Sermon #1111 Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV?

Transcription

1 Sermon #1111 Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV? The Bible was not originally given in English. Primarily, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew 2,400-3,500 years ago and the New Testament was written in Greek and some Aramaic almost 2,000 years ago. Because most of us do not know Hebrew or Greek, we rely on those who do to translate the Bible into English. Getting the Bible into as many languages as possible has long been a priority of those who value Scripture. As a result, the entire Bible has been translated into six hundred languages, more than 1,400 languages have access to the New Testament and some portions of Scripture in their language. About 2,400 languages across 165 countries have active translation work happening right now. The significance of this is apparent when one learns that lovers of Shakespeare boast that thirty-seven of his works have been translated into thirty-seven languages and individual works have been translated into over eighty languages. Someone had to translate the Bible into English for us to know what it says. John Wycliffe first attempted this mammoth task in the 1380 s AD. Remarkably, this so infuriated the pope that he dug up Wycliffe s bones, crushed them and threw them in the river. Wycliffe passed the baton to John Hus. For the radical act of putting the Bible in the hands of the people, the pope and Holy Roman Emperor conspired to burn Hus at the stake using manuscripts of Wycliffe s Bibles as kindling. Nice guys! Handel Andrews writes in his book, The Church's One Foundation: Church and Bible Themes, that the last words Hus uttered were, in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed. That was 1415 AD. In 1517 AD, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door at church in Wittenburg. Luther put the New Testament in German for the first time in (Early English Translation Chart See below) Tyndale used the same Greek Text produced by Erasmus to translate the New Testament into English in Miles Coverdale first translated the entire Bible into English in The Matthews Bible was the second complete English translation of the Bible into English in The first authorized English Bible translation was the Great Bible in Next English was the Geneva Bible in The Geneva Bible was the first to have chapters and numbered verses. This translation was used by Shakespeare, Milton, Bunyan and the Pilgrims who came to America on the Mayflower (genevabible.com). A revision of the Great Bible in 1568, the Bishop s Bible, is sometimes called the rough draft of the King James Version. Finally, The King James Version burst on the scene in 1611 and has been the dominant English translation for four hundred years. While the Guiness Book of World Records reports that the Bible is the world s best-selling and most widely distributed book with an estimated 2.5 billion copies distributed since 1815 (Good News for the World, Roger Steir, 29), Darrell Riven writes in The Young Theologian s Handbook (238) that more copies (have been) sold of (the King James) translation than any other. He clarifies though, 1) that the King James Version Bibles printed in America use the spelling and wording revision (of 1769) He adds, 2) The Apocrypha were removed from the King James Version in This provides a backdrop for our viewer question from the Dallas area regarding more recent translations: Why do you prefer the New King James Version over the New International Version? Many discussions on Bible translations produce more heat than light. We attempt to avoid this pitfall, Why do I prefer the New King James Version over the New International Version? The NIV is not without strengths. The producers of the NIV had a noble goal of making the Bible easier to understand. 1

