This Week in Review - 3/10/2017

And now another weekly roundup.

Heidelberg 80: We Don’t Need Any Footnotes from The Heidelblog - An interesting explanation of Question 80 from the Heidelberg catechism, and whether or not it truly misrepresents the position of Roman Catholicism regarding the Lord's Supper.

The Reformed Reject Lent In Basle In 1534 from The Heidelblog - Article XI from the First Confession of Basle, regarding the topic of fasting during Lent.

Why Did Arminianism "Win"? from The Heidelblog - An article discussing how we went from the teachings of Jacob Arminius (which was closer to Calvinism) to historical Arminianism, to today's Evangelical scene in western Christian.

Reformed Books Online - I discovered this recently. It's a treasure trove of resources on various subjects.

The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon? from Canon Fodder - A good, short read on the history of Revelation's entry into the canon, who objected to it, when those objections were raised, etc.

The Poisonous Songs of Arius from Mystagogy Resource Center - With all the debate still going on about Jesus Culture, Bethel Church, IHOP-KC, Misty Edwards, etc., this article was a timely read. In essence, the Arians employed music and easy-to-memorize songs in order to spread their doctrine. As the article cites, even Athanasius had to comment on it.

What Led You To Become An Atheist? Some Surprising Answers from David Murray - An interesting summary of a study on what made a group of people atheists, and what we can do to improve this situation. Some of the reasons aren't all that surprising, honestly.

The Mailbag: Which Bible Do You Recommend? from Michelle Lesley - There are dozens upon dozens of "Which translation should I use?" posts out there, but this one summarizes things nicely.

A Day Without A Woman from Femina Girls - A response to the whole "day without a woman" nonsense that feminists had a while ago, as well as a warning to not pay the "danegeld" to feminists.

Sharing Heaven with Serial Killers from The Gospel Coalition - A reflection on the story of Jeffrey Dahmer's repentance, and what it means for all of us.

Cain’s Wife—Who Was She? from Answers in Genesis - An analysis of where Cain's wife came from, and what this means about interpreting scripture.

When Does Personhood Begin? Part I from Cross Examined - A good, thorough beginning discussion on the philosophical arguments behind personhood within the abortion debate.

Gay Rights Activists Bully Authors of LGBT Study from Answers in Genesis - The story is from November 29, 2016, but nonetheless it's an example of how there's an agenda being pushed that's not very concerned about truth and reality.

And in the humor section...

Some of the longer "carol" "conversations" with H/T to Frog Morton - How easy is it to troll internet atheists? A troll account (probably a Twitter bot) named Carol, aka "christianmom18," posts some short, simple statements and finds out. Most amusing is when she corrects people on the proper use of "your." Also amusing is just how some people continue to respond even when it's clear it's a troll. Warning: As might be expected, there's bad language, crude humor, blasphemous statements against God, etc. If you don't want to see these, don't click on the link. I'm sharing this simply because it demonstrates how people who claim to be rational against emotional opinion can betray their own emotional state when faced with nothing more than contrary thought.

The Development of Language

It's amazing how language can change in a short span of time, or how the understanding of a verse can develop. Here's John 3:16 as it transitioned over 220 years...

WYCLIFFE BIBLE (1382-1395)
For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.


TYNDALE BIBLE (1526, 1531-34)
For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.


COVERDALE BIBLE (1535)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his onely sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in he, shulde not perishe, but haue euerlastinge life.


MATTHEW BIBLE (1537)
For God so loueth the worlde that he hath geue his only sonne that none that beleue in him shulde perisshe: but shulde haue euerlastyng lyfe.


GREAT BIBLE (1539)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue hys onlye begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not peryshe, but haue euerlastynge lyfe.

GENEVA BIBLE (1560)

For God so loueth the world, that he hath geue his only begotten Sone: y none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe.

BISHOP’S BIBLE (1568)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.

KING JAMES BIBLE (1611)
For God so loued the world, that he gaue his onely begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Silly Arguments Part IV

Why hello there, face-palming Picard! This must mean it's time for another...you guessed it...silly argument!

Once upon a time in the world of a social media website that shall remain nameless, I saw this argument made for the King James Bible and why we should use it alone.

psalm 12-6 purified 7 times. it was the 7th translation, it took 7 years, and english is made of 7 languages

This is a popular argument used by KJV-Onlyists, in an attempt to try to prove some level of divine connection with the KJV. I've already touched on the silliness of KJV-Onlyism before, but let's take a moment to examine this claim.

