts can be dated as being older, or newer, and can be pegged into a particular period of history. And what Bible translators do, is they compare all these manuscripts, and using the wealth of copies and historical and archeological information, they have been able to say with confidence, this is what was written in the original manuscripts. And over time, we have found more and more biblical manuscripts, and they have continued to help us fine tune our English versions of the Bible.
Back in the day, Hebrew and Greek texts were translated into Arabic, Syriac, Latin, German, etc, and in the 1500s, finally into English with the Geneva Translation. Then the King James Version followed in 1611. There are many who say this 1611 KJV is the best version, and any other modern version is heretical, or corrupted. Modern versions of the Bible have attempted to accomplish 2 goals- the first being to translate the Hebrew and Greek into a more commonly spoken English than was spoken in 1611. The “thees,” “thous,” and “shalts” are traded for words we actually use today, and some of the clunky sentence structure has been changed so that it reads more like the way we speak and read things today. I appreciate this. Those who imagine themselves as purists by reading only the KJV must realize that they would need to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in order to really be a purist. We don’t expect everyone to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in order to read and understand the Bible- so we translate. We don’t expect someone who speaks French to understand 1611 English in order to read the Bible, so we translate. Likewise, you might make a case that someone from 2020 in the USA speaks a different English than 1611 English, so- we translate, into the common language of the reader.
The second goal of modern Bible translations is twofold. Translators aim to either dive deeper into the library of historic manuscripts and new archeological discoveries of historic manuscripts and come up with a more accurate word for word translation of the Bible than even the KJV, or they aim to dive deeper into the idea of producing a more accurate thought for thought translation. What does this mean? Well, Hebrew and Greek sentence structure is very different than English sentence structure- it is much different than even 1611 English sentence structure. If you’ve seen Yoda in any of the Star Wars movies, you’ve seen an example of someone who speaks using a different sentence structure. Yoda says “Ready are you?” and we take those original words and translate it in our own minds to mean “Are you ready?” Is the meaning different? No. And this gets really complicated when you’re not just moving around word order, but you’re also having to translate each word from one language to another. If you’ve never learned another language, you might not realize how complicated this idea of translation can get. Let me give you an example.
There’s a phrase in Arabic (a language very similar in structure and nature to Hebrew) that goes like this “Fi mileh bayna.” 3 words. If I translate this phrase word for word directly into English, it is: There salt between us. So in English there are 4 words, compared to the 3 word from the original language phrase. Why? Arabic (like Hebrew and Greek) is constructed differently. The word bayna is composed of 2 roots: between (bayn) and us (na). Then "is" is already implied by the single word fi. So now we're up to 5 words when we started out with 3. "There is salt between us."
So, we have already lost a perfect word for word translation. Let's try to understand the words. These are all simple words. You should be able to know what I'm talking about, right? If I said "there is salt between us" to you, you would probably look at me real strangely, knowing the words, and what each word means, but not understanding the meaning of the phrase. The point is that the intent and meaning behind the words is in fact even more important than the words themselves. Even if you understood culturally my intent/meaning behind the words, would someone reading them 2000 years later understand them?
In the context and culture of the middle east, in the 21st century, the phrase “fi mileh bayna” (There is salt between us) means: “we are friends.” It means that we sit at the same table, and enjoy meals together as family, passing the salt between us as we fellowship over meals. Now what has more value? The words "There is salt between us?" or the meaning/translation I have just revealed to you? Would you rather read in your bible "There salt between us" or "We are friends"?
My point is that translation is very complicated moving from one language to another. Just a single 3 word phrase was complicated, can you imagine the thousands of words contained in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? And realize specific things were said to a specific culture in a specific time, that carried a specific meaning to that culture in that time. As bible scholars, we can't just rip an ancient Hebrew word and put in its place what we imagine to be an English equivalent, and translate each sentence that way. No, many more layers are involved. In translation, it is absolutely necessary to consider the original meaning, as we attempt to translate things with word for word accuracy. (and again- due to the nature of languages, it is impossible to translate word for word with 100% accuracy and have it make sense to any English speaker)
Here’s a real life Biblical example: Exodus 34:6, God is described as slow to anger. The KJV translates this characteristic as “longsuffering.” The original phrase comes from two Hebrew words, ‘erek meaning long and ‘appayim the word for nostrils. What? Someone with anger, in that time was described as one with hot nostrils. You think of a dragon snorting out fire in his anger. And so God is described, in the original languages, as one who has “long nostrils.” In other words, it takes time for His angry fire to move through His nostrils to be displayed. In our quest for Bible translation accuracy, there isn’t a single version that translates that verse as “God is long in nostril.” Rather, wisely, they translate the phrase as longsuffering, patient, or slow to anger.
