Saturday, January 31, 2015

LOST IN THE TRANSLATIONS?

A preacher I admire recently said something that disturbed me.  He spoke about the connection between the renewing of the mind and the development of dendrites, or neural connections, in the human brain.  He added that research has shown that reading the King James Version of the Bible is the best way to develop dendrites.
   I didn’t have a problem with those comments.  In fact, I found them to be quite interesting.  What he said next did disturb me.
   He turned to a particular passage in the New Testament where the KJV uses the word “of” in a key phrase, but some translations use the word “in.”  He then stated that the “in” translations were abominations!  That disturbed me, because I use one of the “in” translations, and I regard it as more reliable than the KJV.
   I know some will see my last statement as controversial.  But don’t dismiss or condemn me until you have read all I have to say.

The first point I need to make is that no English translation is perfect.  That includes my favorite as well as yours.  They all have flaws.
   How can I say that?  Just consider all the English translations ever made, from those produced before the KJV and after the KJV up to today.  You will find dozens.  If someone had made a perfect English translation, why would they see the need to produce another?
   I know that my favorite, the New American Standard, is not perfect.  Let me show you where they made a mistake.
   In the passage where Paul talks about his thorn in the flesh, he says a messenger from Satan was sent to torment him, to stop his exaltation.  Now the traditional religious view is that Paul was becoming “puffed up” with pride over all the revelation knowledge he received, and the demon came to humiliate him.  The NASV seems to uphold this because it says, “Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me -- to keep me from exalting myself!” (2Cor. 12:7 NASV)  Other translations say, “… lest I should be exalted above measure.”
   I believe the NASV translators were influenced by tradition.  But is the traditional view correct?  As Al Borland used to say, “I don’t think so, Tim!”
   If Paul was exalting himself in pride, wouldn’t that be just what the devil wanted?  He knows that pride leads to a fall and destruction (Prov. 16:18, John 10:10).  If Paul was getting proud over his revelations, the devil would have left him alone, or he would have sent the demon to help speed up the process!
  Also, consider this passage, not only in the context of the letter where it occurs, but also context of Paul’s writings and life.
   The passage about Paul’s thorn in the flesh is in 2 Corinthians.  Paul wrote this letter to answer charges that he was not a true apostle.  He first wrote 1 Corinthians to deal with several problems in the Corinthian church.  I’m sure some didn’t like Paul’s correction, so they began to question his authority.  This opened the door for the false apostles to either come into the church, or to rise up from within their ranks to proclaim themselves as apostles and to take away Paul’s influence over the church.
   Even though he didn’t want to, Paul had to compare himself to the false apostles.  Instead of trying to impress the Corinthians with tales of mighty accomplishments, he enumerated his struggles on their behalf and for the Gospel’s sake.  He preferred to boast about his weaknesses, because God’s power accomplishes more through human weakness than through human strength.  That doesn’t sound like pride to me.
   Now, consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians.  As I said earlier, Paul dealt with several issues in the Corinthian church.  But all the issues had a common root:  spiritual immaturity.
   When dealing with the misuse of spiritual gifts, he said he would show them a better way, right before he begins talking about love in the 13th chapter, more popularly known as the Love Chapter.
  Towards the end of the Love Chapter, Paul makes a statement about putting away childish things.  In other words, he was talking about growing up.  What does that have to do with love?  Plenty!  Love is the mark of spiritual maturity.
   Humility is one of the characteristics of love (1 Cor. 13:8).
   Long before Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he had learned his lesson about humility.
   We often fail to realize that the Paul received his first revelation on the road to Damascus.  Before then, he had knowledge of the Scriptures, but not knowledge of the Truth.
   Right after his conversion, we see Paul at Damascus and at Jerusalem, debating with the Jews and presenting proof that Jesus was the Messiah promised to them long ago.  But what we don’t see is any record of salvations, healings, deliverances, or other miracles through Paul’s ministry.  Why don’t we see that?  Because Paul was operating in pride over the revelation knowledge he received.
   The only thing Paul accomplished through that approach was being run out of both Damascus and Jerusalem (Acts 9:20 - 30).
   After Paul left Jerusalem, he spent time in his hometown, Tarsus, praying, fasting, meditating, studying, worshiping, etc.  We don’t see him engaged in ministry again until Barnabas comes to fetch him to Antioch to help out with the Gentile church, not as an apostle, but as a teacher (Acts 11:19 - 26).
   I’m sure Paul gained many revelations at Tarsus, but he had already learned his lesson about pride.  If he was still operating in pride, he would have insisted the church at Antioch recognize him as an apostle.  After all, wasn’t he called to be an apostle during his Damascus road experience?  But Paul was not an apostle from the beginning.  He had to grow into his calling.  When he came to Antioch, he submitted to Barnabas and served the church as a teacher first.
  So, the passage about Paul’s thorn in the flesh wasn’t about Paul exalting himself because of his revelations, but it’s about Satan’s trying to stop God from exalting Paul in the Kingdom!
   So, no English translation is perfect.  That includes the King James version.  Now, if you have a problem with that statement, consider this:  Prayer Center preachers are some of the biggest critics of the KJV that I have seen!
   You probably know what I’m talking about.  First, they have the whole big ‘S’ - little ‘s’ thing about when the NT is speaking about the Holy Spirit or the believer’s born-again human spirit.
   Also, how many times have you heard a Prayer Center preacher read from the KJV and then say, “Well, that’s a little King Jamesy”?
   “King Jamesy”?  What’s wrong with “King Jamesy”?  Aren’t they as much as saying the KJV needs to be translated from Elizabethan English into Modern English?
    Besides that, when they do the “King Jamesy” thing, they usually go on to explain what the Bible is saying, and when they do, they often say the very same thing the NASV says.

