Theological Ramblings

Search

Links

Flashes of Speculation
Jim
Mike and Mandie
SeismicMike
Stillwater Farms
The Theology Program
Uijongbu Baptist Church
Wordpress

Actions

Register

Log in
Subscribe to Updates
Subscribe to Comments

Categories

Anthropology
BFO
Bibliology
Calvinism
Christology
Church History
Culture
Current Events
Ecclesiology
Emergent Church
Epistemology
Eschatology
Essentialism
Ethics
General Discussion
Hermeneutics
Logic
Metaphysics
Nominalism
Ontology
Philosophy
Sermon
Soteriology
Theology

Archives

December 2008
October 2008
August 2008
July 2008
April 2008
March 2008
January 2008
November 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007

On this page I would like to discuss something that is important to me. This can be a bit of a hotbed issue, so I do not seek to tell you how you ought to think or act on this issue. I simply want to present my opinions, and show my reasons why I hold them.

I want to answer a question. Why do I use the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible on this site? The simplest answer is because that is what I use in my personal study of the Scripture, but then the question still hangs: Why do I use the ESV in my personal study?

So I want to talk about this issue some and offer my perspectives. I should first off begin by affirming what I believe about the Scriptures. I believe that the 39 Old Testament book and 27 New Testament books that make up what protestant churches consider to be the Bible is inspired by God: that is to say that in the original text, God’s Holy Spirit directed the writing so that every word comes as directly breathed by the mouth of God.

I could proof-text this believe, but I will not. Aside from my normal disdain of proof-texting, I also believe it to be unnecessary by virtue of my intended audience. I am not writing to those who question the authority of the Bible. On the contrary, I am writing to those who affirm it, and want to send the message that I agree with you.

The reason I do this is because I applaud the King James Version (KJV) only crowd for one aspect - that which I believe to be most important. I believe they have erred on the right side rather than the wrong. I applaud them for their commitment to the integrity of the Scripture. Their disdain for modern translations grows from a desire that the Word of God not be defiled. I can understand their fears, though I hope that they can see they are not always necessary - especially in the presence of the English Standard Version. Hopefully I can demonstrate this.

That said, I think there is a stigma that the KJV-only people have labored long and hard to create. It is thus: that anyone who is serious about the integrity of the Scriptures uses only the KJV. On the other hand anyone who does not use only the KJV wants to defile the Scriptures and make it say what they want it to say.

I do not claim that this never takes place. There have been several documented cases in which people have deliberately mistranslated the Scriptures to alter it’s meaning. The Mormon Bible in which Jesus is “a god” in John 1 is a quintessential example. These defilements are what the KJV-only people are wanting to avoid, and to some degree I applaud them. However, I think they have taken it to such an extreme that they have alienated many fellow believers.

Let me also say that I have observed three levels of KJV-only believers. Not everyone falls in the worst category. I love each one and seek to live peaceably with all, but the ones in the two more conservative groups are the ones with whom I vehemently disagree.

The first group are very liberal in their KJV-only-ness. They would say that the KJV is the best translation, but the others are also valid. While I have less disagreement with this bunch - if that’s their preference so be it - I wonder why they choose it. Most likely it’s for tradition’s sake, to which I take exception, but it’s not my place to judge. These are the ones who I wish would just pick up a copy of the ESV and read it. They may find a new favorite!

The second group is by far the largest. They claim that not only is the KJV the best translation, it is the only valid translations. They believe that all other translations and versions are defilements. Most of these tout the Textus Receptus (the Received Text) as the official original Greek manuscript (I’ll talk about this some later). I will discuss my disagreement with this group later.

The third group is simply an extremely conservative (and fringe) version of the second. I do not know if this is what they actually believe, but it seems to be the way they act. They talk and act as though the KJV is not the best translation; it is the original language. Because this should obviously be nonsense, I do not know if anyone would actually say this is what they believe, but I have observed behavior that seems to suggest it. Now this is presumptuous, which I fully acknowledge. They could simply just be extreme members of group two. However, when a pastor is fired from a church for consulting the Greek in his sermon (despite preaching from the KJV) I have to wonder if this really is the case.

