Bible Translations

Should We Make It an Issue?

Notes From
The Four-Assemblies Ministry Meeting
February 2016
by Douglas Yade - Kirkland Lake

But I Like It

ith toast in one hand and a spoon in the other, my mother dips into
the honey jar at breakfast time.

But mom, I remind her. You shouldnt eat that.

But I like it, is her straightforward reply.
You shouldnt argue with my mom. I try anyway. After all, I am her kid.
But you are diabetic. You know what the doctor said.
Ill just take another pill. Always has an explanation.
But they dont work that way. I keep trying though I think Im losing.
I just use a little bit. And I like it. Shes dipping in for the second time.
Common sense says to give up. So I do.
Hear me out. Just like my mother, you dont need any reasons to like
reading whatever translation of the bible you are currently reading. You
can simply, Just Like It. Thats good enough.
Do you enjoy reading the King James Bible? Great! Wonderful news.
Just read it daily, keep enjoying it. Nobody will argue you out of it,
neither should they try.
Maybe you are reading the NIV or another Translation. We do hope you
enjoy it and understand it; it fact we do pray the Word of God is
changing your life, impacting your thinking and actions.
We are not about to argue you out of your favourite. Nor could we. I am
a realist. Even though I can forget that when Im talking to mom.
Some believers make Bible Translations an Issue. They believe there is
only one particular Bible Translation to be used by everybody and they
avoid all the others as though they were deficient or even devilish.
These feelings, and they can be very intense, are not healthy. And I
would like to show you why. And, if you dont mind, lets also see just
what makes people feel that way. There is a reason, as you suspect.

Let us now listen in at Nazareth where we meet a Translation of the

Bible. Actually, scholars might not even consider it to be a good
translation. Be that as it may, the fact is, the Lord Himself is using it.
That should get my attention, and yours. Lets learn something.
First, one more thing please. Let me say that we want to write in the
spirit of Romans 14, heeding the exhortation, to remember that Christ
died for my brother and I ought not to destroy him over disagreements
about the kinds of food he eats. [Or what Bible Translation he reads.]

Papyrus 52, a fragment containing a part of John 18.

Perhaps the oldest piece of the NT that we have.

The Visit to Nazareth

ere, in Luke 4, we have the Living Word with the Written Word and
He is reading it. This is the only time we see this in the four gospels.
The Saviour read a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible. This is what
He read, in His translation.

Luke chapter 4
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he hath anointed me
to preach the gospel to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
to preach deliverance to the captives,
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Suppose we were there as the Saviour read and we followed along in
our Hebrew Bible. After all, you and I are glad we know Hebrew and we
can read just what Isaiah wrote, not a translation. This is what our Bible
would have said.
Isaiah chapter 61
1The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me;
because the Lord hath anointed me
to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
Notice the differences. The Translation which the Lord used is quite
different from what Isaiah wrote. But we might add, the difference though
very large, carries No Significance at all. The Saviours mission of grace
and mercy is very clearly outlined in whichever Bible we used that day.

Notice how the Lords Translation:

omits
- God
changes
- Lord to He
changes
- meek to poor
adds
- a phrase of seven words, recovering of sight . . .
changes
- liberty to deliverance
changes
- bound to bruised
There are about fifty words in this One Sentence and yet there are about
twenty changes. Could we ever call what the Saviour read, The Word of
God? How could it be the Word of God? It was so different!
And yet, what does the Saviour say? He calls it scripture. Yes, He does!
Verse 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears.
If we were to say this portion has eight phrases, we note that seven of
the eight have been changed. Is that a 90% change? Or could we say,
about 40% of the words have been changed? [For the sake of simplicity I
am not going into this passage deeper. There are other issues. You can
explore them if you want. I am simply introducing you to this topic.]
Whatever the case, please understand that the Translation Differences
in the Bibles we use today amount to much less than the above
example. How much? Maybe 1% or some might say as high as 15%.
And as it was in the Saviours day, They Are Not Significant. Please read
that again. [And just why are there differences? See Appendix three.]
By that I mean, no doctrine has changed, no practise is at risk, nobody is
about to be lead astray. Even a bad Translation, with so many minor
changes, IS a Bible, the Word of God! The Lord Jesus said so. He did!
Let me add one more thing at this point. There is a Translation of the Old
Testament that leaves out over 200 whole verses that are found in our
KJV. Imagine that!
By comparison, you should know that in the New Testament the NIV
leaves out sixteen whole verses. Now heres the point, and do read the
next sentence carefully. The Translation that leaves out more than 200
verses was the one the Lord was using. Yes, and He called it scripture!

An Endorsement
t is important at this point to state that I am not teaching something new
or different when I say we should Not make Translations an Issue. In
December of 2003 I got a phone call from Arizona. It was Mr Edward
Doherty. He was well known among the four assemblies in this area and
had been a missionary in Cuba.

Maybe you say, I have no clue who he is.

Now thats fair to say. Why do I bother mentioning him? Who cares?
My point is simple really. Years ago, the preaching brethren who worked
among us used the King James Version but often resorted to quoting the
Revised Version or J N Darbys Version, called The New Translation.
They found the other translations helpful and sometimes very necessary.
And people did not get upset, nobody accused them of doctoring the
Bible. Nobody accused them of mischief. It was not made into an issue.
The expression, To make something an issue, means to make something seem more important than it really is and then to
argue about it.
Today there are believers who make any new Translation an issue. They
even accuse translators of mischievously changing the Bible. And they
use stronger words and say, if I may quote one person, They have done
surgery on the King James Bible at the Devils hospital.
And so I quote Mr. Doherty. He was there at that time when other
Translations were used and we all lived at peace, at least on this score.
He is a witness to those days.
Lets go back to the phone call. He had heard that I had just spoken on
this topic at the Four Assembly Ministry Meeting and he wanted to say
that he was glad that I had taken up the topic and he agreed with the
message.
Furthermore, he said he himself enjoyed reading the NIV and he also
had no issue with the lack of Thee, Thou in the translation. He pointed
out that his Spanish Bible also had no equivalent to Thee/Thou.

