Ephesians Times Ten

Over the past month I've read through the epistle of Ephesians ten times in ten different bible translations. I did this for two reasons. First, I just love Ephesians. It is a treasure trove of glorious truths about both God and His church. Second, I wanted to see the different nuances of the various translations.

The translations I selected were (in alphabetical order) the ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and YLT. I would have read the epistle in languages other than English, but sadly I am monolingual (at least I'm not monosyllabic).

I attempted to keep an open mind about all the translations. Each has its positives. That said, I do prefer some much more than others. The ESV and NKJV are my favorites. I also like the HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NET, and YLT. I tolerate the NIV. The NLT is too simplistic (these, of course, are all my personal opinions; feel free to disagree).

I gained from all ten readings of the letter. Each time God showed me something different. I thank the Lord that we English speakers are blessed to have so many good translations available to us. I highly encourage you to select a book of the bible and read it through in various translations. If you are a relatively slow reader like me then I suggest a shorter book like Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, James, I Peter, or I John. After that you may decide to bite off something longer such as a Gospel account or Romans. Also, don't forget the Old Testament.

Enjoy!

The Bible Was Written in Hebrew and Greek, But We Can Generally Trust Our Good English Translations

As we seek to understand the bible correctly we must remember that it was originally penned in Hebrew and Greek (and a little bit of Aramaic). While we don't need to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to comprehend scripture, it remains important that we respect how it was first put down on parchment.

This is part nine of my ten part series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

The original languages are important. This is because all languages have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies about them. All are unique. Additionally, languages change over time. For example, the Greek spoken in Greece today differs significantly from the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Because of these things the church needs a significant number of believers who can read and teach biblical Hebrew and Greek to the next generation. If for no other reason this is important for apologetic purposes. It would do great damage to the body of Christ if no one could say with certainty what the Greek and Hebrew mean.

I'm generally not a fan of seminaries (even though I attended a fairly good one). However, I am glad that most evangelical seminaries in this country strongly support the teaching of Greek and Hebrew. Many require classes in both. Until the church gets to the point of teaching Hebrew and Greek one to another we need seminaries to keep doing what they are doing.

The Reformer Martin Luther said the following:

We will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments….

I am exceedingly glad that I speak English. The reason I say this is that the bible has been translated into English in many good forms. We have an abundance of excellent translations, for example the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB, ISV, and YLT. With modern technology it's even easy to compare translations by using a site like Bible Gateway. Because of all this we English speakers can feel confident that we know what the bible truly means even if we cannot read the original languages.

This brings us to another issue: the importance of bible translation into all languages. While we English speakers have lots of choices, some Christians around the globe have only one relatively poor translation or no translation at all. I encourage you to consider giving to those who spend their lives doing translation work; Wycliffe Bible Translators is a wonderful example.

One final thought: some of the English translations do not handle leadership issues well. Because many of those doing the translating are enmeshed in the institutional church framework they tend to translate in a way that gives pastors more authority than they actually should have. In my opinion this is the biggest weakness of many English translations. Therefore, if you are dealing with church leadership/authority issues, I highly encourage you to read multiple translations and consult numerous commentaries prior to coming to any significant conclusions/decisions.

To sum up: let's always remember that the bible was written thousands of years ago in Hebrew and Greek. Despite this, we can know what the bible means.

Meme Sunday

First World Problem:

Linking: "Textual Criticism and Bible Translation"

Most everyone who reads this blog also enjoys reading the bible. This is because through scriptural content we can grow closer to Christ.

Many of us do not know much about the original language texts that our English translations stem from. We should both know about and care about this issue. While we do not need to be experts in textual criticism, we ought to at least know what it is about. E. Ray Clendenen has written a short, helpful piece entitled "Textual Criticism and Bible Translation" that recently appeared on Tim Challies' blog. I encourage you to read it. Although it is a sponsored post for the HCSB translation, you can simply ignore that aspect of it.

I've Tried, But I Still Can't Stand "The Message"

I've tried. I've really tried to like The Message. I've given it multiple chances. In the end I've come to a clear conclusion: I can't stand The Message.