Let me give you another example of how extreme this KJV-only-ness can get. My wife grew up as an MK in Ecuador. Note this: Ecuador. It’s in South America. The people of Ecuador speak either Spanish, or a native tongue, or some mix of both. Got that? It’s important. My father-in-law once received a survey from one of his supporting churches asking which translation of the Bible he preaches from. Now, my father-in-law preaches from the Spanish Reina-Valera (SRV). Besides being in Spanish, the SRV predates the KJV. So when the churche learned that my wife’s dad preaches from the SRV they understood, right? No. They withdrew their support because he does not preach from the KJV. Ridiculous. At least this is the story as my wife understood it. She was just a child at the time so there could have been mitigating circumstances, but this is at least what it seems. Again, not my place to judge but if it’s really what happened…. Ridiculous.

Readability
One of the major arguments of the modern translation groups is that their translation is more readable. The response from the KJV-only churches is to quote studies that show that the KJV is actually at a lower reading level than the other translations. I like to note a couple things.

First: Conspicuously missing from these studies is the ESV. I’d be curious to see how they rank, though I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the KJV is lower. Note: I don’t think the ESV is missing because it was intentionally omitted to make the KJV look better. I think it’s missing because the study was probably done before the advent of the ESV. I do think the KJV still would rank lower. The reason given by the KJV-onlyers is that the KJV uses only two and three syllable words, while the NIV (their usually chosen nemesis) uses larger words and more complex sentence structure.

I have a rebuttal. It doesn’t matter if the KJV uses smaller words that are easier to sound out than the NIV if the words are not easy to decipher. There is a huge difference between readability and understandability. The modern translations are not so much going for the former as the latter. Example: I can read Korean. Korean is not a tonal language, and their alphabet is phonetic, unlike their neighbors China and Japan, so it wasn’t an inordinate amount of work to train myself to recognize the characters and sound out words. So I can walk down the street and read almost any street sign. I’m a little slow, but with practice I’m getting better. The problem is, ninety percent of the time, I have no idea what the word I’m reading means.

That is an extreme example, but just because a child can sound a word out does not mean s/he can understand it. The KJV is rife with words that have changed meanings in the last four centuries, archaic sentance structures, and figures of speech that are outdated.

The King James Version reads like Shakespeare. While I’ll admit we can read Shakespeare it takes a bit of work and the Bible shouldn’t take that much work. But my point is this: would you expect your fourth grader to be able to read and understand Shakespeare? Of course not! So why do you expect that they be able to read and understand the King James Bible? Remember, they are graded at the same reading level using the same tests.

Original Manuscripts
The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus which was compiled by Erasmus in 1516. Since the title Textus Receptus means Received Text, many believe that these are indeed the original manuscripts. However, they are not. Let me state this so there is no misunderstanding. There are currently in known possession by some person or organization a grand total of zero original texts of the Bible. I repeat that: ZERO. Nobody knows where the original copy of Romans is. Nobody knows where Moses’s copy of Genesis is. Nobody knows these things. All we have are copies, and in many cases copies of copies.

Now, why do I say that? Because over time and copies there are possibilities of alterations - either by evil intent or mistake. God preserves His Word, so we don’t have to worry too much that with the manuscripts we have we do not have enough to arrive at an accurate account. However, we do want to be as accurate as possible, so we try to find the most reliable manuscripts available. Since the compilation of the Textus Receptus many additional manuscripts have been found. The manuscripts do not all come from the same place, nor do they come from the same date. When evaluating two manuscripts of any ancient text scholars and archaeologists use a rule of thumb. We’ll do this in mathish terms: As the date of the copy approaches the date of the original, and as the location of the copy approaches the location of the original, the reliability of the copy approaches 1 (or 100%). Now this is not a perfect rule of thumb, as I know the KJVers out there are chomping at the bit to point out. You have to temper it with a majority rules approach and realize that it is only a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast law.

The Novum Testamentum Graece - aka the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament or NA27, is a compilation of the Greek that continually evaluates original Biblical manuscripts to determine the best possible Greek text. It considers all available manuscripts and attempts to put together a text that reflects the original as closely as possible. This includes the Wescott and Hort text as well as the Textus Receptus and many others. In my humble opinion this is an important process. I am ignorant of their specific methods, but since they claim to want to make the most accurate copy and they continually revise their work, I believe the source can be trusted since God preserves His Word. It is in fact the textual basis of the ESV.

Now let’s talk about the Textus Receptus for a moment. I believe fully that the Textus Receptus was the best available manuscripts for translation of the KJV at the time. However, it no longer is thus because of the appearance of the others. Here’s my reasoning. The Textus Receptus was compiled by Erasmus in 1516 using whatever he had available at the time. Many times he only had one manuscript for a passage. In several instances (such as places in Revelation) he had no Greek manuscripts. I repeat in several places Erasmus could find NO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. In these cases, he filled in the blanks of the Textus Receptus by translating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. Again I say that at the time this was the best available and so should be accepted at an authoritative text for the translation of the KJV. However, it’s not quite the pristine “received text” that KJVers claim it to be.