So, in teaching this again, 2016, I feel that I have this respected brother,
now in heaven, beside me, encouraging me as I write. And we ask you
to give careful consideration to the subject. I will drop a number of
other names later. I believe it is important to do so.
Why wait? Let us drop another name right now. I was just saying that the
Translation Differences, based on the differences in the ancient
manuscripts, are very small, maybe just 1%. Did you think that was just
my opinion? What does he know anyway? Hes just from up north.
Please come in, Mr. W. E. Vine. Now here is an expert. Our preaching
brethren encourage us to Check what Mr. Vine says, and dont forget to
look at the Dictionary he wrote. And I often do just that. Like right now.
In his book, The Inspiration of Scriptures, he writes:
Quote: The importance of most of the variations in the manuscript
readings has been greatly exaggerated. . . . The amount of what can in
any sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than
a thousandth part of the entire text.
There is no doctrine in Scripture which would be affected if all the
various readings were allowed or if all the disputed words, or those
about which there is any doubt, were omitted. End of quote.
What? Do you mean that this is all about nothing?!
Well, maybe not nothing, but let us learn one important point. The dear
people who are upset about these so called bad bibles which the devil is
printing, as some of them say, are actually making a mountain out of an
anthill. Ive never seen a mole hill but I think its a bit smaller.
And by the way, a thousandth part would be one penny on a ten dollar
bill. Interestingly, this chapter up until this sentence, contains just over
1000 words. I counted them for you.
Heres a test. Remove one word from the page. Take out the most
important word of all if you like. Now read the article again. Yes, from the
start. Did you miss the word you took out? Even a little? Not at all? Has
the sense of the article changed? Maybe Ill leave out another word right
now just to if you catch me. Missed it, didnt you! Still cant see it?

Where Are We Going With This?

et me outline three points which we will develop.

Point 1
Bible translations should be a Non-Issue among us. I need to explain.
1 By translations, I mean the usual ones we find our
friends using, not the extreme translations that we may have only heard
about. Yes, I know there are some far-out cases, and they are bad.
2 By Non-Issue I mean, There are other Translations, for
example the NKJV or the NIV, which are useful and reliable. Please do
not say, This or that translation came from the devils work shop, that
translation is new age and corrupted. This one takes out the blood and
theyre taking Christ and hell out of the Bible . . . Thats what I call
making it an Issue. Dont say things like that. Because its wrong.
3 By Non-Issue, I Do Not mean you should publically
read any translation you want, in the assembly. There are other issues
and concerns such as uniformity, being able to follow along and respect
for others sensitivities. I might read the RV or JND or NIV at home but it
might not be advisable to do that in the assembly.
In fact, this is arrogant abuse, to publically surprise the saints with some
version, disabling them from following along. Sadly this is the source of
much ill-will and anger which is then directed at Translations in general.
In fact, the real problem is the person, not what he was reading.
Should I read another Translation in the assembly? Of course this is
alright to do, but only after getting permission and explaining why and
what you are doing. And in the Bible reading please quote them as
often as you want.
Point 2
We all should have a favourite Bible, a favourite translation, a favourite
chair and time and should be using whatever we enjoy and also
understand. THIS ought to be the Issue!

When we survey the teens at Seed Sowers we learn that 25% are not
reading their Bible daily, maybe not even weekly. Would you be
surprised to learn that this is also true of the adults! And Christianity
Today, in their survey of church goers, found that 80% do not read
daily. I think we do better than that. Were not mere church goers.
Point 3
This teaching, about other Translations being useful, is Not new. I write
here with at least Mr Doherty. Well meet others at the next stop sign.
Keep plodding on.

Image of one of the Dead Sea scrolls you can read online.
Hmmm, maybe you can read it, I cant.

Must We Change What We Teach?

n a distant town I got chatting about assembly life with a mature
brother. He referred to a brother who had read from the ESV at a
gospel meeting and confused the believers who were not able to follow
along since they were using KJV. [Thats actually surprising because
most people would be able to follow easily, very easily.]

Now I believe that was the real issue. It wasnt so much the ESV as it
was the way it was handled. But he was very upset and thinking rather
irrationally.
He went on to say, We are going to have to change our teaching in the
assemblies now. Even our practices will change.
I wondered, Why would you say that brother?
Well, dont you know that the ESV in 1Corinthians 11 changes the word
woman to wife. Now only the wives will have to have a head covering.
Now I did not say this to him, but let me point something out to you,
since youre thinking rationally. The KJV, in 1 Corinthians, translates that
Greek word in question, wife, some 20 times. So the ESV is not doing
something that the KJV has not done. In fact, the KJV translates that
word wife 20 times and woman 20 times. So then what is the issue?
The issue revolves around the context. Now that is no surprise, is it? It is
always the context that decides how to translate a word. And while the
word Wife and Woman are the same, in Greek that is, we use the
context to decide which is meant. The ESV decided to translate it
Wife. Bad choice, because the context doesnt speak of a husband
as it does for example in 1 Corinthians 7 several times.
But to be fair, remember in other places, the KJV does translate the
word as woman, even in 1 Corinthians 7:13 where the verse includes
the word husband and in the previous verse the same word is
translated wife. So in being critical of the ESV, remember they didnt
just pick the word wife out of thin air.
What should we do then? Is this an emergency? Why not, I
suggested to the agitated brother, just do as we have always done.

Oh, whats that? he wondered.

