Ever wondered how the Bible can be the infallible word of God when there are so many different versions of it? Can they really all be infallible? Do they all say basically the same thing? There can be no doubt that there are numerous differences between the multitude of different translations of the Bible available in the English-speaking world. We're going to look at just a few of them.The most popular English translations today include the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and New King James Version (NKJV). There are others as well, of course, but these four are considered by many to be the most popular. Now there are two ways we can examine the reliability and authenticity of these versions: 1.) by examining the facts we know about the manuscripts they were translated from, and 2.) by comparing the last three to the KJV and examining any contradiction that arises.
Let's take a look at the manuscripts. As the King James Version was translated from younger manuscripts, particularly a compilation known as the Textus Receptus, than the other three, it is often argued that when there are differences between them it is the KJV which is in error, as older manuscripts are naturally more accurate. This is of course a very sensible assertion, as that is generally how things are done. However, one must account for logic and reasoning as well. There are many verses and/or sections of verses found in the KJV that are simply non-existent in the modern versions. One example of this can be found in Acts 8:37 (assuming you're using a KJV Bible, if on the other hand your Bible is NIV, for instance, you won't find it): "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Here's the whole thing in context, Acts 8:36-38: "36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." Now, many believe that the younger manuscripts used in translating the King James were alterations of the originals which were changed for the purpose of supporting extra-biblical doctrines. Is believing with all your heart before being baptized extra-biblical? I doubt that anyone would draw that conclusion, regardless of what translation you're using. Belief before baptism is a doctrine which can be backed up in other places in the Bible, so why would it be inserted falsely here? Likewise, many believe that 1 John 5:7 in the KJV was inserted later to support extra-biblical doctrine, yet this verse is an explanation of the Trinity, an already Biblical doctrine. In at least one manuscript that did not include 1 John 5:7 in the main text it was included in a marginal note. Is it not logical to assume that this was in fact a marginal note in the original text? And that perhaps some scribes felt it important enough to include in the main text when copying it while others ignored it as it was a marginal note? These are questions we must ask ourselves. And if this is the case then perhaps the verse should be enclosed in parentheses but it should most certainly not be dropped altogether. The bottom line is that as the Trinity doctrine can be backed up Biblically with or without this verse, so adding it in with the intent of perverting the Gospel doesn't quite add up. Perhaps all verses excluded from the modern translations should be re-inserted, if only in parentheses, as they do not pervert the Gospel but in fact clarify it and most likely were present, whether in the body of the text or in the margins, in the original manuscripts.
While this "logical" viewpoint is of course far from being proof that the KJV publication of 1611 is more accurate, there are other more definitive reasons, not the least of which being the location of the older manuscripts from which many modern translations receive their justification. These texts come from a region of northern Africa that is certainly worthy of some skepticism as to their authenticity. The older manuscripts are traced back to Alexandria, the known location of a cult often referred to as the "Alexandrian Cult", founded in part by an Alexandrian by the name of Origen. This cult, which some have compared to the Watchtower Society in modern times, wished to be viewed as legitimately Christian while still holding to its unique and unscriptural teachings. Thus, it had its own unique version of the Bible. Not only can many "modern" Bibles be traced back to these Alexandrian manuscripts, but in fact the Latin Vulgate, later translated into English and currently known as the Douay-Rheims Bible (the translation most commonly accepted and used by the Roman Catholic Church) is also translated from these same manuscripts, as well as the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. While some have taken this revelation to the extent of referring to all who use modern translations of the Bible as being members of this same "Alexandrian Cult", it is clear that they are at worst misled and that English-speaking churches are safe from faulty doctrine, if for no other reason than because the King James Version is still present to balance them out. In conclusion, it is reasonable to assert that the more modern versions are perfectly good translations of the wrong text, most likely with the best of intentions, but nonetheless not the original scriptures.
From this viewpoint that the missing verses in modern translations are in fact inspired scripture, let's examine the possible motivation for their more recent omission. If we read Acts 8:36-38 excluding verse 37 it now reads: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and thy went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." If something doesn't quite seem right here, that's because it isn't. The problem with omitting verse 37 is that now it would appear that baptism is something that can be done upon a simple whim, merely having come across water alongside the road. Philip no longer explains to the eunuch that he must understand the significance of baptism before undergoing it. This leaves an opening for a church to use this passage to justify baptizing members without explaining to them what baptism is, why it's important, and why they must count the cost (Luke 14:28) before going through with it. Like Mark 9:44 and 9:46 are also missing completely. Both are explanations of hell which are entirely Biblical (with or without these verses), yet when you remove them you end up with a less terrifying vision of eternal damnation. Does this leave room to assert that there are certain levels of punishment in hell and that perhaps the "worm that dieth not" and "fire that is not quenched" are only for particularly sinful individuals? Perhaps, or it may be completely innocent. It's impossible to tell, but this could certainly be used as a comfort for those who reject Christ's atonement, and that is far from Biblical. For a more extensive look at the differences between various Bible translations, click here.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions on this one, but I'll be sticking with my KJV until I'm convinced otherwise.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
No comments:
Post a Comment