In a day when we now have a Greek text for every single portion of the New Testament why should we not consider all available manuscripts for inclusion? Obviously some should be rejected, but does that mean we shouldn’t include some or even consider any? Are you going to tell me that in 400 years of scholarly advancements and archeological discoveries we haven’t gotten any better at interpreting ancient texts?

But… We Use the 1611 KJV!
No you don’t. I love this one. KJVers will tout their adherence to the 1611 KJV. I know what they mean - they’re trying to distinguish it from the New King James Version (NKJV c. 1980), which is basically an update of the language of the KJV. However, when they say they use the KJV 1611 it’s simply not true, and when you look at the facts, they really ought to be willing to accept at least the NKJV. I won’t tell you what I mean; I’ll show you. Consider what the KJV says in John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 KJV)

Right… we’re all familiar with that… But here’s what the actual 1611 KJV says:

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. (John 3:16 KJV-1611)

Whoah! So what does this tell us? What is the KJV you hold in your hands today? It’s called the 1611 by the KJV movement, but is it? Not at all. It is an update of the 1611 into what was more modern language at the time of the update (I don’t know when it was done). It mostly focused on spelling, but it’s basically the exact same thing the New King James Version did! It updated the language/spelling of the King James Version into more modern language of the time.

So why do the KJVers claim they have the 1611? I think they just don’t know the truth. I think that’s what they’ve been told and they just believe it. Not that anyone was deliberately trying to deceive them, for I believe they truly believed it too. How long has this been going on? WHO KNOWS?

But… Wescott and Hort Were Satanists!!
So what? It’s an ad homonim, but so what? Erasmus was a pothead, and yet if someone points that out your response is “God preserves His word.” Why can’t that cut both ways? Yeah, I’ll admit it looks a bit suspicious when a Satanist wants to do anything with the text of the Bible, but let me offer some mitigating evidence.

Wescott and Hort were scholars - Greek scholars to be exact. When they compiled their New Testament, they were doing it as a work of academics, not as a religious effort. Since Greek was still widely taught as an Academic subject, had they made significant alterations to the text, someone would have called them on it. This would be similar to if a wacko scientist published an article in which his scientific method was very bad, there are scientists out there who would oppose him. Similarly if I posted something like “Joe is an idiot” on Wikipedia then within a week there would be a “citation needed” after it. In other words, despite their Satanism they didn’t really have much freedom to do anything to the text.

On top of that, there’s no evidence that they ever intended the text to be used for new translations. Does this mean it shouldn’t be used? I don’t know. The ESV didn’t use it directly. However what it does suggest is that there’s not much of a motive to change the text. Sure if they were trying to get Christians to translate the Bible from it then they might have been tempted to change something, but here again when a Christian viewed the finished product they might have called them to account. This is a very weak argument because it comes from silence, I’ll admit, but I still think it bears consideration. Proving that a murder suspect had no motive for the murder could very well clear him of suspicion. I don’t know that a KJVer could any more prove that Wescott and Hort had a motive to change it any more than I can prove they didn’t - so that argument should be thrown out completely.

Which brings up a point. KJVers I’ve heard arguing on this subject do a lot of presuming on people’s motives. They claim to know that, for example, the translators of the NIV changed the word “Hell” to “Hades” which is a term from Greek mythology. Who would be interested in taking “Hell” out of the Bible???? Of course you’re supposed to say “OOOH!! Satan wants Hell out of the Bible! The NIV translators must have been Satanists trying to trick us!!!” Aside from the point that Paul used the word Hades at a time when Greek mythology was very fresh on people’s minds - this argument is at best an indirect ad homonim. You cannot know people’s motives who are not you. You shouldn’t judge them. And you certainly can’t imply they are Satanists.

Another mitigating argument is that were I - a follower of Christ - to translate the Koran into English, I would want to translate it as accurately as possible to the original text because I - like many other people out there who consider themselves to be educated - would consider changing the text to be a very underhanded tactic. There are better ways to prove the Bible over the Koran even when you let the Koran speak for itself. Again, silence, but why wouldn’t Wescott and Hort have the same outlook. After all they were educated scholars.

—————-
Now I embark on my personal story on how I arrived at the ESV.