I explained. What do we usually do? When you come to the word in the
KJV, for example, church, we dont feel like we have to change our
teaching? How about the words,
bishop or
baptism?
We dont change our teaching after reading those words there either.
And what do we do when we read Jesus went to hell after he died, Acts
2:31? Do we condemn the KJV? Of course not!
I wasnt sure he was listening now. But I explained further anyway.
Maybe I just like to hear myself talk.
I said, We winnow, we use discernment, we explain that the word
baptism, for example, means To Immerse. We explain why and how the
established Anglican Church influenced the translation of the KJV. We
explain that the word is transliterated, not translated. And then we move
on.
Of course, youll remember Bible reading situations like that and how
nobody got upset. We just took it in stride and used reason. We know
the KJV is not perfect. We just live with it. We know how to handle it.
And many of us simply Like that version. No Issue to be made!
But I did learn a lesson in that funeral home. And I want you to learn it
well. When emotions get stirred up, over anything, even if you replace a
childs favourite teddy bear, be prepared for the outburst.
Emotions can give way to irrational statements, common sense might
even run out the back door. And sometimes it slams it too. I know you
wouldnt do that.
We all recognize the power of emotions. We understand why the funeral
director will counsel the widow, Dont do anything drastic this week.
Dont sell the house and move to China. Wait till the dust settles and you
begin to think rationally again. Yes, we do have feelings, were human.

Three Questions

e will now raise three questions and begin to look at the issue
right in the face.

Question 1
How should we Reply to the Following Accusation?
Quote: From the website of a good brother many of us know.
Modern versions . .. were translated by godless and devious
men - have failed to preserve what holy men of God spake. . .
Salvation is redefined in the new versions . . . The doctrine of
judgment is attacked by the newer versions . . . Even heaven is
not spared the knife. . . End of quote.

1 Be gracious. The brothers emotions have been upset by what he has

read or heard. He needs to turn the coin over and look at the other side.
2 Ask for examples of the bad changes and look at them, one by one.
This is the best approach. Please consider what I say now. The reason
why we must look at the individual examples of the supposed changes is
because Not One of us is competent to talk about textual issues,
manuscript authority, which manuscripts are better, older and so on.
There are brethren, like me, who engage in these conversations, talking
about the line of manuscripts from Egypt and those from Antioch and
which ones are better, or worse. Shhh, say it softly. They simply do not
know how little they know. They are simply parroting others.
Want to see what I mean? Look at the JND Bible, The New Translation.
Read his Introduction where he explains the issues related to
manuscripts. See Appendix One, at the end of this article.
Do you understand it? Could you say it in your own words? And this is
only the kindergarten level!
No, we dont need to discuss manuscripts. There is a much simpler way
to look at the subject, a way that makes all of us equal. Which way is

that? Just look at the verses in question, the bad changes, and use
discretion to determine Significance on a one by one basis.
Simple. Now you can be the judge. Yes, you.
Question 2
What are the Accusations, the Points of Conflict?
We will do what I suggested earlier and look at the actual points of
contention. This could be enlightening. Now we will actually dip our own
spoon into the soup. The taste will tell. Let us look at six Accusations.
Accusation 1
The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is not
in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word
"demon" (also NIV, RSV, NASV).
The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it
meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'".

has a

Webster defines "demon" as: "divinity, spirit, an attendant power

or spirit", but "devil" as: "the personal supreme spirit of EVIL. . ."
Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157)
defines "demon" as: "an inferior deity, whether good or bad".
Wow! He is sure upset about something, isnt he. And hes trying to
upset his readers. And some of them are upset, you can be sure.
But first of all we will point out that he plainly misquotes Mr.Vine who
actually says the opposite! Vine says,
Demons signified among pagan Greeks an inferior deity . . In
the NT it denotes an evil spirit mistranslated devils.
Note, devil/demon are not the same Greek words and Mr. Vine is saying
that demons is the right word, and it means evil spirits.

Reply Part 1
This Accusation sadly seems rather inflammatory and not a little
deceptive. He likely knows his point is Not valid but we likely cannot
reason with somebody who is upset and dishonest. He definitely does
not like the NKJV. Now that in itself is fine, he doesnt have to. But why
make up stories about it?
Reply Part 2
Please dont think that these changed words [devils/demons] have
anything to do with Revelation 22:18. If anyone adds to these things . . .
takes away from the words of this prophecy. . .
I think you will easily see that this scripture in Revelation is not at all
talking about scholars who have devoted their lives to understanding
Hebrew and Greek and other languages so they can try and give us the
scriptures in English in the best possible way.
Mr. McDonald, Believers Bible Commentary, says, This Applies to an
attack on the inspiration or completeness of the Bible. That is, it is
talking about a false prophet adding to the message and direction of the
book.
When men are in honesty, trying to determine which words were used in
the original manuscripts, or how to precisely translate them into another
language, they are Not dealing with the overall message or teaching.
The verse has no application to such.
Reply Part 3
This brothers reaction to the word demons in the other Translations,
and this sort of reaction to other changes, affects more people than you
might realize. Many Christians will simply agree with what they heard or
read and not check for themselves. But a simple check, as in this case,
shows the foolishness of the accusation. We all know the better word is
demons not devils. You learned that in Sunday School.
Get your spoon ready [remember the taste test]. Were going to check
again, ourselves.

Accusation 2
1 A mature brother who we know wrote an article and in it he explains,
Satan has produced. . . the NIV, NASB, and other versions. . . .
New versions have been produced to confuse the minds of
common folk and to discredit the good old Bible that served our
forefathers. . . The new versions are not accurate.
He also points out that the NIV changes the word Hell to Death in
some verses and sometimes the word is left untranslated as Hades.
Now this sounds rather serious. Is it? Are they really taking hell out of
the Bible. Lets look at that one especially, for ourselves. You will be the
judge.
Lets reply.
1 He writes about: confuse the minds - but can you explain how
Jesus went to hell in Acts 2 Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell . . ?
I think it is less confusing to read the word hades here.
Ah, you say, whatever can hades mean? You dont know? Time to look
at the Vines Dictionary sitting on your shelf. Maybe some of us just had
good Sunday school teachers, because most of us are not confused by
this. Neither are you.
2 He writes about: discredit the Bible - No, it only is to correct it two different Greek words were translated as though they were the same
in KJV - geenna found 12 times, hades found 11times in the N.T. This
needs to be corrected. We all know hell is not the lake of fire.
3 He writes about: not accurate - rather it is more accurate as he
himself teaches! I remember this dear brother teaching the difference
between sheol, hades, hell, geena and more using a big chart. That
was almost 50 years ago. What has changed?
Also, in his good book on Hebrews, he endorses J. N. Darbys excellent
translation and in other places quotes the RV. And how does Mr. Darby
translate the word hades? He doesnt. He does as the NIV does. He
transliterates it as hades. Because thats the best way to do it.