The Message may or may not actually be a bible depending on who you talk to. If it is simply a commentary, then fine. However, at least the publisher considers it to be a bible. The cover shown here says, "The Bible in Contemporary Language." Additionally, I've met many Christians who carry this translation to church meetings and use it in bible study.

I'm not some sort of KJV-only type. I enjoy the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, ISV, and others. They are all good English translations that basically say the same the same thing. If I only had one bible, I'd be happy to have any of these translations (I generally use the ESV or NKJV, but it doesn't really matter to me).

However, I'd rather have no bible than have The Message. I'd prefer to recall what I have memorized than let The Message infect what I know.

The following are the three primary reasons I can't stand The Message:

First, in numerous places it is not accurate. I've been in bible studies where someone with The Message read aloud. Others of us would look at each other and then say, "Huh?" Eugene Peterson has tried so hard to use contemporary language that he has frequently lost the meaning of the original language. Single translators, even with good intentions, are dangerous; committees are much better.

Second, Peterson has effectively "dumbed down" the bible. He has simplified the language to the point that it is almost insulting. I'm not suggesting that the bible should be difficult to understand. However, it's also not play time. This leads me to number three...

Third, The Message is simply too cutesy. Many deep theological concepts are translated in such a way that they seem trivial. Peterson swings the pendulum so far in his quest for reader understanding that he paints a picture of a simplistic God with a simplistic gospel.

I realize it's not considered socially acceptable within Christian circles to criticize bible translations. In this particular case I'll just have to violate that unwritten rule. Not only can I not stand The Message, I also cannot understand why any other Christian would use it as their bible. If you want a bible that is easy to understand, get yourself an New Living Translation.

Scripture is not something trivial. We should desire to know what God has said. We have an embarrassment of riches in the English language as far as bible translations are concerned. What we don't need is a poor translation that actually harms the church. This is what The Message is doing. It sickens me what a high selling "translation" The Message is.

If you want to treat The Message as a commentary, go ahead. However, as far as bibles are concerned, The Message is a mess.

Interesting Translation of Hebrews 10:24-25

"Let us keep one another in mind, always ready with incitements to charity and to acts of piety, not abandoning, as some do, our common assembly, but encouraging one another; all the more, as you see the great day drawing nearer."

This is the translation of Hebrews 10:24-25 from the Knox Bible (the translator is not, as some might suppose, Alan Knox).

I'm not suggesting that this is the best translation, but I do think it has some strengths. The language is colorful, giving the verse a sense of action. The word "incitements" in particular is striking. I also enjoy the choice of "to charity and to acts of piety." These words bring a real-world feel to what is often translated as "to love and good works." Finally, the use of "common assembly" is more interesting then simply saying "meeting together."

This appears to be an example where the work of one translator is superior to the work of a translation committee. Although I generally prefer the work of a group, an individual may be able to occasionally employ more diverse and striking language that a committee would avoid.

What do you think of this particular translation of 10:24-25?

Translation Need

Ever since I learned to read, I've enjoyed searching through the pages of the bible. Since English is my first language (and only fluent one, he said sadly), the scriptures have always been easily accessible. We English speakers have an embarrassing abundance of translations to choose from (click here to see an example of this).

What if I or you had been born with no access to the bible in our heart language? What if this was still the case? What a sad situation that would be! I cannot imagine.

Bible translation is a critical aspect of getting the gospel to all the nations. I thank the Lord for organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators. I encourage you to look at their website. Two interesting pages caught my eyes. The first is entitled The Worldwide Status of Bible Translation (2010). The Second is called The Areas of Greatest Need.

An Interesting Greek Variant in John 1:18

I don't generally spend much time looking at NT Greek variants, but one I recently stumbled across in John 1:18 intrigues me. In this verse some versions use "Son" while others use "God."

A few that use "Son":

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." (NKJV)

"No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son - the One who is at the Father’s side - He has revealed Him." (HCSB)

"God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father - he did declare." (YLT)

A few that use "God":

"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." (ESV)

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

"No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us." (NLT)

One that tries to use both (even though the original does not support this):

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." (NIV)


What, then, is going on in John 1:18? It is clearly an important verse, sitting at the conclusion of John's prologue. Why the discrepancy?