Firstly, no one at the time of the KJV translators thought this. Unlike the apostles, who realized when Christ had fulfilled a passage of scripture, we don't see any record of the KJV translators leaping up from their tables and declaring, "Psalm 12:6 has been fulfilled!" This mentality is about as recent as KJV-Onlyism (and that's very recent).

Secondly, the KJV is actually the tenth English translation, not the seventh. They are, in order:

1. Wycliffe
2. Tyndale
3. Coverdale
4. Matthew
5. Great Bible
6. Taverner
7. Geneva Bible
8. Bishops' Bible
9. Douay-Rheims Bible
10. King James Bible

This is not even counting the individual translations found in England before Wycliffe, and others found throughout the history of the other publications.

Thirdly, I have no idea what this individual means regarding English having "seven languages." English itself is the language, and if this is referring to dialects, well...there are countless English dialects to say the least. I did a Google search on this, and found out that what this person meant to argue, I think, is that the Bible, at the time of the translation of the KJV, has been translated into seven languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Old Syriac, Old Latin, German and English. This likewise is not true - by the time of the translation of the KJV, the Bible had likewise been translated into: Gothic, Armenian, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Old Church Slavonic, Old French, Czech, and Hungarian. That's about seventeen languages, folks - and I'm sure if I did a little more digging, I'd find plenty more languages that holy writ had been translated into by 1611.

Fourthly, and most importantly, Psalm 12:6 is not speaking about translations! That's completely ripping it out of context. Let's examine the context quickly - here's the Psalm in full:

Save, O Lord, for the godly one is gone; for the faithful have vanished from among the children of man. Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts, those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is master over us?” “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,” says the Lord; “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.” The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the children of man. [Psalm 12:1-8]

The Psalmist begins by describing a situation not too pretty - the godly one is gone, the faithful have vanished (v. 1), and everyone utters lies to their neighbors, using flattering lips and "a double heart" (v. 2). The Psalmist turns against these people, hoping that the Lord would cut off all the flattering lips and boasting tongues (vv. 3-4). The Lord Himself then promises His intervention in the matter, and says He will place the poor and needy in safety (v. 5). 

We then reach verse 6, where we read that "the words of the Lord are pure words"...but let's stop a moment - what "words" are we talking about? Are we talking about the entire Bible? Actually no...we're talking about the words the Lord just spoke. That is, the words pertaining to the protection of the poor and needy. The psalmist is contrasting them with the words of the haughty and boastful in verse 4. This is emphasized in the next part of the verse, where it says the Lord's words are "like silver refined in a furnace...purified seven times." Let's ask quickly: do God's words need any sort of refining? Actually no - they're already refined, as they're already pure. That's the point the psalmist is trying to make: the Lord's words don't need refining, in contrast to the words of the liar and the boastful, whose words would need plenty of refining. The phrase "seven times" (referring the number of perfection) is simply emphasizing how pure the silver is (and hence God's word). This is continued in verses 7-8, where the psalmist confirms that God will protect the poor and needy against the wicked and the vile - hence how we know that God's words truly are pure.

In short, Psalm 12:6 does not teach KJV-Onlyism.

The KJV and Septuagint: A Comparison

In the late-to-mid third century BC, a group of Jewish translators gathered together in Alexandria to begin a Greek translation of Old Testament books. Because of the tradition that there were around 70 translators assigned to the task, the work was given the name Septuagint (sometimes called LXX, after the Roman numeral). Much later on, in the early seventeenth century AD, a group of English translators would meet to begin the translation of the Authorized Version (AV), which would become known historically as the King James Version (KJV). Since their conceptions, both translations have experienced similar traditions and misconceptions regarding how they developed and what, exactly, they are. Sometimes they are used as a kind of supreme authority or standard, while other times they are worshiped almost like gods. I thought it would be worth going over some of the comparative problems that occur regarding these two translations.

It should be noted that this is examining the beliefs stemming from King James Onlyism and what one might call "Septuagint-Onlyism," or at the very least the more extreme opinions of those who adhere to the Septuagint. This is not meant as an attack against those who personally like the KJV as a favored translation, nor against those who study the Septuagint or appreciate it as a historical document relevant to the study of scripture.

1) The translators were divinely inspired.