Are these two Bible versions, JND and RV, produced by Satan or not? If
they are, then why does the brother use them? Why has he taught about
hades the very thing he objects to now?
I think we know why. Something he heard or read got under his skin, got
the emotions stirred up and then . . . well you see what happened. He
wrote what even he himself likely does not believe but the unfortunate
thing is that many believers are affected by this wrong teaching.
Accusation 3
Another brother we know has on his website a section devoted to
Translations. He likes the KJV. Thats fine. Keep reading it. But the
problem is he accuses other Translations of being rather bad.
The accusation on his website, number 3 for us, has to do with Col 1:14.
The ESV omits the words through His blood.
Does this change anything? Just drop down a sentence or two to verse
20 where the ESV mentions the peace by the blood of His cross.
Also note that the ESV includes through/by/by means of His Blood in
several other places. Check Ac 20:28, Rom 3:25, 5:9, Eph1:7, Col 1:20,
Heb 9:25,13:12, 1Pet 1:2, 1John1:7, Rev 1:5
That is to say, we read about His blood in ten other places. Will we
change our doctrines, our beliefs because blood is found in one
sentence but not in the next one? Do we endorse a one-verse doctrine?
Along with this, there is the accusation of taking blood out of the Bible.
Now that would certainly be a serious thing, would you not agree?
Especially if it is true. Which as you may soon see, it is not True. It is
only an exaggeration, an attempt to get believers upset over nothing.
Thats what making it an issue means.
The word blood is found 375 times in the KJV, and about 14 times less
in the ESV. Are you thinking this sounds serious? I hope not. Why do we
find the word blood in the ESV less often? Because it translates the
word in other but similar ways.

In Exodus 22:2 it translates it as Blood guilt. Do you smell a problem

here? I doubt it. Actually, the KJV in Psalm 51:14 does the same thing.
So maybe it cant be all bad.
And in Deuteronomy 17:8 the KJV says,
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and
blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke . . . then
do such and such.
The ESV says, If any case arises requiring decision between one kind
of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind
of assault and another . . then do such and such.
You check it. So the word blood is translated homicide. In my opinion, an
excellent rendering. It makes the matter clear immediately. And by the
way, if we asked ten people which translation of that sentence was
easier to understand, not one would say the first translation was clearer.
You judge.
Again, in 1Chronicles the word blood is translated lifeblood and in
2Chronicles 19:10 it is translated bloodshed.
Is the ESV really guilty of taking blood out of the Bible? I think that
would be a foolish suggestion. The accusation is a Non-Issue. Maybe it
is even deception. Certainly it is hardly Christian-like.
Accusation 4
Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His
person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had
by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on
high. Heb 1:3
Here in Hebrews 1:3 the ESV omits By Himself.
Now who do you suppose may have helped Christ in this work of
salvation? I dont think you have any question about this. It says, He
purged our sins. It doesnt say They. Should we be concerned about
the lack of by Himself?

The ESV mentions by Himself in three other places, Heb 7:27, 9:14,
9:25. Even if the Bible did not record anywhere in any verse the words,
by Himself, do you think any one of us would be thinking that salvation
happened any other way?
John, or the others, did not say anything about anybody else also on the
cross. And when we read, Christ died for sinners, I dont see a lot of
room to fit in somebody else. But you will have to judge.
I judge that whether by Himself is here or not here, it makes not a bit of
difference. Of course, if it was meant to be here, we really do want it. But
some manuscripts simply do not record those words here.
We ought not to say which way is right. We do not know. We do know
this, it is not significant.
But the accusations keep coming, in fact by the dozens. Relax, we wont
look at many more.
Accusation 5
Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the
Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus
In Hebrews 3:1 some translations omit Christ.
But the name Jesus is there. In fact we would know who was meant if
both Jesus and Christ were not there.
And remember that Jesus all alone is found in Hebrews a number of
times. Check 2:9, 6:20, 7:22, 10:19, 12:2, 12:24,13:12.
So it is not strange to see the word Jesus here alone. It is just another
one of several.
Some people are concerned. Very! Look at what this brother says.
Quote:
To me, these deleted words are critical to the meaning and
emphasis of the texts. I am certain that the Roman Catholics love
these deletions, though; they fit right in with their doctrines.

Note:
1 He writes: deleted - Maybe the word was added. We actually dont
know if it was deleted.
2 He writes: critical to meaning - Not so, not even close.
3 He writes: Roman Catholics - Now why does he bring them in? Are
we in danger of being converted over? I sense emotions at work.
4 He writes: fit in with their doctrines - Really? Certainly not true.
5 This represents an emotional appeal. It doesnt pass the taste test.
By the way, the other translations are not taking Christ out of the Bible.
What a foolish thing to say. Just do a count on your computer Bible
program.
Christ in the Translations
KJV 536 times - some sources say 569' or even 555'. Not sure why.
NKJV 578 times
ESV 556 times
NIV
541 times [466 times plus 75 times Messiah which equals 541]
Suppose somebody said now that its the KJV which is taking Christ out
of the Bible Dont pay attention. If Christ is in the Bible once, He is in the
Bible. If the other translations have Him in there more often, that in itself,
does not make them better. Or worse.
Accusation 6
We have now left our dear brothers website and will visit another man.
This godly brother, well call him Steve, says:
Quote:
Some believers have read/said that these omissions are no big
deal, because they only amount to 1% or 2% of Scripture and
there are no doctrines lost, and so on and so forth. I must be
honest with you, brother, that I just have very little sympathy for
this attitude.

