By G. Grady Daniel, Jr.

Have you ever wondered why all Bible translations don’t read the same? Have you ever been frustrated trying to follow along In the Bible you us a while someone reads from a different translation he/she uses?

Not all Bible translations are the same because they are not all based on the same manuscripts. This writer believes modern translations did not use exactly the same manuscripts as the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES because of the inability of translating scholars to improve upon the work of the King James’ translators. Also, in many instances, modern translators placed heavy emphasis on certain questionable manuscripts rejected by AKJ translators.

Many times modem translators cite manuscript evidence to explain readings that are different but this is not done consistently. Sometimes parts of verses are left out WITHOUT explanation. There are also occasions where entire verses are left out without citing any manuscript evidence whatsoever.

Many modern translations are based upon the higher critical method whose ground rule in translation is that the Bible is treated just the same as any other ancient book. Although this writer feels THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION may bathe best of so-called modem translations it still lacks much. The problems here associated with the NKJV are mostly true to a greater degree for all modern translations.

All Bibles are not published JUST to spread the Word of God.

This is perhaps one of the motives. Why are so many different Bible translations published anyway? Everyone possibly has his own ideas as to the reasons -to make God’s Word more understandable; to make the language clearer by replacing outdated words; to make it more readable.

If you are a book publisher, your business is not just publishing books, but publishing books that SELL. With a great majority of books that are published, the publisher will barely break even. Dale Carnegie in HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE mentions that the president of one of the largest publishing houses in the world confessed that after seventy-five years of publishing experience, he still lost money on seven out of every eight books he published.

There may have been a time when you’ve been in a super-market, department store or discount store and seen tables of assorted books on sale. They have a variety of titles. Some have soft covers, some hard covers, fiction and non-fiction, and many have full color and dust jackets. Some are works that just didn’t sell and some are publishers’ overruns.

But, ordinary you don’t find Bibles on these tables –any version. That’s because the Bible and its plethora of versions continues to be the all-time best seller. In 1976 when THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE was published the first day of December, it sold a million copies in that month. In January it sold 313,000 more. In 1976, sales figures for THE LIVING BIBLE, THE WAY, etc., and similar editions was 2.25 million; THE JERUSALEM BIBLE about 380,000; the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION 130,000 and the NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE 100,000.

Many publishers are interested in publishing a version of the Bible, and mostly without regard to the version’s internal integrity.

READER’S DIGEST published a condensed version and someone published a feminist’s version that was corrected for gender.

Not only do Bibles sell, but nice ones sell for much higher prices than the great majority of books. Bonded leather, genuine leather, gilded edges, thumb Indexing, etc. will set a price from $50 to $100 or more per copy.

And, most conscientious Bible students will want to know how some of them compare, so one must have several versions. This number will increase because of the variety of study/reference Bibles available along with attendant reference materials for each translation. How many Bibles do you have? Without counting, I know I have well over two dozen. This includes at least six modern translations and six study/reference Bibles.

Can you imagine the average congregation with its many different Bible versions and its pastor trying to preach and teach from his version? This is especially confusing to new Christians because it makes it difficult for them to follow the teaching.

More effective educators would say it is not a good practice to try to teach a class with students using several different editions of the same text. Some churches use one particular translation as its pew Bible which may or may not be good depending upon the translation. Publishers or bookstores would be happy to sell pew Bibles to EVERY church -any version.

PROBLEM #3. There is a dilution or omission of some major doctrines.

In the NEW KING JAMES VERSION, the doctrine of hell is seriously damaged. There are thirty-one references to hell in the Old Testament translated from the Hebrew word sheol. In sixteen places it is rendered "hell," completely omitted from Prov. 918; and in the remaining fourteen places, it is left as "sheol" (untranslated). (Why should it be untranslated in what is supposed to be an English translation?)

The New Testament mentions hell as translated from the Greek hades eleven times. In the NKJV the Greek word hades is used INSTEAD of "hell" all eleven times. This translation DOES NOT translate into English in these instances thereby destroying twenty-five Bible references to hell. There is inconsistency here.

Some modern Bible scholars do not believe in a literal hell. How many of the general population know and understand sheol and hades? How many new Christians reading this translation know what these terms refer to? In the readily affordable, plain, award NKJV I have before me, the word "hell" is not even listed in its concordance. In the more expensive editions, it is listed.

Granted in some instances it could be rendered "the grave", but from the whole context of Scripture this is not altogether true. Whereas bodies are placed in the grave at death, souls and spirits do not all go to the same place. Souls and spirits of the wicked (unsaved) dead go to a place of torment (hell) to await the Great White Throne Judgment when they will be cast into the lake that burns with fire (Hell). The souls and spirits of God’s children (the saved) go to paradise (O.T. Abraham’s bosom, today, paradise) which was located across a fixed gulf from the place of the unsaved dead (hell).