The most extreme of KJV-Onlyists believe that God Himself had a hand in the translation of the book, so much so that some have claimed "[so-called] mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation" (pg. 19; Ankerberg). By contrast, the original KJV translators saw themselves in a much more humble light. In an introduction to the first edition of the KJV, entitled The Translators to the Reader, the authors of the KJV said "a variety of translation is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures," meaning that reviewing other translations besides the KJV was helpful in determining the original wording of scripture. One of the guidelines given the translators, in fact, was that they were to review previous translations (including Tyndale's and Geneva's) when dealing with more difficult passages (pg. 71; White). The translators of the original AV certainly did not consider themselves higher or better than any translator who had come before them, nor any that would come after. They considered their translation one in a great line of English translations, and recognized as language developed that many more translations would be needed in the centuries to come.

With the Septuagint, there are many traditions surrounding its creation. One of the most popular is that the 72 translators came from Palestine and were placed on an island until their task was completed. Another tradition says that each translator worked alone, shared their results, and found they had miraculously come out with the exact same wording all 72 times. A more "refined" version of this tradition says that the 72 translators broke up into teams of twos, and each group of twos came up with the exact same wording. However, the language of the Septuagint suggests it was not done by Palestinian Jews, as "there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin" (pg. ii; Brenton). Also, the tradition regarding the translators breaking up and coming up with the exact same wording for their translation holds little historical merit.

Some have proposed that, because the New Testament writers used the Septuagint, the translation must have a divine source. In fact, the New Testament writers were not always reliant upon the Septuagint:

In the consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, - a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version, which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint. [pg. iv, Brenton]

Some of these changes are fairly minor. For example, in Christ's use of Deuteronomy 6:13 in Matthew 4:10, it states at the end "and serve him only" (NASB). However, the word "only" (monos in the original Greek) is not in the Septuagint translation - it was added here as emphasis, given the context of Christ being tempted to worship Satan.

2) There has only been one version of the translation throughout history.

Many KJV-Onlyists have the idea that the KJV they hold in their hand is the same KJV that was published in 1611, and thus for more than three hundred years the English translation hasn't seen a single change. This simply isn't true - the version which the vast majority of people use today is actually the 1769 edition, completed some 158 years after the first edition of the KJV. Compare Genesis 1:2 with the two versions:

And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. [1611 printing]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [1769 printing]

While the overall context stays the same for the most part, there are major changes to spelling and punctuation. There are bigger differences still - for example: Psalm 69:32 originally read "seeke good" in the 1611 edition, while the 1769 edit changed it to "seek God"; Jeremiah 49:1 originally read "inherit God" in the 1611 edition, while the 1769 edit changed it to "inherit Gad."

This doesn't cover that, up until the 1769 edition, there were dozens of editions of the KJV printed. In fact, a new edition of the KJV was printed the very next year, in 1612. These later editions were not always perfect - one contemporary source made the claim that, of the six editions of the KJV printed in the 1650's, over 20,000 errors could be found (pg. 78; White). Some of these were even "embarrassing printing errors":

The 1613 printing omitted the word "not" from the seventh commandment, inadvertently "encouraging" people to commit adultery. This King James edition became known as the "Wicked Bible." Another printing of the KJV became known as the "Unrighteous Bible" because it stated that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of heaven. And a few printing errors continue to occur in the KJV and other versions today. [pg. 13; Ankerberg]

In the same fashion, some believe that the Septuagint they hold in their hand is the exact same Septuagint that has been seen throughout history, right from its publication down through the Church Fathers. I touched on this in another post, but it's worth going over again here. In essence, the idea that the copy of what we have today that is known as "the Septuagint" is the same as  what was first translated by the initial seventy translators is simply false. Many seem to think that Church Fathers were walking around with one copy of the Septuagint under their arms, and they were all pretty much the same - such a mindset is likewise false.

For one, the initial translation of the Septuagint was simply the Law, not the entire Old Testament. The rest of the books were translated somewhat piecemeal throughout the next hundred years, and while we don't know the exact date of when all books were completed, the prologue from the Wisdom of Sirach suggests that the entirety of the Old Testament was completed sometime by the second century BC, so that by the time of Christ the Old Testament was readily available in Greek.

Even after this, the history of the Septuagint is not complete, for three major revisions happened afterward: the first, by a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, in the early second century AD; the second, in the late second century AD, by a Jewish convert named Theodotion; the third, by a Samaritan convert to Judaism named Symmachus. The revision by Theodotion is especially important for this discussion, as his version was actually used many times by Church Fathers (such as Justin Martyr) over and against the wording of the "original" Septuagint. His version of Daniel was especially widely used by Christian apologists and theologians. Among the Jews in Asia Minor and the Middle East, the version of the Septuagint by Aquila became popular and was used as their "official" version of the Septuagint well into the Middle Ages.