The English translations stem, of course, directly from much older Greek manuscripts, some of which use "Son" and others that use "God." There is a good amount of fairly technical, yet important, information about this. I encourage you to look at it if interested (the NET Bible online has good textual notes on this variant), but I'm not going to get into that here.

The great part about this particular issue is that Jesus is both "Son" and "God". John has shown us this in other locations. In John 1:1 the author settles Jesus' divinity for us by making it clear that Jesus is God. John 1:14 shows us that this is obviously who John is referring to in 1:1.

As for Jesus being the Son of God, the author provides us with the eyewitness testimony of John the Baptist in 1:34, "And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

We see, then, that regardless of the reading of 1:18, Jesus is both fully God and the Son of God. These truths point us to the beautiful wonder of the Trinity, something which we will never fully comprehend with our limited, fallen minds.

Variants like what we read in 1:18 should not cause us to doubt scripture. Rather, they show us that the bible is a real book of history written and copied by real people. None of the significant truths of scripture are lost or even called into question by variants.

John 1:18 tells us wonderful truths regardless of which word John originally wrote. We can be confident that Jesus is both the Son of God and God himself.

My Concern with the ESV

I like the English Standard Version. It's the version of the bible that I read most often. It's the bible that I usually take with me to our fellowship gatherings. I have about six or seven copies of it in various forms of study bibles, thin line bibles, pocket size bibles, etc.

I'm happy with the ESV because the translators seem to have been fair to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The ESV reads smoothly like the NIV, but takes a more literal approach to translation like the NASB. As a bonus, the ESV Study Bible is the best I've read as far as study bibles go.

That all said, I do have one main concern with the ESV. I'm wondering if it is a valid one. My concern is that the ESV has sort of become "The Reformed Bible." If you read around the blog world these days, almost all of the writers who claim the Reformed label for themselves also use the ESV. If you attend a conference like Ligonier or T4G, just about all the speakers will use the ESV. John Piper uses the ESV. Al Mohler uses the ESV. R.C. Sproul uses the ESV.

Ask your Reformed friends what version they use; I guarantee that their primary version will likely be the ESV.

I'm sure that the response from the Reformed would be that they like it because they believe it is the best English translation available. Of course, we all tend to use whatever translations we think are the best available. Therefore, that answer actually has little meaning.

My concern comes from the fact that almost ALL of the Reformed use this translation. Why is that? We know that the Reformed tend to focus quite a bit on issues of God's sovereignty in salvation (election, predestination). Does the ESV slant in that direction? Does it give slightly more support to specific Reformed doctrines that would make it more preferable to the Reformed?

In reading through the ESV I have not found it to be biased in any particular direction. However, if the ESV has no bias at all, then wouldn't it simply be one of several versions that the Reformed might choose to use? What ever happened to the NASB, the NKJV, the HCSB, the NIV, or the NLT?

When any particular sub-group within Christianity seems to select one particular version of the bible, we should ask "Why?". At this point I'm not sure of the answers. Is the ESV just a good translation, or does it lean toward Reformed thinking?

Is this a valid concern? Do you think there is anything to this, or am I just wasting time with it? What do you think?

Regardless, issues like this are a good reminder that we will be wise to use multiple English translations when studying the scriptures.

Just for Fun

Thank You Bible Translators

A few days ago I began thinking about bible translation. The more I pondered it, the more thankful I became toward bible translators.

I'm basically a one-language speaker.  I can spout a few Spanish phrases, but I'm hardly functional.  Although we lived in India for a few months, my Hindi never progressed beyond a very basic level; I've since lost much of it.

Regarding the biblical languages, my Hebrew is currently pathetic and my Greek is not what I'd like it to be (sorry Dr. Black).  I'm still working at it, but it is a sort of one step forward, one step back process.

Like most of you I'm very dependent upon the work of bible translators. Having taken a few classes that required a good deal of translation work from Hebrew and Greek into English, I have a glimpse of just how difficult the effort can be.  It's one thing to put together a wooden, ultra-literal, word-for-word type translation. It's something altogether different to translate in such a way that brings out the truth, clarity, and beauty of the scriptures. It's both a science and an art.