So, which translation should you use?  That is ultimately up to you and the Holy Spirit.  Until He speaks to you, all I can do is to give you some information and advice to help you make the best decision you can.
  We’ll look at the original language texts used for translation, and the two approaches to the translation process.

Before someone can translate a document from one language into another, they must have the original text, or if the original is not available, a standardized text in the original language.
   The original texts of the Bible books no longer exist, but plenty of handwritten copies (manuscripts) do.  Some of the manuscripts are nothing more than fragments that might contain a few words, phrases, or sentences.  Some contain a nearly complete or complete book.  Some contain more than one book.  Some contain a complete Old Testament or New Testament.  Very few contain a complete Bible.
   Scholars have examined and compared these manuscripts to create the standardized original language texts used for translation.
   As they compared these manuscripts, they had to resolve variations in wording in some phrases.  The primary factor they would consider is how many manuscripts contained each variation, with the most weight given to the most common variation.  Other factors would include the visual quality (legibility) and the age of the manuscripts.
   The age of the manuscripts is also a factor in why scholars began to produce new translations.
   In the 1700’s and early 1800’s, explorers and archaeologists discovered additional manuscripts that were not known about, and therefore unavailable at the time of the King James translation process.  Also, many of these manuscripts were older than the manuscripts available in the early 1600's.  So, the scholars had to produce new original language texts.  More modern translations use these new standardized texts.
   If you don’t think this is important, consider this analogy:  What if we had no original manuscripts of Shakespeare’s writings, or copies dating back to his lifetime?  How could Shakespearean scholars and fans reliably know what he wrote?  Wouldn’t they go through the same process that Bible scholars went through to produce the original language texts for the Bible?  Wouldn’t they give the most weight to the oldest copies available?

Once scholars have produced a reliable standardized text, translators have to choose one of two approaches to translation: word-for-word, or thought-for-thought.
   Word-for-word is just what it sounds like it is.  The translator works word by word, taking one word at a time.  He first looks for a direct equivalent for each word, and if one is not available, then he will use his knowledge of the original language to pick a word or words that best represents or expresses the meaning of the original word.
   In the thought-for-thought approach, the translator looks at more than just one word at a time.  He looks at an entire phrase, clause, or sentence.  If that phrase occurs in other literature in the original language, then the translator is likely to use the rendering used in the translation of that other literature that contains that phrase.  The translator would do the same if the phrase was a common expression used by native speakers of that language.  The translator could also use a common English expression if one already exists that comes close to the phrase in the original language text.  Otherwise, the translator would have to the best he or she could, using his or her best understanding of the original language.
   The word-for-word approach is generally more literal than the thought-for-thought process.  Some consider the thought-for-thought approach to be not much more than a paraphrase.
   The thought-for-thought translations are generally easier to read, but the word-for-word translations are more reliable for establishing doctrine.

Most modern translations will explain in a Preface or Introduction which process was used, as well as which texts were used into the translation.  I’m sure you can find the same information online.

Beyond this information, I offer the following advice:
   Don’t’ accept any translation wholesale.  As I said earlier, all English translations are flawed.  Pick one you consider the most reliable to use most of the time for reading, study and meditation, but leave yourself open to consider what other translations say.
   One the other side of the same coin, don’t exclude any translation unless it is biased towards the doctrines of a particular group.  I can think of a few like this, but I won’t say which ones right now.
   I do see a two-sided danger in restricting yourself to only one translation.  On the one side, you leave yourself open to any errors in that translation.  On the other side, you cut yourself off to the truth presented in other translations.
   Even though I prefer the New American Standard, I don’t totally reject the King James version either.  In some cases, I see the KJV expresses truth in a better fashion than the NASV.  I have been using the NASV for quite a while now, and I see it generally does a better job with verb tenses, and in some places, the wording in the NASV is stronger than in the KJV.

Considering all this, why do some hang on to the KJV?  I believe I know the answer.
    Years ago, I studied computer programming at a junior college.  The head of the computer department had years of experience programming computers in the business world.
   During one class, he began to discuss the capabilities of different computer languages.  Someone asked why so many companies continued to use COBOL, one of the older high-level languages, while more capable languages had become available in recent times.  His answer: Inertia.
   Inertia is resistance to change.  He went on to explain that many companies had invested large amounts of money in hardware, compilers, and programmers’ salaries and they were reluctant to dump all that to invest in new hardware, compilers, and programmers.
   In a similar manner, people have invested time, money, and probably emotion the KJV.
   A related issue is why some preachers condemn modern English translations.  I’m sure some only want to control their followers, and they have no true concern for the truth or for their followers’ well-being.  However, I am sure that the preacher who sparked this article is concerned about the spiritual growth of believers.

Controversy over translations is probably not a new thing.  In the First Century, the Jews had 3 versions of the OT (Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, and Aramaic)… and the Samaritans had their own version as well.  I wouldn’t be surprised if controversy over these versions had crept into the Church.

If you have already settled on a translation to use, please be open to considering other translations in your study of the Word.  If you haven’t settled yet, please do some research, consider the information I have presented here, pray and listen to the Holy Spirit.