|
| Bible Versions (Part Three) |
| 17.11.06 |
Heretical Versions of the Bible
This is a follow-up to the previous post in which I highlighted a quote from John Piper (a preacher I respect greatly) that spoke to the value of many versions of the Bible.
He is correct in lifting up credible translations (NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, etc.) as helpful and valuable. Despite the KJV-Only claim that "you can't get save through the other versions," I find that even the NLT is valuable in proclaiming God's message. It is not close to being as good as the NASB, ESV, NKJV or KJV (or even the NIV!), but it does proclaim the Gospel adequately. I even use it in my Bible reading time and sometimes to read to my 2 year old and 5 years old daughters.
However, there are versions that hold little-to-no value. For example there is the New World Translation from the Jehovah's Witnesses. It proves its heretical intentions clearest in John 1.1: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The problem with their usage of "a god" is that it, #1 promotes a polytheism they deny; #2 it is inaccurate- consistency would call for them to retranslate "God" as "a god" in many other places; #3 though this fits with their warped theology, it was inspired by cultic writings, not credible Christian doctrines from the early Church.
Second there is the "Inspired Version" by Joseph Smith (Mormon founder- along with some demons no doubt). To stick with John 1.1, here is the Joseph Smith version: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God." Of course there is no reason to place "Son" in this verse. There is no legitimate support from ancient texts to render John 1.1 as using the word "Son." Add to that the verse concludes, "the Son was of God," and it unites with Mormon theology and doctrine, but it departs from Biblical truth and honest translation.
Third there is The Message. I refuse to call it a Bible, because it is a shallow commentary at best, and blatantly heretical at worst. It waters down the Word so thoroughly that it becomes useless. I have a prior post on this "version" that demonstrates the problem with The Message. Here is the core of that post:I have no respect for "The Message" bible. It continually waters-down the message of God. A prime example is the rendering of Hebrews 10.31. I will compare:
From the King James: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
From the New King James: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
From the New Century Version: "It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
From the World English Bible: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
From the New American Standard Bible: "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
From the New International Version: "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
From the New Living Translation: "It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
Even the heretical New World Translation says: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God." (Which many Jehovah's Witnesses will do if they do not repent from their cult)
Now for "The Message" rendering of Hebrews 10.31: "Nobody's getting by with anything, believe me."
What is wrong with that version? It totally takes out any hint of God's Judgment. The people who came up with the trash they pass off as a Bible (The Message) need to repent for their mishandling of God's Word! Finally, is The Catholic Bible. The one commissioned most recently (mid 1900's) was The New American Bible. It was the follow-up to the Douay-Rheims Bible, the first major version for English-speaking Romanists (late-1500's to early 1600's). The inclusion of the non-canonical Apocryphal books discounts these "Bibles" for anyone who cherishes truth and honesty in Scripture. It seems to be more of a response to the losses of Rome to Biblical Christianity dating from the pre-Reformation and Reformation roots until the present. I still believe that the inclusion of the Apocrypha by Rome was a reaction to the adoption of the canonical books by the Reformers (with history on the side of the Reformers for sure).
The issue of the Bible and legitimate versions is essential to the growth of the true Church and the spread of the true Gospel. It gives us a foundation to expose and resist heresy (i.e.- Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS/Mormons, Jewish Mysticism/"Dan Brown theology", etc.) and grow in Christ.Labels: Bible |
posted by pregador27 @ 10:58   |
|
|
|
| Bible Versions (Part Two) |
| 16.11.06 |
 An Endorsement of the English Standard Bible
I was reading John Piper's site and found an interesting quote on Bible versions:
I would rather have people read any translation of the Bible—no matter how weak—than to read no translation of the Bible. If there could be only one translation in English, I would rather it be my least favorite than that there be none. God uses every version to bless people and save people.
John Piper recommends the ESV.
Through this article John Piper recommended the new English Standard Version for NIV-type readability with NASB-type word for word translation that is light on interpretation. I have been looking at the ESV and agree. It is a bit easier to read than the NASB and it more faithful to the manuscripts than is the NIV.
Being non-KJV-Only, I still find the KJV useful. I do not discount it at all. However, I choose the NASB or the ESV. And I agree with John Piper on his above quote.
Labels: Bible |
| posted by pregador27 @ 12:22 |
|
|
|
| Bible Versions (Part One) |
| 13.11.06 |
 When Did the King James Version become "Authorized?"
Because the 1611 version is very much different. For example Matthew 26.64 in both:
Iesus saith vnto him, Thou hast saide: Neuerthelesse I say vnto you, Hereafter shall yee see the Sonne of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heauen. (KJV 1611)
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (KJV "Authorized") While I know it is only a difference in spelling here, if the KJV is the "only version," how dare someone change it. Otherwise, it is just a good, reliable translation. If someone has the date that the KJV became "Authorized," please tell me in the comments section. Because it is not the original KJV we use now.
KJV-Onlyism is heretical and requires the use of a specific version for salvation (as I've been told before, "You can't be saved using the NIV." )
I use the KJV, but also the NASB, NIV (though I think it is weak in many areas), NKJV, ESV, WEBible, NET Bible, NLT (though it is also weak in areas), Young's Literal Translation and the ASV at times. What do non-english speakers use if the KJV is the only version God sanctions?Labels: Bible |
| posted by pregador27 @ 08:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
