IS WHAT I’M READING REALLY GOD’S WORD?
Despite the ever-increasing number of Bible translations in English, a large percentage of American Evangelicals have not read the Bible in its entirety even once. (And once is not enough!)
Not only has the plethora of Bible translations not increased knowledge of the
Bible, these translations have actually hindered that knowledge. The
confusion began with the translation theory espoused by Eugene A. Nida
(1914-2011) called Dynamic Equivalence. According to this theory,
Bible translations do not need to convey the formal equivalence of the words in
the original language, but rather the equivalent meaning of the entire
verse or sentence in a modern context. A Dynamic Equivalent translation
does not have to account for every word in the original language, nor does it
have to preserve the historical, cultural, social, or religious context of the
original.
This type of translation distances readers from the biblical setting and obscures
the message as it was understood by the original audience. Relieved of
the constraints of formal linguistic equivalence in translating the Bible, the
translators of such Bibles as the New International Version, Today's New
International Version, the Good News Bible, The Message, the New Living
Translation, Contemporary English Bible, and others, went beyond their own
principles to insert human commentary into the translation itself! The
beloved 23rd Psalm demonstrates this egregious license taken by the
"translators" of three popular versions. Note how verse 5b is
"translated" in the following versions:
"You welcome me as an honored guest" (Good News Bible)
"You welcome me as a guest, anointing my head with oil" (New Living
Translation)
"You honor me as a guest" (Contemporary English Version)
The original text simply reads, "You anoint my head with oil."
So why do these three translations have this business about the "honored
guest"? It is because some commentators believe that David leaves
the "shepherd-sheep" imagery and moves to a picture of an oriental
banquet where the honored guests would have their heads anointed with perfumed
oil. This interpretation is not universally accepted, however. For
example, commentator Leupold writes: "]I]t is not going too far to point
out that all may still be strictly within the figure of the shepherd's activity
if he is a faithful man. For, in the first place, the 'table' (shulchan),
as dictionaries point out, was in days of old a large piece of leather on which
food was set or, in this case, on which some supplementary reserve fodder might
be spread by the shepherd on days when forage was scarce. In like manner
shepherds are still known to carry a little flask of oil to anoint the
scratched face of the sheep that was obliged to seek its food among thorns and
brambles." (Leupold, Psalms) The main point here is that
either point of view is an interpretation, not a translation. But
in the above versions, the translators give you the impression that they are
conveying the Word of God. They are not! It is their
interpretation!
And let's not imagine that the ubiquitous New International Version (NIV) has
refrained from such interpretative license. The NIV translators can't let
the reader interpret what "seal" means in John 6:27 and Ephesians
1:13.
"On him [the Son of Man] God the Father has placed his seal of approval.
(John 6:27, NIV, TNIV) (The words in italics are the words the translators
added by way of their interpretation.)
"Having believed, you were marked with a seal, the promised Holy
Spirit . . ." (Eph. 1:13 NIV) (Again the italicized words imply an
interpretation. The original simply says, "you were sealed...")
By rendering "sealed" differently in these two passages, the translators
are giving their interpretation that these verses do not mean the same
thing. That should be for the reader to decide from a faithful
translation of the original words.
Another New Testament word that the NIV translators feel they must interpret
for us is the Greek word sarx, which literally means
"flesh." In Paul's epistles, especially Romans 7 and 8 and
Galatians 5, the NIV translates that one word as "sinful
nature." That is an interpretation, not a translation. While
most of those passages undoubtedly do refer to the sinful impulses of our
bodily appetites, some passages may be referring simply to human
(fleshly) effort, which cannot fulfill God's law. The point is that the
reader is not given the opportunity to reflect on the meaning of "flesh"
in those passages; the "translators" have interpreted it for
us! We also need to recognize that the same word, sarx, is
used in reference to Jesus' human nature: "The Word
became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14) "The
gospel of God...concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David
according to the flesh..." (Romans 1:1b, 3 NASB) "Therefore,
since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also
partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had
the power of death, that is, the devil,..." Hebrews 2:14) and other
passages.
A simple concordance search of the word "flesh" will reveal that it
is used in many different ways, some literal and some figurative.
Faithful translations like the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB translate the word as
it stands in the original and allow the reader to interpret it.
"Dynamic Equivalence" translations like the NIV, TNIV, GNB, CEV, and
many others, do the interpreting for us--correctly or incorrectly--right in the
text!
So are we really reading the Bible when we read those so-called
translations? These hybrids between the Bible and commentary
used to be called paraphrases, which indeed they are. Now the same
paraphrases are being peddled as the Bible. The father of Dynamic
Equivalency, the late Eugene Nida, frankly admitted that he did not believe the
average Christian was capable of understanding the Bible for himself or
herself. Therefore the scholars feel they have to expand on
God's Word so we can understand its meaning.
Bible knowledge is pathetically weak among professing Christians in America, and
I suspect in other “Christian” countries as well. One reason, I believe,
is what Leland Ryken calls the "destabilized text" of many modern
translations. (Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences) (See
also Translating The Truth) In their attempt to tell readers
what the Bible means, Dynamic Equivalence translators have obscured what
the Bible says. Fortunately, there are good modern translations
that strive to convey the Word of God in the very words of God.
The New King James Version updates the archaic language of
the matchless King James Version, the New American Standard Bible is known for its faithful
adherence to the tenses and nuances of the original, especially the Greek verb
tenses in the New Testament, and the English Standard Version offers a flowing literary translation
that seeks to account for each word in the original.
I for one would like to see an end to the dominance of the NIV and see
Christians once again studying a faithful, accurate translation of the
Bible.
Posted by Thomas L. Jones
