• About Us
  • Beliefs
  • History
  • Leadership
  • Location
  • Pastor
  • Vision
• Ministries
  • Baby Quilts
  • Benevolence
  • Children’s Ministries
  • Greenfield Assisted Living
  • Hand Bell Choir
  • Home Groups
  • Men’s Ministry
  • Outreach
  • Women’s Ministry
  • Youth Group
• Growth
  • Baptism
  • Budget
  • Career
  • Holidays
  • Marriage
  • Parenting
  • Our Flesh
  • Other Articles
• Resources
  • Bylaws
  • Calendar
  • Child Safety
  • Constitution
  • Sermons
• Contact Us

What translation of the Bible do you recommend?

Q: Obviously you study from Greek manuscript translations, but for those who don’t (yet) read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, what translation(s) do you recommend?I have most recently been swayed by friends of the “King James only” school. And I have always felt that the Living Bible really misses the mark.

A: The answer to your question depends on what you are using your Bible for. Most people in our church use the New International Version — I know many of the translators from my seminary days and I recommend it. However, for serious Bible study, I recommend the New American Standard Version. For understanding the argument of an epistle, I recommend Moffatt or Phillips. For a brand new Christian who is a poor reader, I recommend the New Century Version. Obviously, I avoid any “gender neutral” translations that intentionally change the meaning and gender of the original words. In other words, they add to or subtract from God’s Word – a very dangerous practice (see warnings in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19). The New Living Bible is a paraphrase and not a translation (and at least in early days this was made clear in the Preface to that translation).

I have no problem using the NEW King James version. It’s a good translation. However, I recommend against the old King James version, since it is written in a different dialect from 20th century English. I have found too many people who use the old KJV who fail to understand what they are reading. Others do exactly the opposite of what God intents, because they don’t understand how words have changed their meaning from the time of the KJV translation.

One example of this was a woman who continuously talked about Christianity to her pagan husband. I found out about her evangelistic nagging and asked her why. She told me she was merely obeying the teaching of 1 Peter 3:1-2 which (in the King James Version) told her that her husband would be won by her “conversation.” “Conversation” in 17th century England meant “behavior,” not talk. She was doing the exact opposite from what the Lord commanded! I have other examples of the same sort.

I am amazed at the spiritual energy that is expended on the “King James only” debate. I certainly don’t agree with the attempt to mistranslate or “update” God’s Word (for example, Zondervan’s recent attempt to put out a gender neutral translation – This is marketing by interpretation, not translation). But the “King James only” debate is basically an issue of whether we will use the most ancient Greek manuscripts as our guide or whether we will use the most numerous manuscripts as our guide. If you follow the most numerous manuscripts view then you arrive at something called the Textus Receptus (the “received text”). If you follow the most ancient manuscripts view, you put a heavy emphasis upon the oldest texts: for example the Alexandrian texts.

But when all is said and done, NO doctrines are changed by whether you use the New King James Version based on the Textus Receptus or whether you use the New International Version based on the Alexandrian texts. This is not an argument that affects ANY major doctrines.

My opinion is that we should use the most ancient texts we have available and that they should be given heavier weight. This is the way all other ancient documents are reconstructed. But even if you choose the Textus Receptus, you are merely adding short phrases or words that already appear elsewhere in the Scripture or are already implied from the passage.

A good example of the latter is Luke 17:9. Jesus asks, “Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do?” If you look at the KJV they have after Jesus’ question: “I trowest not.” NKJV has “I think not.” This is merely stating what is already obvious from what Jesus said. “I think not” does appear in numerous manuscripts, but not in the Alexandrian texts. My opinion is that it was probably added by a copyist at some point, either because (1) the copyist wanted to make the point even more clear or (2) it was a phrase written on his original (perhaps in the margin or over top the words — having been written by a former preacher or student) and he didn’t know if it should be part of the original or not, so he erred on the side of caution and included it.

As I said, I am amazed by the spiritual energy that is expended on this. I can’t help, but think that the real motive behind the debate FOR SOME is to provide a reason for division and exclusiveness from the rest of the Body of Christ. The debate certainly seems to come from the legalistic, “we are the only true church” side of Christianity. I have to believe that some pastors are thinking: “If I can convince you that the KJV Bible is the only true Bible, then you will stay in my church rather than go to someone else’s church that uses ‘modern’ translations based on the Alexandrian texts.” Having spoken with some of those pastors, I believe that this is a fair statement of their true motive. It is sad when we have to manipulate people or create scare tactics to get people to remain in our churches.