I believe that to lose just one of God's words is tragic, and with
the ESV (or NIV or NASB, etc.) we are losing many of God's
words. You see, after - much study and prayerful consideration, I
believe that God chose to preserve His Word in the Byzantine
family of manuscripts. End of quote.
He goes on to explain that he is very concerned about the cumulative
effect of all the changes. Please note that.
Response:
1 He writes about: omissions - This is the wrong word. It prejudices the
case. It is better to call it questionable. We dont know if the words have
been added or deleted. We just know that some manuscripts have them
and some do not. To say that these are ommisions is to assume what
you have never proved. It is circular reasoning.
2 He writes about: this attitude - But it is a fact, not an attitude, that no
doctrines are lost. He himself told me that he knows this.
3 He is concerned about the cumulative affect. But do 100 insignificant
things add up to something more than zero?
4 Look at this last point. It does raise a question. How have we handled
KJV cumulative concerns? Because KJV presents quite a few.
For example:
-church translated wrong in the KJV 115 times - instead of being
translated congregation or assembly.
- baptism 58 times instead of being translated immersion
- bishop 6 times instead of overseer
- deacon 5 times instead of servant
- charity, 1 Cor. 13 should be translated love.
- Jehovah in the OT is mistranslated almost 7000 times as
LORD. Wow! Thats a lot.

Whatever did we do? How do we handle these cumulative errors?

Especially the 7000 times error? That sounds like a big one. It is.
But we have managed, havent we? We just keep going on. We explain
these matters when we come to them in our Bible readings. These
cumulative errors have not affected anybody or any doctrine. And most
of the saints have never even thought about it. Nobody even gets upset.
If these other Translations are presenting us with cumulative errors, and
they likely Are Not, we will manage just fine. Just as we have been
doing, for many years, for centuries.
Accusation 7
Some translations take Thee/Thou out of the Bible. Yes, that is true.
That is part of a larger discussion which I will just hardly touch now.
Lets consider Five points. A couple of them are a bit long. Sorry.
1 Many of us use the words we grew up with and heard as children, such
as Thee/Thou. Some people did not grow up with these words and are
not interested in learning to talk this way. And they do love the Lord!
2 Thee/Thou/You/Ye represent the difference between singular/plural.
And not more than three believers in a hundred know that or even use it
in their reading. So, Im not so sure it is a significant point. But I mention
it in case you are one of the three.
3 At school you learned in Shakespeare that the word Thou is often
insulting, You is reverent and respectful. Ill leave that for you to check
and ponder. Anyway, we need to wonder just how it got turned around. I
think this point surprised you. Yes, Thou could be rather insulting. You
dont use it that way of course. But thats Not how it was.
4 In the KJV, Thou/Thee is not used for reverence. Maybe the translators
used it for the accuracy of Singular/Plural, but not likely. Scholars believe
they used it for the sense of otherness or different.
The Anglicans liked otherness. Such as high arches, stained glass,
clerical apparel and such items of separateness. They believed the
clergy was above the people, and so was the Bible. But reverence was

not the issue. Thou/Thee is used for God, for people, Satan, devils and
others. See for yourself.
Just one example,
Job 2:2 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my
servant Job?
5 This next point is longer. You wont want to miss it . . . Maybe. The
discussion of Thee/Thou involves more than pronouns. You must also
discuss the verb forms that come with these words. You cannot use
Thee/Thou and talk like a normal person. For example,
Jn 1:49 Thou art the Son of God. You cannot say, Thou are the Son of
God.
Jn 6:68 Thou hast the words of eternal life. Cant say, Thou has the
words.
Jn 17:23 Thou hast sent me. Cant say, Thou has sent me.
So Thee/Thou involves using verbs that are not usual, normal. That
doesnt make it wrong of course . . . or right. But it must be addressed. If
you will teach me thee/thou you must then teach me the verb forms.
And even some pronouns, in the possessive case. Keep reading.
Thought Id give you a quiz. Is it thine or thy after the word thou?
Does it matter if the noun begins with a vowel or a vowel sound? Of
course it does. What is the rule? You check it. Are there other rules?
Yes. Dont you just love grammar? Tell us please, is the suffix -eth used
with the 2nd or 3d person? When do I use -est? Thats the 2nd person
isnt it? Just to remind you about grammar [sorry], the 2nd person is You
and the 3d person is He, that is in regular English. Keep on reading.
Did you know that not all 2nd person singular verbs end with est, but all
verbs that end with -est are 2nd person singular. Keep that in mind.
Thats why it is wrong to say I loveth or they lovest. Oh, and some
shorter words do drop the e from the suffix, for example
does/dost/doth. You dont say doest. Do you?
I have a feeling some readers skipped the previous paragraph. Just
saying. But seriously, why did you?!

Anyway, just saying you should know the rules if you are going to teach
somebody to use the old language. Its not just a matter of Thee/Thou.
5 Thee/Thou does add to the Bible a style of language that is not in the
original. Jesus did not talk in an unusual way. Paul did not write the
epistles this way. That style is simply artificial. It was not given by God.
That doesnt make it wrong of course . . . or right.
On second thought, it is a case of adding something to the Word of God
that was not there in the beginning. That ought to make me think about
it. In fact, if it wasnt put there by the Lord we need to seriously stop and
wonder why we are attracted to it. Yes, It was added! By man! Not God!
Many of us are simply used to it, it sounds right, it sounds better. But is it
actually better? We can certainly say, I like it. And we certainly are
used to it. But let us not think that Everybody likes it or is used to it, or
that everybody knows the rules as well as you do.
And of course, if you like Thee/Thou and hast, art etc. that doesnt
make you a worse Christian, or a better one. Of course, the conscience
of some believers would be offended if they did not use Thee/Thou.
If they did not use those words they would be guilty of sinning against
their own conscience. And so they must use that language. But please,
not everybody is sensitive in that way.
It is healthy to realize that some believers are not sinning against their
conscience or the Lord or anybody else, when they dont use those
words. And in their case it is not a lack of reverence. Even our Lord did
not speak this way. And He knew what reverence was.
Finally, on a personal note (pardon me), because I grew up with
Thee/Thou, I dont mind hearing them, I do like them, I do use them But
not always. Sometimes in private prayer I use You instead of Thou.
Why? Just to get used to it. Just to hear it so that I am not shocked or
disturbed if I hear you pray that way. After all, when you pray I do want
to be able to say Amen and not be all worked up and angry because
you didnt know all the rules I mentioned up above. You could try it too.
Actually, I think you should try it, of course only when youre ready.

