Regarding Bible Translations

With all the different Bible translations available to us today some are wondering which translation is the best one to use, or are they all pretty much the same. Should I go for readability or accuracy, or just try to find some compromise between the two? Some swear by the old King James Version, others claim that the modern translations that rely on older text manuscripts are more reliable, still others say that all translations are good and that it is just a matter of personal preference.

I did not become a Christian until I was an adult, and therefore did not carry any childhood prejudices into the argument, however there have been other Christians who were also likewise only introduced to Christianity as adults as well who hold varying opinions, so I can only give you what I know from my own experience and study.

I was taught as an early Christian that only the old King James Bible was to be read since the other translations were corrupt and based on corrupt manuscripts. There was a time many years ago when I read from the New American Standard Version and was blessed briefly while reading it. That was before further study, and before the Lord opened my eyes to the history of that translation.

A few years after that time, I studied the writings of Dean John William Burgon and David Otis Fuller on the subject, and came to the conclusion that the manuscripts used for the Revised Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and a host of others, were corrupt, although the Greek texts from which they came were older than the main body of documents that constituted the "Textus Receptus", upon which the King James Version was based.

For a detailed history of the corruption surrounding the usage of the Greek text that was the basis for all of these translations, as well as the basis for the English Standard Version, see Here 

As far as the NIV, or New International Translation is concerned, the man appointed to be the Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, Dr. Marten Woudstra, was a homosexual. and Virginia Mollenkott, who worked as the stylistic editor for the translation, is a lesbian. Some of Dr. Woudsta's collaborators on the NIV knew about this years ago during the translation process.

As far as the style content of the NIV, I never really cared for much of it. One example would be John chapter 15 where they used the word "remain" instead of the old English word "abide" for "Abide in Me". If they thought that abide was too old a word for modern English, then they at least could have used  a word such as "live" - "Live in Me".

But "remain"? Food "remains" in the refrigerator. When we find a dead body, we refer to it as the "remains" of somebody. Remaining connotes something left behind, or someone just "hanging around". Abide on the other hand, connotes dwelling, function, awareness, LIFE. You don't tell somebody "This is where I remain," you say to them "This is where I live," or dwell, which abide means. So either one of these two modern words, live or dwell, would have been much more preferable to the dead, static word "remain". The translators of the New King James version left it as "abide" and most people have no problem understanding that.

I believe this is part of the price that we pay for letting unholy hands handle God's Holy Book. It can only result in a product that will not being glory to God. In addition, the NIV leaves out nearly all references to prayer and fasting in the gospels. 

As far as reading the old King James though, I have problems with that translation now, since the language it uses is archaic and outdated (as an example read chapter 1: 1-11 of the First Book of Kings in the Old Testament of the old King James Version). We simply don't speak in Elizabethan english anymore, our Lord didn't when He walked the earth, and parts of the old King James Bible make Shakespear almost appear modern. For me, the old english is cumbersome and I prefer the New King James version.

In addition, there is a clear mistranslation in proverbs 5:16 in the old King James Version, which should be read as a rhetorical question, not as a statement advocating unchastity. The translators of the New King James version understood this and got the translation right.

So where do I stand? I believe that God can use nearly any translation to speak to someone and reveal His word, but for someone truly hungering and thirsting after the Lord, I would recommend at this time the New King James translation as the best one in the English language today.

I would not recommend the New Internation Version at all.

If you can put up with the old English, then the 1599 Geneva Bible, in my own humble opinion, is a better translation than the old King James version, but it is very hard to obtain and very expensive. It can be purchased on CD for about $10.00 through the internet.

I also prefer the 1602 Reina Valera version in Spanish, although this translation is very hard to obtain today.

James M. Foard