This is not to say that we have absolutely no idea what the Septuagint said - we simply have to be careful when we say "Church Fathers quoted the Septuagint" or "early Christians used the Septuagint." It's a much more complicated situation than we may realize.

3) The translation is pure and nearly without error.

A lot of people believe that the KJV is the most pure and undefiled version of the Bible available, but the plain facts present a problem with this assumption.

For one, the KJV is based on far less manuscripts than modern-day translations. Whereas today we have over 5500 manuscripts to use in translating and studying the New Testament, the translators of the KJV had only five or six late manuscripts (12th-14th century). While the overall message and theology of the KJV and later manuscripts differs little from modern translations and earlier manuscripts, there are significant results of this. One is the inclusion of major textual variants, many of which are not considered to be part of the earliest manuscripts and readings. The most famous example of this is the longer reading of 1 John 5:7, aka the Comma Johanneum, which was believed to have been introduced through a note on a Latin manuscript and hence is not original.

For another, there are noticeable translation errors within the KJV. Some are perceived contradictions within scripture that do not exist in the original Greek (cf. Acts 9:7 versus 22:9 in the KJV). Others are supposed references to mythical animals, such as unicorns (Nu 23:22, De 33:17, etc.) and satyrs (Isa 13:21; 34:14). Some critics of Christianity have used the KJV's mention of unicorns and satyrs against the Bible, not seeming to realize that the original text doesn't speak of such animals; on the other hand, some KJV-Onlyists, in an attempt to respond to this dilemma, have gone so far as to try to prove unicorns existed!

In regards to the Septuagint, it has been said by some that it is one of the most accurate translations of the Old Testament into another language. In actuality, modern scholars are often critical of the accuracy of some of the books. It must be remembered, as explained earlier, that the Septuagint was a translation over time, with only the books of the Law being completed first, with the others completed bit by bit over time, most likely by different parties. We are able to discern different translators because of the varying skills and styles of translating found within it.

The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst. [pg. iii; Brenton]

Even contemporaries of the Septuagint offered some constructive criticism regarding its language. While discussing the translation of his grandfather's work from the original Hebrew into Greek, the author of the Wisdom of Sirach makes reference to the Septuagint in his introduction:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.  [source]

Some of the errors in the Septuagint especially came out during Jerome's translation of the original Hebrew text into the Latin Vulgate.

In the early fifth century Jerome provided a fresh translation of the Old Testament in Latin. What made his work unique was that it was based not upon the Greek Septuagint version, but upon the actual Hebrew of the original Old Testament. Jerome was one of the very few early Christians who was able to read both Greek and Hebrew. As he translated from the Hebrew, his version varied both in content (the LXX having some additions and some deletions when compared with the Hebrew text) and in style (Jerome did not feel he had to accept every interpretive translation that was to be found in the Septuagint)...One aspect of his work that caused consternation among the people was that he did not use the traditional translation in the book of Jonah regarding the "gourd." The Hebrew is difficult here, and Jerome decided not to follow the LXX's identification of the plant as the "gourd," but instead followed the Palestinian Jewish understanding and identified it as the caster-oil plant. [pg. 11; White]

Some have attempted to put forward that the Septuagint is a far more accurate translation than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, based on a conspiracy theory that the Jews purposefully changed their scripture to take out all references to Jesus. While it is true that there are some moments in the Masoretic Text where the Jewish scribes clearly wanted to minimize the potential of Christian use, and did so in the process of adding the vowel marks, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed greater light on the accuracy of the Masoretic Text. It has shown that, by and large, the wording of the Old Testament has remained fairly consistent between the years before Christ and the years after Christ.

Keep in mind that all of this is not saying that the KJV or Septuagint are completely unusable. No translation is perfect, and some are more flawed than others. The key is identifying where these flaws are and being able to deal with them if they come up. It is also important to know, when the enemies of Christ turn to finding flaws in his written word, where they are attacking something on the basis of what is said, and where they are attacking something on the basis of how it was translated.

-------------

Works Cited

Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene: Harvest House, 1996.

Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009.