Question 3
Why do we Say the Teaching isnt New?
Our respected brethren have long used the revised words of RV/JND.
And please note, they are similar to the ESV and NIV. A review of two
magazines, T&T and WIS, shows some interesting things.
6/2000 Tom Bentley quotes the RV when referring to 1Thessalonians 1
In the Q&A H Paisley quotes the RV for 2 Thesalonians 2:2
9/1994 John Norris quotes the RV four times when discussing Psalm
19:10
Norman Crawford, in the Q&A, quotes JND for Revelation 5:10
a kingdom and priests
7/1994 Oswald McLeod quotes the RV. He was the man that Norman
Crawford said had a definite and large impact on his own life.
6/1989 Syndney Maxwell recommends JND
7/1975 John Norris quotes JND 3 times in Prov 8:18, 30, Col 1:15
Hector Alves in the Q&A for 1Cor 11:16 quotes the RV
Were all these brethren wrong? Were they also trying to take Christ or
the blood out of the Bible?
Also, these brethren encouraged the use of the Newberry Bible, and
freely quote Wm Kelly. Many of us have Newberry bibles. Have we
been deceived? Should we get rid of them?
You realize likely that the accusations of changing the Bible, using the
manuscripts that the devil operated on and so forth also are extended to
men like Mr. Newberry, Wm Kelly, Schofield, Sir R. Anderson and more.
Here is what some believers say about Newberry:
(He uses) words and phrases that (like the modern versions)
promote New Age doctrine and demote the Lord Jesus Christ . . .
uses the New Age World teacher title, "the Coming One" in
reference to Jehovah and I AM.

Did this dear assembly man, who devoted himself to the work of God,
actually promote the New Age and demote the Lord Jesus? He was
dead long before anybody was thinking about the new age. But he did
on occasion use words from the RV. So he is guilty, they say.
And what shall we say about the assembly man William Kelly? In his
book, Galatians, for example, he adopts the RV [similar to the ESV]
readings about 50% of the time. He was a scholar who read these
original manuscripts. C H Spurgeon said that Kelly was likely one of the
greatest scholars the church has ever known.
In the T&T Magazine, August 2015, a brother refers to Wm Kelly. And
another preacher refers to him in the December 2012 issue.
Heres the point. If these two men, Newberry and Kelly, were employed
by the devil and operated on the KJV, [as some say] then What Shall
We Say about our well known brethren who quote these men and
endorse their writings. Are they also employed by the devil?
Many of us have used the Schofield Reference Bible. What should we
think now of the men who advised us to use it? After all, some say,
Mr. Schofield was greatly influenced by the corrupted RV.
It is an old technique to attack somebodys character if you disagree with
their teachings. What is new is the Undermining of the Credibility of
these godly men who taught us scripture. Do we stand with our brethren
or do we dismiss them? We cant have our cake and eat it too.

Summing Up
1 The KJV is reliable and trustworthy - as is NKJV, JND, ESV, NIV,
NASV, and others. The Savior said, his translation was Scripture.
2 Other translations are very helpful - and are equally the Word of God.
If you dont agree, with this statement, or with Mr. Crawford, Mr. Paisley,
Mr. Vine, the writers of What the Bible Teaches, then you maybe
incorrectly presume yourself to be quite the authority in these matters.
3 The teaching is not new. I said this earlier. It is important. Look at this
quotation, all the way from 1856!
These differences [in translations], no matter how embarrassing
they are to the critic, are really of no consequence to the
Christian. . . Not a single item of our faith is affected by them.. .
We could omit every passage where they do not agree without
(affecting a single doctrine).
The Bible Treasury: Christian Magazine Vol 1 1856
Edited by Prof Alexander Wallace, J N Darby, Wm Kelly
4 If you ever talked about those bad manuscripts from Egypt, the
translations from the devil, dont be embarrassed. We all have been
influenced by things we read or heard that later turned out to be wrong.
Simply learn from our mistakes. Maybe your emotions deceived you.
5 The following thoughts are my opinion. Two grains of salt please. I
believe it would be wise for leadership to encourage believers to use the
NKJV in the Sunday School and Gospel Meeting for any public reading.
The audience could easily follow in the KJV if they preferred that. We
have been doing this in our assembly for more than 25 years.
To do nothing means the believers may do anything or everything. At the
present time there is a growing variety of translations being used among
us. I have noticed about 30% KJV, 30% NKJV, 30% NIV [sisters are
50% NIV] and several others. Many of the people using the NIV would
be using the NKJV had they been encouraged to check it out. It is just as
easy to read as the NIV. . . . Almost. The advantage is simply that the
NKJV is easier to follow along if somebody is publicly reading the KJV.

A Practical Conclusion
y biggest concern should not be which Translation is right but
Am I Reading and Obeying.

