|
|
Have a question?? Submit a question
Only members can submit questions, if you are not a member, join now!
| I have a difference of opinion regarding Dr. Blizzard’s statement that it does not matter which Bible translation is used, that all have good points as well as bad, and that one is as good as another. I do believe it matters. Though the King James Version does have mistakes in translation, it seems to me that it is the best one as the King James translators took such slavish pains to get things right, word-for-word; whereas, more modern versions are paraphrases, or they just “did the best they could” with whatever text was used. In the New International Version, references to the BLOOD, THE DEITY, THE LORDSHIP AND MESSIAHSHIP of Jesus Christ is either glossed over or deleted outright. It seem to me that there is a greater agenda at work, and it is a creeping apostasy meant to water down the power of God.
In the New International Version, Genesis 7:1, God tells Noah to “come into the ark.” In the same passage, it says: The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark…” It seems to me that this casts a whole different light on the interpretation of this scripture. To “come” would say that God is already “in” the ark, representative of the salvation that God offers to us in Christ, including Noah. To say “Go” would seem to mean that God is somewhere outside of the ark and is sending Noah somewhere apart from God and that He is not “in” the ark offering salvation.
Another is Luke 2:33, which reads in the King James, “And Joseph and his mother marveled…” The New International reads, “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.” This points out to the reader that Joseph was the father of Jesus, which he is not. God is His Father. Another example is Colossians 1:14, which says, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” The New International reads. “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The NIV completely removes the reference to the Blood of Jesus. This is blasphemous.
In Matthew 8:2, King James, “And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him…” The NIV says, “A man with leprosy came and knelt before him…” Why have the translators of the NIV not included the word “worship” in this verse?
There has been gross corruption in some of the newer translations, and one is not just as good as the others. If a version of the Bible does not fully acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, the blood of Christ and the deity of Christ, then it is a corrupt text and must be rejected. Can you comment upon this observation, please? Charlene Sanders
| | | Dear Charlene:
If a person does not have a working knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek, then one translation of scripture is just about as good, or bad, as another, depending on your perspective. I know of no translation that even comes near to imparting the meaning of the original texts, regardless of the good intentions of the translators.
I think you are giving the translators far too much credit in assuming that there is some kind of conspiracy on their part to eradicate all the references to the blood of Jesus or the redemption through His blood.
The simple fact of the matter is that there never has been an attempt on the part of any translator, or group of translators, to take all of the various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts we have available today and, working with these early texts, compile a new, original, and as accurate as possible translation. In the first place, the volume of material is colossal. Secondly, texts do not agree from one Greek or Hebrew text to another, so that any translations will naturally vary from any other translation, depending on the translators’ biases and knowledge of the original languages.
It is interesting to see that, in some texts, such as the King James, the translators may translate a passage correctly in the Old Testament, then completely mistranslate that very passage quoted in the New Testament. Then, too, there is the problem of how should this or that particular word be translated into English. For example, you use the instance in Matthew 8:2 of the leper that came to Jesus. Your question was, “Why did the translators of the NIV not include the word “worship?” The answer is because it is not there. The word, in both Hebrew and Greek, means to kneel before, or to bow down before. The idea of worship is implied in both.
When I say one translation is as good or bad as another, I simply mean that the translation with which you feel the most comfortable is the one for you. My advice is not to limit oneself to one translation but to use 4-5, or more. Then read them collectively, paying attention to the differences. If you have the basic tools, such as the numerically indexed Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, the numerically indexed New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, and the numerically indexed New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, just by utilizing these source materials, you should be able to find the answers to most of your questions. I realize that it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the ultimate solution is: Learn Hebrew.
By the way, let me refer you to the Study Aids link on our website as most of these reference works are available there.
|
|
|
|