Excellent Post on Bible Translations

My friend Alan at The Assembling of the Church has written an excellent and helpful post on bible translations. Specifically, Alan deals with the thorny issue of transliterations and how they impact what we believe the bible says. Frankly, I see transliterations as a sort of cop-out by the translation teams. If your going to translate the bible, then translate the entire thing.

What Bible Should You Use?

We English speakers have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to bible translations. I part because of this, we often struggle to know which version or versions to use. Dan Wallace offers some helpful advice on this topic. I encourage you to read it.

Personally, I like to have a copy of the ESV and the NJKV close at hand. However, I also enjoy reading the KJV, NASB, ISV, NLT, NIV, and several others. I'm not a big fan of the looser translations and paraphrases such as The Message.

Philippians 2:5-11 in the ISV

Philippians is one of my favorite books of the bible. In particular, I find the "Christ Hymn" of 2:5-11 to be one of the high points of scripture. In many English translations much of the poetic quality of these verses is lost. I appreciate a great deal the way the International Standard Version (ISV) renders 2:5-11. It sheds even more light on this already profound passage:

5 Have the same attitude among yourselves that was also in Christ Jesus:

6 In God's own form existed he,

and shared with God equality,

deemed nothing needed grasping.

7 Instead, poured out in emptiness,

a servant's form did he possess,

a mortal man becoming.

8 In human form he chose to be,

and lived in all humility,

death on a cross obeying.

9 Now lifted up by God to heaven,

a name above all others given,

this matchless name possessing.

10 And so, when Jesus' name is called,

the knees of everyone should fall

wherever they're residing.

11 Then every tongue in one accord,

will say that Jesus Christ is Lord,

while God the Father praising.

The Word Became Flesh and Tabernacled with Us

I'm much more interested in the incarnation of Christ than I am in the birth of Christ. John 1:14 is the primary verse discussing the incarnation in the N.T.

In most translations, John 1:14 says something like, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (ESV)

In speaking of Jesus being with us, most versions say that Christ either "dwelt," "pitched His tent," or "took up residence." All these translations miss something very important. In the Greek, John says that Jesus "tabernacled" with us. I've only been able to find one English translation that puts it this way: "And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth." (Young's Literal Translation)

The word "tabernacled" gives a much fuller meaning of what Jesus did than does a word like "dwelt." The reason for this should be clear. When we hear "tabernacled," we ought to immediately think of the tabernacle of the O.T. That tabernacle was the place of God's presence with His people. Exodus 40:34-38 says, "Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Throughout all their journeys, whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the people of Israel would set out. But if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel throughout all their journeys."

The tabernacle of the OT points ahead to God's presence with us, His people. This presence came in the person of Jesus Christ. Matthew 1:23 says, "'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us)."

Jesus Christ, in His incarnation, was the full manifestation of God with man. He was the full self-expression of God. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."

Jesus Christ is also the perfect display of the glory of God. Hebrews 1:3 instructs us, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Jesus was with us in His first advent. Jesus is coming again in His second advent. When He does, the tabernacle of God will be with men. Revelation 21:1-3, "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.'"

Let us ponder the wonder of Jesus Christ tabernacling with us. Praise be to God!

Another Questionable Bible...

This, according to Fox News. I have to admit that this "project" doesn't feel right to me. The artwork, as described in this report, clearly has an agenda.

Regardless, I'd like to see what just the hand-written word looks like.

Please Just Be Fair to the Original Text

It appears that we will soon have another English bible translation. Unfortunately, this one is yet another with theological/political bias. To read about this, click here.

Several modern translations lean to the left theologically and/or politically (for example, the TNIV and NRSV). Now there will be another - except this one swings to the opposite extreme - too conservative.

It is entitled the Conservative Bible Project. The project's on-line home is Conservapedia.com.

According to Timothy Paul Jones, a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a critic of this project, "This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda."

Dr. Jones goes on to say, "Ironically, there's a long tradition of the liberal twisting of scripture. Scholars have rightly deemed those translations illegitimate, and this conservative Bible is every bit as illegitimate."