Just yesterday I received a letter from a believer who was responding to

the notice I sent out about the Ministry Meeting coming up on the subject
of Translations. I had said, that we should not make Translations into an
Issue but that not reading the Bible certainly was an issue.
The Christian wrote:
I was among the believers who were not reading their Bible daily.
Over the past several months, I have started reading daily.
I accepted a challenge, to myself, of reading a chapter and trying
to summarize the chapter in a sentence of two. I included writing
down what I am thankful for that day. I have found that having to
summarize the chapter, has made me think about it more and
notice (LOTS) of things I had before missed.
Of course, That should be the issue.
In closing I want to quote some verses, from a translation. Bear with me.
Eph 2:8 By His undeserved kindness, indeed, you have been saved
through faith . . .
John 3:36 He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life: he that
disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon
him.
Col 3:12 Clothe yourselves with the tender affection of compassion,
kindness, lowliness of mind, mildness, and long-suffering. Continue
putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone
has a cause for complaint against another, even as [the Lord] freely
forgave you, so do you also.
Clearly, these verses could revolutionize my life. Dont you agree? And
yet, get this, they come from a Translation that you would never, never
buy. It is likely one of the worst. But even this worst could transform my
life. Translations should not be made into an issue.

And finally,

The Last Word Goes to Mom

wo boys talked about which translation was more helpful.

One said, My moms translation is the best one.

Whatever would that be, the other boy wondered.
Oh, she takes the Word of God and translates it into holy Christian
living.

Ah, that hits the nail on the head. Theres the very best translation.

Appendix One - Whew

ere have a look. You need not look very long. But do look at my
comments which sum it up. You should realize right away, as I do,
why we cant approach the topic by arguing about manuscripts.

Quote:
In my first edition my translation was formed on the concurrent voice of
Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf: the first of soberer
judgment and critical acumen and discernment; the next with a narrower
system of taking only the very earliest MSS. . . . the third excessively
carelessly printed, but taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS. as a
rule; the last of first-rate competency and diligence of research . . .
. . . since my first edition . . . the Sinaitic MS. has been discovered; the
Vatican published; Porphyrys of Acts and Pauls Epistles and most of
the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, and others, in the Monumenta
Sacra Inedita of Tischendorf, as well as his seventh edition. These, with
Alford and Meyers , and De Wette, furnished a mass of new materials.
Tregelles too was published as a whole since my present edition . . .
All this called for further labour. I had to . . . take in Tischendorfs 7th ed.,
Alford, Meyer, De Wette. I have further . . . compared the Sinaitic,
Vatican, Dublin, Alexandrian, Codex Beza, Codex Ephraemi, St. Gall,
Claromontanus, Hearnes Laud in the Acts, Porphyry in great part, the
Vulgate, the old Latin in Sabatier and Bianchini. The labour involved in
such a work those only know who have gone through it by personal
reference to the copies themselves ...
The result to me is that, while about the text as a whole there is nothing
uncertain at all . . . the history of it is not really ascertained . . . and I
think I can say no one can give that history: the phenomena are
unsolved.
I have said thus much on the criticism of the text, and the MSS., that
persons not versed in the matter may not hazard themselves in forming
conclusions without any real knowledge of the questions.
Such a book as Tischendorfs English Testament I think mischievous.
You have the English Version questioned continually, and , B, A, given

at the bottom of the page, for persons who know nothing about them to
doubt about the text, and that is all. Thus, to say no more, the readings
of A in the Epistles have a totally different degree of importance from
that of its readings in the Gospels. . .
I have followed a collation of the best authorities, but where, though for
trifling differences, you have , B, L, or B, L, on one side, and A, &c., on
the other, I confess I have no entire certainty that B, L, are right.
End of Quote. Whew!
A Couple of Comments
1
Notice this long sentence. Are you familiar with all these names? Can
you discuss them, that is to say, intelligently?
I had to . . . take in Tischendorfs 7th ed., Alford, Meyer, De
Wette. I have further . . . compared the Sinaitic, Vatican, Dublin,
Alexandrian, Codex Beza, Codex Ephraemi, St. Gall,
Claromontanus, Hearnes Laud in the Acts, Porphyry in great
part, the Vulgate, the old Latin in Sabatier and Bianchini.
2
And here hes talking about most of us, at least me.
I have said thus much . . . that persons not versed in the matter
may not hazard themselves in forming conclusions without any
real knowledge of the questions.
3
And finally, notice The text of the Bible is Not in Doubt. We know what
God gave us even though there are some differences in some verses.
The result to me is that, while about the text as a whole there is
nothing uncertain at all . . . the history of it is not really
ascertained. I affirm my arriving at no conclusion, and I think I can
say no one can give that history: the phenomena are unsolved.
[In other words, we know what the text is, (the words), but we cannot be
sure of the history of the manuscripts, where they came from, when they
were copied and by whom.]

Appendix Two - Change?

e do not relish change. We are comfortable with the old. Read the
notes below and then I will explain afterward. I want to show you
how some things just never change. Humans are humans. Emotions are
emotions. We all have feelings. In fact, they had them years ago also.

The KJV translation was made by scholars around 1600 A.D. No

other translation of the Bible has been so widely used by God
and the revision of KJV has only caused an uproar.
It has become esteemed and revered and is beyond
improvement, beyond correction, beyond alteration of any kind.
One scholar has said, that if in just one point the KJV is
changed, the entire authority of Holy Scripture will collapse, love
and faith will be extinguished, false teaching will abound,
blasphemy will be committed against the Holy Spirit, and the
Church will collapse from the foundations."
Many preachers acknowledge, that with the greatest disrespect,
the New Translations set aside a work authorized by the consent
of ages and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
What I have done above is quote what many church officials said when
Erasmus corrected the Latin Vulgate Translation in the 1500s. He was
using the Greek manuscripts that he also used to give us the Received
Text for the making of the KJV. In other words, his New Translation,
which replaced an older Translation, 1000 years older, was the like the
KJV [at least a forerunner of it] - and people hated it. Hmm.
But I changed some words in the quotation. I substituted KJV for Vulgate
and 1600 for 400 to make a point. The intense feelings above are
repeated in what some people say today about new translations. I guess
there is nothing new. By the way, did losing the Vulgate bring about the
collapse of our faith? Do you miss it? Thought so.