All the bodies of mankind may be consigned to graves, both saved and unsaved, but not all the souls of mankind and their spirits go to the same place.

PROBLEM #4. It is said about modern translations that the translators are trying to get rid of the archaic words and replace them with today’s English.

Consider the word "knew" as used in Gen. 4:1, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived..." ...The NKJV uses the same terminology as the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES.... This same phenomenon also occurs in Gen. 4:17,25; Matt 1:25; Lk. 1:34 -among others.)

The word "harlot" is another term used by the NKJV and AKJV alike in some forty places. More commonly understood English words would be "whore" or "prostitute." If the NKJV REALLY wanted to update the language why did it miss so many opportunities? "Whore" is used in some places, also in the AKJV, but wouldn’t it have been more consistent to use the same throughout?

In perhaps a minor instance, take the English word "dung." In six places in the Old Testament the NKJV translates the Hebrew word domen as "refuse" and in six places the word peresh as "offal." My Hebrew dictionary says that domen is manure, or dung, and peresh is excrement (as eliminated) dung.

WEBSTER’S SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY says refuse is "the worthless or useless pert of something: leavings or trash, garbage." It defines offal as, "1. the waste of by-products of a process; trimmings of a hide; the by-products of milling used especially for stock feeds; the viscera and trimmings of butchered animal in dressing; 2. rubbish."

As one writer said about this kind of usage, one who might not mind having a little refuse or rubbish on the kitchen floor would certainly be repulsed by having dung In the same place. The NKJV has opted for weaker language that apparently has no relationship to the Hebrew. - To Be Continued

back to top

In a booklet enticed, "Questions and Answers" about the new translation (the NIV), the translators, literary critics and other consultants are listed. Among those we find Virginia Mollenkott, a sodomite. The following quotations are taken from an article entitled, "Church Needs New Sexual Ethic"

"...Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (VRM) professor of English at William Paterson College in Wayne, NJ—a lesbian-feminist...(was asked), ‘What do you think of the canonical change put forward by Bishop William Fray proposing a sexual ethic for clergy that allows them to have sexual relations only within Holy Matrimony?’"

"VRM: I’d like to see where the Bible says that, because I’ve looked and I haven’t found it. There’s precious little in the Bible to back that up, but a lot’s been said about it. I came up through Protestant fundamentalism. I became an Episcopalian as an adult, and was looking forward to a church that had Communion every Sunday, because that was central for the Plymouth Brethren, the church in which I was raised. But I became a feminist shortly after joining and was appalled by the hierarchical elements in the church." (The Witness 6/9)

"Consider, for example, the 1985 Presbyterian General Assembly in Indianapolis. I was there to address the luncheon of Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (PLGC). It was the first time that I had overtly claimed my lesbianism before an audience other than the Governing Board of the National Council of Churches of Christ. After the luncheon, several members of PLGC were to meet with several leaders of the ‘healing ministries’ within the Presbyterian Church, with ‘healing’ defined as turning gay people into non-gay or sexually non-functioning people. In the hope that my presence might be helpful, I went along to the meeting as part of the PLGC contingent." (Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, from Foreword in Uncommon Calling, written by Chris Glaser, a sodomite).

"Dr. Mollenkott, one of the literary consultants for the NIV translating committee, is a profound homosexual. This is verified by her own words in an interview in the Episcopal publication, Witness (6/91, pp. 20-23). The interviewer, Sue Pierce, asked the question, ‘Why was it important to both of you to come out as lesbians?’ Dr. Mollenkott’s reply was, ‘My lesbianism has always been a part of me. I tried to kill myself in my teens because they told me I’d never be healed, that God had no use for people like me. I couldn’t stand the thought of living a life that was useless and offensive to God. I tried to be heterosexual. I married myself off. But what I did ultimately realize was that God created me as I was, and that this is where life was meaningful."

"Realizing Dr. Mollenkott’s moral direction, one could expect her view to strongly affect the outcome of the NIV translation, and it does, as can be seen in the treatment of the sin of Sodom from which the term sodomy is derived.

"In her book, ‘Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?’ Dr. Mollenkott explains fully why she thinks the homosexual got bad press in the Bible. She presents all kinds of fanciful notions that the Old Testament Holiness Codes which forbid sodomy do not apply to the New Testament church. She explains in detail that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality as a loving relationship between two consenting adults. There, she concludes, it has to be OK. Where Paul mentions homosexuality, she again says that it only applies to promiscuous homosexuality. The NIV dearly reflects her views" (Sodomy and The NIV).

Throw the sodomite NIV book in the trash and get God’s inspired, Infallible, inerrant, preserved Word In English -the King James Bible. -Reprinted from The Perilous Times, 201 Maple Court, Liberty, So. Carolina 29657, by Pastor Raymond Blanton.

NOAH -- The blessing came when he was all alone, and when truth was nearly non-existent in the earth. He stood when all others had bowed to the trends of the times.