White, James. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

Virgin versus Young Woman in Isaiah 7:14

An article online that looks at the issue of how to translate the word in Isaiah 7:14, especially in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint.

Is the virgin birth really predicted in the Old Testament?

Why the ESV is pure evil and you shouldn't use it

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come across some startling discoveries regarding the ESV translation. It was originally one of my favorite translations, just under the NASB. Now, however, I have received special revelation via making things up on the spot, and I have come to realize that the ESV is perhaps one of the most evil translations in the world. How evil is it? Well let's review the Official Evil Chart:

So as you can see, it's pretty evil. Maybe not the most evil, but it's pretty high up there. So why is it so evil? How do we know it should be avoided?

First, let's talk about the acronym: ESV. The official sources say that it stands for English Standard Version, but this is merely hiding the truth. You see, ESV backwards is VSE, which stands for Vienna Stock Exchange. It also stands for Vancouver Stock Exchange, as well as Vadodara Stock Exchange and Varaždin Stock Exchange. Why so many stock exchanges related to this acronym? That's because the ESV is a thinly disguised plant by the New World Order of bankers, seeking to take over the world. Don't believe me? Let's use some basic logic: you need money to buy an ESV; banks have money; Q.E.D., the ESV is connected to banks.

If you still don't believe me, you should know that the government, who is run by the banks, is responsible for the ESV as well, and is attempting to sneak sin and vice into our bibles by using the ESV translation. Let's take a look at this acrostic algebra, which is exactly the same methodology Christ and the apostles used when handling scripture:

Some of you are probably wondering, "Why the heck am I still reading this blog post?" Some of you might also be wondering, "What does 'SSN' stand for?" It's short for Social Security Number. You know, the number you need to provide for your job and basic forms of identity. The number every person needs to get along in life. You know...the mark of the beast.

Do you want to see something truly horrifying? Compare the logo of the ESV with the symbol of the Hindu faith. The truth may shock you, but if you look carefully...you'll see that the ESV logo is a thinly disguised version of the Hindu symbol. Don't believe me? Observe:

The ESV logo reveals that this entire translation is just a thinly disguised attempt to introduce eastern religions into Christianity. The fact that John Piper, a well known Hindu swami, is part of the advisory council for the translation board, makes this pretty obvious. They even got RC Sproul, a famous Shinto priest, to contribute. If you still aren't convinced, look at this passage from the ESV translation which I totally did not edit from the original wording:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but get reincarnated a lot, possibly into a snail, or a cow if he's lucky." [John 3:16]

Heed my words: avoid the ESV - it is the devil's translation. Still don't believe me? Look at this other verse from the ESV, which I totally did not edit to leave out certain words to thus prove my point:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD...Satan... [Job 1:6]

See! It calls Satan "lord"! What kind of Bible translation calls Satan lord?! That's completely counterproductive to the whole purpose of the book! I bet Satan was on the advisory board. Hey wait a minute...look at this excerpt from a page listing those who had a hand in the ESV translation...

Dr. Luder G. Whitlock. President, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS.
Dr. Tetsunao Yamamori. President, Food for the Hungry, Scottsdale, AZ.
Dr. Robert W. Yarbrough. Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
Rev. John W. Yates II. Rector, The Falls Church, Falls Church, VA.
Satan, Prince of Darkness, Hell, MI.

HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU PEOPLE NEED?!

As I close my post, let me just say that this post is 100% serious and I love Akira Kurosawa films. One of those statements is true.

400 Years of the 1611 Authorized King James Bible

Four hundred years ago (not the exact day), the famous 1611 King James Bible came out in England. And in celebration, a brief exchange regarding KJV-Onlyism, featuring Daniel Wallace, James White and a bunch of KJV-Only fellows:

Who reads the translations?

The following is meant for humor and is based on the "Who reads the papers?" routine from the show Yes, Prime Minister (source; warning, some profane language at the end). Keep in mind this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not literal.

[The pastor of a small church sits at his desk, the church secretary nearby]

Secretary: "I assume your demeanor is about the upcoming decision by the committee to pick which translation we'll use for the new Bibles."

Pastor: "How did you guess?"

[The church deacon enters]

Pastor: "Ah, deacon! Glad you're here. I've decided to make a decision about which translation we're going to use for the new Bibles."

Deacon: "What do you propose to do?"

Pastor: "Uh...think about it!"

Deacon: "When did you come to this momentous decision?"

Pastor: "Just now."

Deacon: "When did you first think of it?"

Pastor: "Er...just now."