Take a look at this chart I found online-This shows you the different versions we have available and how they range from word to word accuracy over to thought for thought accuracy. If you are a stickler for one particular version, I would encourage you not to be so biased, and be willing to read from another version, but you must realize the intent behind each version. Each version could be considered a different type of tool. Maybe I could compare the versions to motorcycles. Some are designed to go really fast and enjoy the quick ride. And then in contrast, some embody the more traditional original motorcycle design, and are to be taken slow and the details of the open air and exhaust rumble enjoyed. Then there are bikes with 3 wheels, designed for beginners or those who want to feel safer. Concerning Bibles, I study and teach from the NASB, because it’s considered by most scholars to be the most accurate word for word translation- it’s like a slow cruiser ride where I enjoy the details. But, I have read through the entire Bible several times using the NLT version because it reads really easily, and I found that I could read more, and more quickly to get a swooping bird’s eye view of the Bible in its entirety, with this racing, super sport motorcycle NLT version. My kids are reading the New International Readers Version, because they can actually read it- it’s in easy 3-wheel motorcycle language. And as they mature, and learn, they will graduate to more word for word accurate Bible translations.
Many grew up memorizing the KJV, and that version is great for memorization. The New King James Version (NKJV) attempts to keep the same word order as the KJV, but replaces “Thou” with “You.” I would never teach a church from the Message Bible (MSG), but it is cool from time to time to read from because it’s wording often causes you to see a familiar passage from a different perspective.
My point is, we need to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the different translations we have been blessed with, and recognize them for their intent. They will each read slightly differently, but trust me- they are not going to differ so much as to lead you astray concerning who God is, who Jesus is, what one must do to be saved. One’s not going to say Jesus is the Son of God, and the other say He isn’t. One’s not going to say salvation is by grace alone and the other it is by works. One’s not going to say Jesus arose from the grave and the other He stayed dead. The variations in the source manuscripts are very, very minor. And if you stumble upon a critical verse you are wrestling with, then I would challenge you to look up that verse in different translations as you attempt to uncover the true meaning and original intent. Biblehub.com is an amazing free online resource, where you can go verse by verse seeing all the English translations parallel to one another, and you can even click on the Hebrew or Greek, to see the original language wording and how it corresponds to our English words. Even despite the older English, sometimes the KJV expresses the original meaning better than what I read in the NASB, and sometimes the NASB has the better translation.
An argument that I have heard before is that the KJV is the only version based from the majority texts source of Antioch, and the rest of the versions are based off of the minority text source of Alexandria. These 2 text sources refer only to the New Testament portion of the Bible. By majority, we are saying that we have the most copies- found in what was the Greek city of Antioch- and these manuscript copies have been dated as being written later in history. In contrast, by minority texts, we mean we have found a lesser number of copies- these manuscripts being found in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, and these copies have been dated as being older than the Antioch scripts. Some defendants of KJV only, would say that the majority texts are more accurate because there’s more of them, and Antioch was a good Christian city- in contrast to the minority texts that were found in the evil Egyptian city of Alexandria. But you could probably make an argument for both texts- the majority might be more accurate because they were more widely circulated (more copies), or maybe the minority texts are more accurate because they were the earlier more original version. What modern translators have done, is compared both groupings of manuscript copies, and have translated using both sources- the majority and minority texts. Perhaps you have seen in your Bible- the NIV often does this- there’s a foot note saying these particular verses were not found in earlier manuscripts. Or there’s a footnote saying later manuscripts added the word “such in such” in this verse. The translators of the NIV are not trying to fool anyone, or rob the KJV of verses, or trick anyone into following Satan, they are trying to be honest in their assessment of what the original manuscripts most likely said.
As you choose a Bible translation, or translations, I would encourage you to have grace with others who might prefer to read from a different translation. Realize that this is a complex issue, with many layers, and unless you can read ancient Hebrew and Greek AND you have discovered all the original manuscripts, then don’t consider yourself a purist who reads the best and only proper version. And whatever version you land on- read, study, and absorb it! I realize in this video I’ve only scratched the surface on this issue, but as always, feel free to reach out with any questions. Love you church!