Why I Rejected the KJV
I grew up in a family and church that were not KJV-only, so my real first experience with KJV was in middle school or high school. I transfered to a Christian school in 8th grade that required us to use either the NIV or the KJV. I decided to give the KJV a try and decided I couldn’t handle it. I actually remember getting headaches trying to read it. Similarly I hated trying to read Shakespeare. Don’t get me wrong. Shakespeare wrote great plays and I love seeing them acted out - even when they speak in the KJV language. (BTW I can interpret spoken Elizabethan English much better than written). However, I HATE trying to read Shakespeare. Would I advocate updating his language? Not yet - because the reasons are not as compelling. Shakespeare wasn’t intended to be read by all ages for the purpose of communicating a very important message as was the Bible. The Bible is the revelation of God to man and was intended to be read/understood by all. The world is not better or worse off based on how many people have read Shakespeare (especially with the performances out there) so much as it is a better or worse place based on how much the Bible is read.

Anyway, the long and short of it is, I didn’t understand it. Could part of this have been due to the fact that I wasn’t yet saved? Most likely, but I think at least part of it was due to the Elizabethan archaic English. So I went in search of a more readable Bible.

Why I Rejected the NIV & Other Dynamic Equivalencies:
I landed on the NIV for a while, but I didn’t really like it that much. I did notice many of the textual variations between it and the KJV, and always wondered about it. Then in high school I learned about translation philosophy - that the KJV was an “essentially literal” translation that tried to translate the original language to the closest possible contemporary equivalent. The only trouble was that it was done in 1611 and updated not too long after for spelling and wasn’t really contemporary any more.

The NIV on the other hand is a “dynamic equivalence” translation, which instead of translating the text word for word, translates it thought for thought. I didn’t really like this translation philosophy so I began looking for an essentially literal translation that didn’t sound like KJV!

By the way there is a spectrum here. On the one hand you can have extremely strict word for word translations that are very hard to read, and on the other you can have very very loose thought for thought translations. For example, the New American Standard Bible is quite possibly the most literal translation of the text, but it is very hard to read. Meanwhile the Message and the New Living Translation are much easier to read but paraphrase sentences and even entire paragraphs at a time so as to make it flow better. The trade off is that some of the nuance of the text is lost and it’s very difficult to cross reference.

I knew I wanted an essentially literal translation, but I didn’t know which one.

Why I Use the ESV:
I chose the ESV because it is an Essentially literal translation that was done in 2001 in updated English from the Novum Testamentum Graece with high regard for the original language. The desire of the translators was “to make the original biblical languages as transparent as possible to the reader. (and to give) the reader the best view of the original wording of the biblical writers.” They wanted to balance this approach with literary elegance so to preserve the translation heritage dating all the way back to Wycliff.

To me, the ESV has the translation philosophy, readability and literary beauty necessary to be called The Bible. I enjoy reading it. I find it equally useful for light perusing as well as in-depth study. It follows the KJV close enough that when used along side the KJV and Strong’s, as is possible through e-Sword, in depth study is powerful.

Why Not Other Literal Translations? (RSV, NASB, NKJV)?
1. The ESV was done in 2001 so the language is even more up to date

2. The ESV started as a replacement to the RSV intending to correct some errors - particularly small wording errors that obscured some prophecies and their fulfillments as in Isaiah 7.

3. The ESV looks outside the Textus Receptus to find the most accurate original text so as to best render the translation. The New King James Version stayed bound to the Textus Receptus

4. The ESV speaks my language, whereas the NASB reads like something out of a bad Internet translator in which the words are all translated directly with no thought to figure of speech and idiom.

In conclusion I say that any Bible you find that was not intentionally mistranslated is a good translation. If you understand what it says, and study it daily, the Holy Spirit will use it to build you up in your faith. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who benefit from studying the King James, but I am not one of them. I do not like it when people expect me to. KJV-only-ites are like morning people: they expect everyone else to be one. I think it’s wrong and a bad attitude to judge someone else like that.

On top of that, I’ll go still another step toward heresy and say that since God preserves His Word, if you are a believer and understand that Bibles like the Mormon Bible are tainted, the Holy Spirit can still use those to teach you His Truth b/c He is more powerful than those who tried to defile His Word. However, when there are so many other better translations out there (and there are many pick one. I don’t care which. I suggest the ESV because I like it) why go with The Mormon Bible. It’s like having a burger when you can get a T-Bone for the same price. God bless you as you study His Word.

For further study consider the following sources:
http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version#Translation_philosophy_and_textual_basis
http://www.esv.org/translation/team
http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_receptus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version