Here is my plea: if you are going to translate scripture, PLEASE be as fair to the original text as is possible. I realize we all carry biases and should be aware of these. However, we ought to, as best we can, just let the original languages speak for themselves.

Maybe this is another reason why we should become at least familiar with the original languages (I have really got to brush up on my Hebrew!!)

Just Finished the ISV

For the last few months I have been reading through the International Standard Version (ISV) New Testament during my devotional time. I just completed it a few days ago.

Reading through the ISV was enjoyable. The reason for this is that it is very readable. The language is not cumbersome whatsoever. This may sound strange, but at times it almost seemed too easy to read. I suppose this is because I am used to reading translations that, quite frankly, aren't that readable. The ISV, for example, succeeds where versions like the NASB do not.

In my opinion, the best aspect of the ISV is the way the poetry/sayings have been translated. The translators did an excellent job trying to keep it sounding like, well, poetry. This is the rendering of I Timothy 3:16 in the ISV:

"In flesh was he revealed to sight,
kept righteous by the Spirit's might,
adored by angels singing.
To nations was he manifest,
believing souls found peace and rest,
our Lord in heaven reigning!"

Although the ESV remains my preferred version, I will definitely be consulting my ISV during bible study. I encourage you to pick up a copy.

Are Bible Translations Really Worth Dividing Over?

Isn't it ironic that on the one hand the bible commands Christians to be united, but on the other hand some of us divide over the bible itself?

In particular, some folks believe the King James Version (KJV) is the only true English bible. See here for one example.

If the KJV is better than all other modern English versions, then it seems that the KJV would be considerably different than the other versions, especially in key verses. The one verse in the bible that I believe best sums up the gospel is II Corinthians 5:21. Let's compare this verse in the KJV to how other versions have translated it.

First, the KJV:

KJV: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Now let's look at other versions (in no particular order):

NKJV: For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

ESV: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

NIV: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

NASB: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

HCSB: He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

RSV: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

NLT: For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

Geneva: For he hath made him to be sinne for vs, which knewe no sinne, that we should be made the righteousnesse of God in him.

Tyndale: for he hath made him to be synne for vs which knewe no synne that we by his meanes shuld be that rightewesnes which before God is aloved.

In slightly different ways we read all of the above versions saying the same thing. The wording is different, but the meaning is demonstrably the same.

I personally favor some translations (ESV, NKJV) over others (RSV, NLT). We all probably have our own favorites. Some translations are more literal than others. Some are more readable than others. (There are a few translations that should be avoided, but this is because the translators have purposely altered the meaning of the original text because of a significant bias; the NRSV and TNIV come to mind.)

For the most part, modern English translations say the same thing. This is certainly something we can discuss and, if need be, agree-to-disagree.

Let us avoid separation over any preference of a particular translation, whether it be the KJV, ESV, NIV, or any other.

We should certainly be able to remain united around the truth of the gospel as presented in the bible instead of dividing over the very word that presents the gospel to us.

What Bible are You Using for Personal Devotions?

This is another post for the sake of curiosity.

Today I finally finished reading all the way through (not in order) my ESV Reformation Study Bible. I enjoyed my time in this bible. The ESV is my personal preference as far as versions go, and the study notes were solid. Although I don't necessarily agree with all the notes in this particular bible, I still appreciate the scholarly nature of the notes.

Now it is time to move on to another bible for personal devotions. I realize that I don't have to do this, but I find that switching versions keeps things from getting stale (my fault - not a fault of the scriptures).

Tomorrow I will begin studying through the International Standard Version (ISV) New Testament. I have been looking forward to this for some time. This is a new translation rather than a revision. To read more about the ISV, click here to visit the features page.

I initially heard about the ISV while in seminary. One of my professors, Dr. David Alan Black, served on the translation committee of the ISV. Just knowing Dr. Black's excellence in the original Greek text of the NT gives me great confidence in the accuracy of the ISV.

To read more about Dr. Black's involvement in the ISV, click here. To visit Dr. Black's personal website, click here.