2 Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV by Brett Hickey, sermon # of 5 Former Executive Secretary of the New International Version Translation Center writes in his book, The Making of the NIV, The KJV has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God s Word. This is so in part because some English words have changed their meaning since 1611 He then cites a number of examples. For instance, 2 Chronicles 2:7 where the King James Version says brass, Barker says, Brass was not known in Solomon s days; hence the NIV s bronze. Nehemiah 1:5: the great and terrible God. He explains that the word terrible could be misleading today and says it should read: the great and awesome God. The King James rendering of Psalm 119:147: I prevented the dawning of the morning, should be replaced by I rise before dawn. Where the King James has in Ezekiel 24:17, (B)ind the tire of thine head, the NIV has turban instead of tire. In Matthew 26:27, the King James Version reads Drink ye all of it while the NIV has Drink from it, all of you. Barker says, This could be taken to mean that not a drop should be left. But that would be incorrect. In Romans 5:5, Barker speaks of the Holy Ghost WHICH is given unto us that should be translated, The Holy Spirit WHOM he has given us. He says prevent should be translated precede in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and the word letteth means the opposite and should be translated hold back in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. ( ) These legitimate criticisms of the King James Version in TODAY S language involve the change in meaning over a four hundred years are not on a par with the insertion of doctrinal bias into a passage as we will notice the NIV. Apples and oranges! The harshest critics of the King James Version are either unaware of this fact or ignore it. They also tend to ignore the majesty and beauty of the King James Version. If the dozens of modern English translation are any indication, no other English translation will ever rival it in those ways. Additionally, some highbrow critics discount the value of a translation that is familiar and has a high level of continuity for those who have used it for fifty years and are familiar with many old words that have changed meanings. Furthermore, promoters of the NIV must acknowledge they have nothing on the New King James Version in all the above criticisms and many more. The NIV does not fare so well when a finger is pointed at its weaknesses. My fundamental difficulty with the NIV is the translation philosophy described as dynamic equivalency in common with the Good News Bible and New English Bible. The formal equivalence translation of the King James Version, American Standard Version, and New King James Version inspire greater confidence. Robert Martin explains the difference in his book Accuracy in Translation: When we ask what method of translating best communicates the content of the original text, formal equivalence translators answer that the content of the original is best communicated when the translator consciously tries to parallel closely the linguistic form (i.e., the structure, grammar, and exact wording of the original. Dynamic equivalence translators, on the other hand, answer that the best way is to use the most natural form of the language of the reader (i.e., giving priority to the structure, grammar and idiomatic expressions of contemporary English), whether or not this closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text. More simply, formal equivalence translations like the King James Version and New King James Version strive to translate the original text more LITERALLY while dynamic equivalence translations like the NIV give themselves more leeway; they are more like a paraphrase. Obviously, this gives the translators more freedom to insert opinion. The King James Version and New King James version strive more for a word for word translation while the NIV seeks more of a thought for thought translation. 2

3 Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV by Brett Hickey, sermon # of 5 Why be leery of a translation that focuses more on thought for thought than word for word approach? We read in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. While it is accurate to say that every thought presented in the Bible is inspired by God or God-breathed, it falls short of the full intent of this passage. Jesus says in Matthew 4:4, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. " He clearly singles out the importance of every WORD. Moreover, we find the writing of Paul communicating the same precision in 1 Corinthians 2:13, These things we also speak, not in WORDS which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Ironically, the NIV reads in 1 Corinthians 2:13, This is what we speak, not in WORDS taught us by human wisdom but in WORDS taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual WORDS. Did you catch that they added the word, words at the end of that sentence? Let me read it again. This is what we speak, not in WORDS taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual WORDS. Even though, the NIV guesses correctly on what was being suggested by the Holy Spirit by inserting the word words three times in emphasizing the importance of God inspiring words not mere thoughts, it also demonstrates the problem of not knowing whether the original actually said what was in the NIV. I am trying to say that the Greek word translated words is only found once in 1 Corinthians 2:13, but it pops up three times in the NIV without italics or any other marking to indicate these two words are not found in the original text. The very reason the Roman Catholic Church was so opposed to allowing the Bible to be in the language of the common people was that the leadership believed the people were incapable of understanding it properly; they believed the people should be content with letting the elite tell them what it meant instead. Doesn t the NIV approach differ only in degree? Rather than striving to give us the actual words as God has provided through the Scriptures according to 1 Corinthians 2:13, the Committee for Bible Translation gives us the NIV which seeks to provide the thoughts by adding significant words not found in the text with no indication they are doing so. The same emphasis on the inspiration of words is found in other Bible passages: 2 Samuel 23:2, The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His WORD was on my tongue. Jeremiah 1:9, Then the LORD put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me: Behold, I have put My WORDS in your mouth. (Jer. 1:9). 1 Thessalonians 2:13, (W)hen you received the WORD of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the WORD of men, but as it is in truth, the WORD of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. Incidentally, the Greek word for word in this verse is found three times in the Greek text just as it is in the New King James Version. God urges the importance of the actual words being inspired (or as is it is sometimes called verbal inspiration ) by stressing in Galatians 3:16 that truth and error can turn on the difference of even a letter, Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to your Seed, who is Christ. There is only the slightest difference between 3

