Dyn-o-mite post. Really.

Convicting and encouraging. By the grace of God, I have been able to have a schedule in the morning to read my Bible, the (ESV study Bible).

I have been going through one book at a time, and I simply read the portion that has a heading to the next heading. I stop and think on this section. I then read over the comments. I then pray, and perhaps share a thought with my wife before I leave for work.

Some mornings my hot coffee gets cold while I read. Some mornings the Word seems more cold to me. I hate my fickleness, but it's the best I can be at the time I suppose, and so I trust Christ as much as I can.

Thanks again for an excellent post.

 

Thanks Don - you are such an encourager - I love it.

 

I am wondering, is it still possible to be edified from the KJV and NKJV versions? Does the latest translation really make that much difference to the infusion of grace and truth?

 

Jim, I suspect your question is directed at Don's comment, but I wouldn't mind fielding an answer in Don's stead.

I want to start with a story Pastor Bill tells, and you may have heard him tell it. He was called to help deal with an pastor who being engaged in ongoing, unrepentant immorality was asked to step down from his role as pastor, but refused to do so.

The defense, if you will recall, that this wayward pastor gave was that God was blessing his ministry by bringing in new converts; this, that pastor insisted, proved that God was blessing his ministry - and if God was blessing his ministry - then God was okay with his immorality too.

Pastor Bill, if you will recall, pointed out that if the Devil himself preached the gospel, people would come to Christ, not because God was blessing the Devil, but because God blesses the gospel - that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. They finally ousted the fellow, but it reminds me of a truth that may apply here.

In the wake of that, let's answer your first question:

Yes, it is still possible for the King James and the New King James translations to edify people.

In fact, I personally know of genuine Christians who were saved by reading the Jehovah's Witness translation of scripture!

Now, given what you know of the New World Translation, would you say that because God used this one translation to infuse grace and truth to one person, that God wants us to use this translation?

Would you say that because God used this particular translation to infuse grace and truth to one person, that God wants us to regard all translations as equal, since it is God who infuses grace and truth, and not the translation?

I think I am answering for both of us Jim, when I say, God forbid!

It is wrong to conclude that when God uses something he is necessarily endorsing it.

Erasmus hadn't set out to compile a Greek New Testament, except as a supplement to his Latin New Testament. He wanted to update and correct the current Latin bibles, and to show that his new Latin emendments were reasonable, he wanted to appeal to a ready Greek compilation.

Erasmus was a brilliant scholar, but for all his brilliance, his Greek NT was based entirely on a mere six Greek manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament (what he lacked in actual manuscripts, he penned in by translating some of his Latin manuscript into Greek.

He compiled the whole thing by himself, set up his own criteria for determining which manuscript variant he would use when a discrepency was found, and in the course of months he put together the a complete Greek NT. A remarkable scholastic achievement.

William Tyndale used Erasmus' Greek NT to translate the NT into bible - for which Erasmus' superiors burned him at the stake. Most of Tyndales translation was however, eventually copied verbatim into/as the KJV only a few years later.

Yet in spite of all this rich history - are we really to imagine that one man in his free time, for personal fame, profit, and glory - brilliant as he was, but no Christian, was what this man slapped together in his basement in a matter of months from six texts chosen to ape his Latin version - is this man's work to be held up as the standard because God used it?

We ask that because the translation Don writes of, the ESV is based on the work, of tens of thousands of NT scholars, over the course of centuries, and involving well over five thousand manuscripts.

Thus, when I answer the second question, I load it first with some serious thought - God used the KJV and the NKJV - and uses them today to great effect - not because they are the best, but because God is gracious to us. But ought we to accept a thing as good enough simply because God has used it to infuse grace and truth?

To that I say, rubbish.

The ESV is a better version than the either the KJV or the NKJV because it is based upon a more accurate rendering of the original manuscripts. God can infuse grace and truth through even poor renderings of His word (NWT, etc.) - but this is no reason to rest with such renderings. Does not God's prosper in proportion to the accuracy of its presentation?

Anyway - I hope that answers the question.

 

Thanks Daniel for sharing that. I have used a NKJV for years. My last pastor preached mainly from a NAS, and the Bibles in the pews were NAS.

When we have our Bible study we actually look at 5 different versions, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NAS, & NJB (Catholic Bible).

And a good friend who leads our study is a prof, and is very well versed in the original languages. I am very blessed to be able to attend such a fine time of fellowship, worship, and study in the Word.

I'm praying the Lord would expand this small group of believers and use us in our community to reach many lost souls. Great blessings come from small beginings.

BTW, my pastor changed over from the NAS to the ESV a couple years ago, and so I followed him. Not that I had to.

 

Daniel, thanks for the defense of the ESV. I have no problem with seeking a more accurate translation of the original languages.

Do you have a link where I can compare the "shortcomings" of previous translations to the ESV?

The reason I bring this up is that I find many people more excited about which translation they are actually using than the fact that it is the Word of God they are studying. Every group of believers has their favorite version to endorse.

BTW, I typically read the NAS in the morning as my devotional Bible.

What I have noticed however is that almost every translation tends to incorporate the eisegetical interpretation of its authors, which is something we must be aware of.

 

Jim, this might prove a fruitful read: Choosing a Bible Translation.

I agree that there are all kinds of people who look down their up turned noses at those other people who dare to endorse different translations. It is a regretable, unChristlike thing.

I prefer those translations which police themselves - striving to eliminate altogether any sort of interpretive bias finding its way into the translation. The translations which strive to acheive this, in my opinion, are better than those that don't for obvious reasons.

When I translate a verse, I make sure, as best as I am able, to translate what is said, and not what I think is meant, reasoning that if my interpretation is valid, it will show up without my having to impose it in the translation.