I rarely read those group e-mails that get sent out. If someone wants to send me something, they can send it to me personally. I especially avoid anything that says “Fwd:” in the subject line.
But the other day I read an article that a brother was sending to a lot of us who work among Spanish speakers. When I got to the bottom of the article, I realized that it had merely been copied from a web site.
The writer was attacking the “modern versions,” especially focusing on Acts 20:28. He was defending the 1602 Valera version in Spanish and the 1611 King James version in English — not realizing, of course, that these two versions disagree with one another on the translation of this particular verse. The article railed against Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrian texts that they followed, praising the integrity of the Byzantine texts. It accused later versions of wanting to deny the deity of Jesus by changing “church of God” to “church of the Lord” in this verse.
Unfortunately, whoever wrote this particular piece apparently hadn’t done their homework. Several Alexandrian texts read “church of God” in this passage. Several Byzantine texts read “church of the Lord.” And there are lots of variants from there. In English, it’s the King James that reads “church of the Lord” and the modern texts which read “church of God.” It just so happened that that trend was reversed in Spanish.
What I find sad is that people can be so intent on arguing about something that they will argue even when they have little understanding of the subject they are arguing about! I especially tire of this when it comes to versions, as accusations are thrown around about “they made this change to promote ___.”
I have long said that I in my years of study I have only found one version that made intentional changes while translating: the New World Translations produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Admittedly, there may be some that I haven’t seen. And I know that the Conservative Bible Project is doing their level best to produce a “translation” that will match their views. But in general, translators are trying to do just that: translate.
I’m going to try and do better about giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially those that disagree with me. I hope you’ll do the same.
AMEN!!!
The problem is that when it comes to religion and politics, suddenly everyone becomes an expert…or so they think they do. And so they propagate stories and information based only second-hand (sometimes third, fourth, and…) sources. Spreading ignorance only continues ignorance.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Tim,
i’ve always been told that the KJV made an “intentional” change by using “baptism” instead of immersion. Is that truth or just immersionist folklore?
–guy
Here’s what the original translators said:
The Translators To The Reader
It would help American Christians if they spoke more than one language. Then they could understand something about translation from one language to another. Those that think Elizabethan English is the language that Jesus spoke … well it is just pitiful. Fortunately there are many useful English language tools for those of us that don’t know the Biblical languages. Too bad, so many Christians have none of them in their libraries or haven’t learned yet how to use them.
I don’t care about arguing very much either, Tim. Good post.
A P.S. to the above, in my research on King James only issue, I purchased a facsimile copy of the original 1611 KJV. I was surprised to find the Apocrypha and religious calendars promoting certain days honoring Mary and various other saints. So my question to KJV only people is, if the translators of the KJV were so inspired and clear about what was and wasn’t the word of God, why did they include the Apocrypha and furthermore why did they continue to annul the word of God by their traditions? Answers anyone? I like the KJV personally and consult it regularly but also use many other versions as I seek to understand, experience, enjoy and live out God’s word.