Just in case youre interested, here is the entire quote which I edited to
make it simple to understand and to make my point.
Enjoy.
It must be remembered that Jerome's Latin translation had become esteemed and
venerated to the point that it was considered beyond improvement, beyond
correction, beyond alteration of any kind. Some even claimed the Greek and
Hebrew originals of the Bible should be corrected by the Latin! No other translation
of the Bible had been so widely used by God, they would protest.
Bainton gives a lively account of the furor that arose over the revision of the
Vulgate. Dorp, a friend and colleague of Erasmus, was shocked and outraged to
hear that Erasmus proposed to publish the New Testament in Greek and
accompanied by a new translation. . . But, rejoined Erasmus, . . If you claim that the
Vulgate is inspired equally with the original Greek and Hebrew and that to touch it
is heresy and blasphemy what will you say about . . . others who undertook to make
improvements? You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of
Scripture, and the transmission of both. What will you do with the errors of
copyists?
Dorp was eventually persuaded and Erasmus was thereby confirmed in his
judgment that courtesy rather than invective is the better way to win over an
opponent. A sharper antagonist was Sutor . . .who asserted that "if in one point the
Vulgate were in error the entire authority of Holy Scripture would collapse, love and
faith would be extinguished, heresies and schisms would abound, blasphemy would
be committed against the Holy Spirit, the authority of theologians would be shaken,
and indeed the Catholic Church would collapse from the foundations."
Erasmus pointed out that prior to Jerome the early Church had not used the Vulgate
and had not collapsed. To all who cried, "Jerome is good enough for me," he
replied, "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech
worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy
scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right.
The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."
D'Aubigne describes Erasmus' adversaries on this point: "The priests saw the
danger, and . . . attacked the translation and the translator. `He has corrected the
Vulgate,' they said, `and put himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a
work authorized by the consent of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What
audacity!' " (History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, p. 730)

Appendix Three - Westcott and Hort - Who?

Westcott and Hort are often cited as being responsible for most of the
changes in the new translations of the Bible. This is wrong. Read on.
Samuel Tregelles, born 1813, was an eminent scholar of the Greek text of
the New Testament. For some time he was associated with the assemblies,
as we know them, in Plymouth. He was a godly man and considered to be
one of the most learned men to ever live in Plymouth.
His single ambition was to produce a Greek Text and so he travelled in
Europe, and even spent time in Rome where because he was not allowed
to copy the manuscripts he was examining, he had to resort to secretly
writing out notes on his fingernails.
Here is the point. The Greek Text he produced is very similar to the one
Westcott and Hort produced. Some estimate that the changes he made
represent about 75% of the changes W&H made. Certainly he would not
have agreed with all of their changes. But he did agree to Most of them.
Now, some people really think W&H were devilish, that they made the
changes based on satanic influence and so forth. Really!
But explain this; how did Tregelles come up with such a similar work, Long
Before the work of W&H? Was he in fellowship in the assembly and
working with William Kelly and other esteemed men and all the while
working in a devils workshop? You know he wasnt.
It is remarkable that Tregelles usually arrives at the same conclusions as
later critical editors. Whether W&H were good or bad, the fact remains, that
many of the changes they endorsed were also endorsed long before they
began to work by Tregelles and even a couple of other godly scholars.
It is Wrong to say, New Translations are the result of the work of ungodly
men. That is far from the truth . . . even farther than youre thinking.

Appendix Four - Why Translations Vary

There are three common changes in Translations which we could label:
1 Harmonisation
2 Explanation
3 Modernization
1 Harmonization:
This involves the possible bringing in a word or phrase into the passage
from another similar passage.
In Mt 9:13 the phrase to repentance is not found in some manuscripts. It
may be [we dont know for sure] that it was brought in from Luke 5:32
which is an identical passage or from Mt.11:17 which is similar. Of
course, maybe the phrase to repentance should be in Mt 9:13. We dont
know for sure. We are not talking here about whether the words are
inspired or not. We are simply saying, some manuscripts do not have
these words.
2 Explanation:
This involves words or phrases that seem to explain the text and maybe
make it clearer. But without the phrase the meaning would be the same
though maybe you would have to think for a moment.
Some manuscripts for Mt 18:29 do not record the words at his feet.
Could it be they were added just to explain, to clarify that he fell at his
feet and not outside on the stairway or sidewalk? We dont know for sure
of course. There are many, many words and phrases that fall under this
category.
Harmonization and Explanation:
In Mt 16:4 we have an interesting verse because it could be classified
as an explanation and a harmonization. Some manuscripts do not have
the words the prophet. Were they added in here to harmonize with Mt.
12:39 where they are used? Or were they added to explain which
prophet was meant. After all there are two men called Jonah in the New
Testament. One was Simon Peters father.

3 Modernization
Of course many words have been changed in other translations just
because the meaning of the word has changed over the years.
Here is a small list.
(healed) those that had palsy

- Mt 4:24 [ means paralysis]

those that had lunatic

- Mt 4:24 [means epilepsy]

if thy right hand offend thee

- Mt 5:30 [means causes you to sin]

when thou prayest, enter into thy closet

take no thought for your life

- Mt 6:6 [means inner room]

- Mt 6:25 [means do not worry about]

sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof

- Mt 6:34 [means trouble]

enter ye in at the strait gate

- Mt 7:13 [means narrow]

Actually, you will find that in Matthew ch 4-7 there are 72 words changed
in the NKJV simply because of the need for modernisation. And to be
sure, many believers who have read the KJV for decades still are not
aware of some of the meanings which have changed. How many did you
know in the above list?
A Test:
What do these mean?
1 his head was brought in a charger

- Mt 14:11

2 . . goes in at the mouth and is cast into the draught

- Mt 15:17

3 . . the curious girdle of the ephod

- Ex 28:8

4 . . the God of Israel will be your rereward

- Is52:12

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to read a Bible where you
could understand every word without checking the margin for a modern
equivalent? Ever wonder about reading a Bible where the sense was so
obvious, and the flow of words so smooth that you just felt you were
getting it? Why not give the NKJV a try for a week? You might even
find yourself getting used to understanding it. Happened to me.