May 30th: Bible Translations
Speaker: Pastor Ibrahim Ag Mohamed
Following on from his study of Bible manuscripts, Pastor Ibrahim will look at the issues which lie behind the many translations.
The Bible has withstood the test of time and it has survived the examination of the critics. Attacked, burned, it stands far above all other works and literature. We can be confident that we have the pure word of God in our hands though we only have the apographs (from the autographs). God gave us His infallible word. He inspired it and preserved it providentially. The preservation of the Scriptures is as miraculous as their inspiration.
Read BCF Article 1 paragraph 8.
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) were directly inspired by God, and were kept pure through subsequent ages by His extraordinary care and providence. They are therefore trustworthy, so that in all doctrinal disputes, the church must appeal to them as final. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have a right to, and an interest in the Scriptures, and who are commanded to read and search them in the fear of God, the Scriptures are therefore to be translated into the ordinary language of every nation into which they come, so that, with the Word of God living richly in all, people may worship God in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
Our confession of faith takes into account the necessity of translation in ordinary language. It is the right andprivilege of every Christian to read the ‘Words of Life’ in a language he has chosen.
Having the word translated means we don’t have to speak in tongues. Translation of the Bible supported the mission work (most of Carey’s work) with sweat, blood and efforts. Countless missionaries (men and women) sacrificed their lives for it and for the Gospel.
From the beginning, God aimed His Word (OT and NT) to be read to all (Dt. 31.11; Neh.8.3; Is.34.16). At Pentecost, 15 nationalities ‘heard the apostles speaking in their tongues the wonderful works of God’. In the 4th c., Jerome translated the Bible into Latin: The Vulgate (later known as the Gutenberg Bible, the official version in the Middle Ages), and many translations since then will follow.
With so many versions (one almost every decade), are they all equal? Are they different?
Whereas the Masoretic Text (OT) was preserved in the Jewish church and passed on from generation to generation, when it comes to the NT, the best, accurate and most faithful collection is the Textus Receptus (over 5,200 manuscripts of the NT) in opposition to the critical, eclectic text (used by most modern version). The TR (or Received Text) was compiled in 1516 by Didier Erasmus, a Dutch Gr. scholar (fully received by all and printed in 1520).
Now there was a man named John Wycliffe (1320–1384) who had a great desire to see the Bible translated in English. He is known as the morning star of the Reformation. Translating the Bible was made illegal by a decree issued in 1408. Anyone who read the Bible in English or sold it was put to death. Wycliffe was opposed by religious authorities. After he died, his bones were dug up, burned and scattered over the river. His translation from Latin to English was made available in 1380-82 (even before the printing press).
About 200 yrs. after Wycliffe God raised up a young man named William Tyndale (1494–1536). He grew up with the desire to become a priest. He thought that everyone deserved to read the Bible. He told his dream to one of the priests who strongly opposed the idea. Tyndale was upset, and he told that priest: ‘If God spares my life, ere many years I will take care that a ploughboy shall know more of the Scriptures than you do’. Tyndale published the first completed NT in 1525 based on the Received Text. He paid his translation by his own blood. He was strangled to death and his body burned at the stake. His last words were: ‘Lord, open the King of England’s eyes’.
In 1604, 54 of the most learned Heb. and Gr. scholars in England were chosen to do the translation known as the AV. They relied heavily on Tyndale (90%). Their aim was to give us a better translation of a good one. As a result, they produced a most faithful, trustworthy and accurate translation, still unrivalled in its style, simplicity, and power (in 1611). It has been called ‘the most excellent book in our language’. Modern versions come and go, but the AV maintains its reputation. Many versions today are water downed. You either have the textual criticism text (a faulty and inferior text) or the traditional RT. By virtue of its excellence the AV replaced the Geneva Bible (used by the Puritans). The issue is always the source text.
What is wrong with the new versions based mainly on the eclectic or critical text? 6 words to help us to see the deficiency of modern versions. No translation is inspired, but we need to base our faith on an accurate version based on the most trustworthy manuscripts.
1. Most modern versions are based on doubtful manuscripts.
2. Their methods use what is called ‘dynamic (functional) equivalence instead of literal and formal’. The dynamic equivalence tries to capture the thoughts behind the words rather than translating the words themselves. In contrast, the AV is a strict translation, word for word from the best manuscripts, producing a literal rendition of the inspired text. We want the full word not just an equivalent. We want the verbs intended by God, not just the thoughts inserted by the translators.
3. Omission (leaving out): The NIV (for example and many modern versions) omits 23 complete verses found in the AV (not mentioning about 500 portions of verses missing in modern versions). E.g.: Mt18.11; Acts 8.37.
4. Addition: There are far fewer additions of material, perhaps a little over a hundred in the NIV, affecting the meaning of the text: Compare 1 Pet.2.2; Eph.2.15; 1 Co.7.1; Rev.1.11 in AV and NIV.
5. Substitution: Around 500 substitutions in the NIV. Some are minor, others clearly affect the meaning. Compare Mk3.29; Lk.6.48; Eph.5.9; 1 Tim.3.16 in AV and NIV.
6. Weakening the meaning: Words like repentance, redemption, propitiation, atonement, are avoided.
* Some translations, like the English Standard Version (ESV), are a mixture of both schools of thoughts or methods. Modern translation either diminishes or destroys many of these essential doctrines
* The traditional text of formal correspondence (used by the KJV translators) best reflects the doctrine of the full inspiration of Scripture and the divine preservation of Scripture (Mt.5.18).
* Revivals, sermons of the past were all based on the KJV.
*The RT strongly supports the Doctrine of Grace, creationism, the divinity of Christ, His miraculous birth, His miracles, His resurrection and His literal return.
Conclusion: The KJV’s language is reverential and dignified. This is our great heritage (a beautiful and lively monument). It has impacted our world more than any other book. Don’t be put off by the archaisms. Get a concordance and a dictionary. Read it, study it, search the word, love it, proclaim it and contend for it (Acts 17.11). Get back to its page for man shall not live by bread alone. It is not just about knowing, but doing (Col.3.16-17). Closing words from the words of Luther in his well-known Hymn.
The Prince of darkness grim,
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo! his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.
That word above all earthly powers,
No thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours
Through Him who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still,
His Kingdom is forever.