Deacon: "I wouldn't worry about it until it becomes a greater issue. Now, I have the church financial report here..."

Pastor: "Now wait a minute, our theology is at stake here. This is more important!"

Deacon: "With all due respect, sir, it is not. No translation is perfect, and you have to read each while remembering that they pander to their readers' prejudices."

Pastor: "Don't tell me about the translations, I know exactly who reads the translations: the NRSV is read by people who think they know God; the KJV is read by people who think they ought to be God; the ESV is read by people who do know God; the NIV is read by the children of the people who know God; the NLT is read by people who think they own God; the TNIV is read by people who think God should be another god...and the Message is read by people who think He is."

Deacon: "And pastor, what about people who read the NAB?"

Secretary: "NAB readers don't care who God is as long as He goes good with wine."

[The deacon and pastor both glare at the secretary, who shyly covers her face with her clipboard]

Justin Peters reviews The Message

Some may remember my post regarding strange Bible translations, and how I poked fun at The Message's odd wording of Revelation 1:8. Well, it seems that pastor Justin Peters, over at his ministry's web page, has a short review of The Message's translation of the Bible. He takes a few key verses from the New Testament and places translations from The Message alongside the NIV, NASB, and KJV. Needless to say, there are some shocking and inexplicable changes. I think he does a good job getting to the point of the errors and not going the extreme route that we find so many of the KJV-Onlyists doing.

Rants on Translations

I thought for good humor we'd look at a few random translations, focusing on various passages. Keep in mind I'm not necessarily condemning these specific translations (well, maybe a few of them, and I think it would be obvious which ones I would) only poking fun at some entertaining mistakes made therein.

First, let's look at a passage from Paul's conversion, as found in the New International Version:

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying..." [Acts 9:11]

Ugh..."Straight Street"? Most translations say, "a street called Straight," and indeed that's what the original Greek says. In fact, that's what the original street is called! It literally is a street simply called "Straight" (which was apparently pretty common back then). A priest I used to know actually went and visited Damascus, and the street where Paul stayed at is still there and is still simply called "Straight."

Now let's look at something from The Message.

The Master declares, "I'm A to Z. I'm The God Who Is, The God Who Was, and The God About to Arrive. I'm the Sovereign-Strong." [Revelation 1:8]

Christ is "A to Z"? Wha? Actually, this is a reworking of the original line, which is "I am the Alpha and Omega." The Greek letters Alpha and Omega were the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, hence the following statement, "the beginning and the end." This is not in this translation, and the change from Alpha and Omega to A and Z is just confusing. Unless a Christian has no knowledge of any other translation, they will read this passage as, "I am Alpha and Zeta" - Zeta, incidentally, is NOT the last letter in the Greek alphabet. In any case, "I'm A to Z" makes it sound as if God is a kid's pop-up book, not an eternal Being.

Now let's look at something from the Bible in Basic English. Know the shortest line in the Bible? Let's see how they translate it:

And Jesus himself was weeping [John 11:35]

Are you kidding me? They took the shortest line in the Bible and made it somehow longer? What does it say when the film Hellraiser treats a verse from scripture better than an actual biblical translation?

Now for fun let's look at the Jehovah's Witness Bible - actually, I could create a whole blog post about it, but let's see how the New World Translation handles one of my favorite passages of scripture:

And he said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." [Luke 23:43]

Oh...I see what you did there...thought you were sly, eh? Moving the comma, all subtle-like...

So why is Jesus telling the wise thief, "Truly I tell you today"? What, is He going to say tomorrow: "Sorry man, I just meant for that day. Now I'm saying there ain't no paradise for you." Plus, what other day would Jesus say this? Even logically, this translation doesn't make sense. "Truly I tell you tomorrow, you will be with Me in Paradise. Oops! I just told you."

Finally, let's look at the Joseph Smith "translation," which was really Joseph Smith simply taking the Bible and adding bits to fit with his theology.

But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [Romans 4:5]

Wait, what?! "Justifieth not the ungodly?" Apparently, Joseph Smith didn't like the idea that God would justify the ungodly (as if there exists someone who is "godly"). Indeed, if one reviews Smith's "translation" of Romans 4, a very work-centered gospel is preached as opposed to a gospel where one is justified by faith. This contradicts the entire point presented by Paul in Romans. Apparently even the original apostles were prone to theological error - did the "Great Apostasy" happen sooner than the Mormon church would have us believe?