4 Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV by Brett Hickey, sermon # of 5 seed and seeds the difference from being singular or plural, and yet, that difference involves error because of the verbal nature of inspiration. Roberts puts it well in his book, Accuracy of Translation, when he writes, The tendency to deemphasize or even to deny altogether verbal-plenary inspiration (that every word of the Bible is inspired) has an affinity to the dynamic equivalence method of translation (as used in the NIV), for the method itself elevates the primacy of ideas over the primacy of the exact words of the original text. Perhaps no one was better qualified to give us a fair evaluation of this aspect of the NIV than the late Dr. Lewis Foster of Cincinnati Christian Seminary who was a translator of both the NIV and New King James Version. Foster writes in his book, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (70), that the NIV is at times free to an extreme. The word for flesh in the Greek is sarx. In the NIV the word sarx is translated flesh only thirty times out of 138 Greek uses. The next most frequent translation of the word is sinful nature (twenty-five times). But this rendering is more of an interpretation than a translation. Most of the other translations reviewed to this point render these passages simply flesh except for one instance in the RSV. All but four of the sinful nature passages are confined to Galatians and Romans. When regarding the Son, however, sarx is translated human nature (Romans 1:3). The safest thing to do is to leave the word with its primary meaning (flesh) and relegate the discussion to the commentary rather than write sinful nature into the text. This is carrying free translation too far. This approach to translation allows the NIV to make a plug for the hotly contested Calvinistic doctrine of total hereditary depravity by inserting a theologically-loaded phrase into the text not found in the original language. As noted on LetTheBibleSpeak.com in sermon #843, Original Sin, Dr. Charles Hodge summarizes in an article published by the Princeton Review in 1867 entitled What is Meant by Adopting the Westminster Confession? Adam became sinful, and hence all his posterity are born in a state of sin, or with a sinful nature.dr. Hodge equates a sinful nature with being born in a state of sin. The Scriptures teach to the contrary in Ezekiel 18:20. There are Greek words for sinful and nature, but the Holy Spirit opted not to use those words in the twenty-five instances when the phrase sinful nature is found in the text of the NIV. While bending over backwards to defend the NIV, Steven M. Sheeley and Robert N. Nash, Jr., in The Bible in English Translation, do admit, (T)he NIV probably owes its conservative reputation more to the massive and pervasive advertising campaign waged on its behalf than to any noticeable characteristics of the version itself. The same authors write of the New King James Version, Here was a version that would modernize the language of the translation, but still retain the familiar phrasing and rhythm of the KJV. It would be new, but not too new.most important, the translators of the NKJV were guided by their reverence for the KJV itself.the translation does little more than update the language of the KJV.Places where the KJV is known to be inaccurate in its grammar and idiom have been corrected and smoothed over. We have noticed why I recommend the New King James Version over the NIV. While we focused on the translation philosophy this week, we hope to notice next week the considerable issues in the Greek text behind these translations that distinguish them from each other. We encourage you to begin a life-changing Bible study by mail at no cost to you. I ll be back in a moment for a final word. 4

5 Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV by Brett Hickey, sermon # of 5 Please send us any comments or questions you may have about today s message or any related question about the church of the Bible. Tune in every Lord s Day and join us for worship at one of the congregations listed shortly. Call or write for a tract, CD, or DVD of #1111, Bible Translations: NKJV or NIV? As the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 16:16, the churches of Christ salute you. Until next week, goodbye and God bless! Are you searching for the truth of God's word and have a sincere desire to learn about the Bible? Do you want to know what the Bible says about salvation and about Christ and His church? If you are looking for Bible Founded discussion on these topics and many others, then please accept this invitation to explore "Let the Bible Speak" and then contact us for additional studies. We are members of the church of Christ as found in the New Testament. We are not members of a denomination or earthly religious organization. We are a brotherhood of believers, joined by a common bond, Jesus Christ. We try to live and worship following the patterns found in the New Testament. (For manuscripts of other sermons visit: COPYRIGHT Let The Bible Speak. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. IMPORTANT COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Express permission is granted to distribute any video, audio, or transcript of any broadcast message as long as the material is: unedited and attribution is given to Let The Bible Speak; a hyperlink to LetTheBibleSpeak.com is included for electronic distribution; a text reference is included to for printed distribution; and the original author receives attribution. An irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free license for distribution is granted as long as such distribution has the intent of: supporting the truth as presented; giving glory and honor to God; and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. 5