~JM~

Strange that some can say they believe in the soveriegn God yet are not sure we have 100 % of God's Word. They may say 95% sure but it's obvious He has preserved it all. What drew me to this blog post is I was just speaking with my children about Bible versions as I was putting them to bed. They asked me why I had more than one Bible. I started talking about the spiritual warfare against God and His Word. I told them the best translations was the King James then the New King James and my third prefrence was the NASB (as an alternate direct translation read). With that though I went into discussing the attack on God's Word in the realm of translations. There is obviously the counterpart to the pro TR brethren and though they too say we have 100% of God's Word they cast doubt bombs on texts like the end of Mark 16. One particular apologist gave his reasons why he doubts it is BUT leaves it to the reader's conscious whether it is or not God's Word. Whether intentional or not that kind of banter reeks of "Did God indeed say?" and we know who said that. Various publications of various translations will italicize the usual suspects and cast doubt or more blatantly remove sections of Scripture they deem not Scripture. The latter is more honest but horrifically wrong the former disruptive and dangerous with their italics and both are an attack in my opinion on God's Word. This is being done in the name and guise of scholarly labor despite conservative stances.

I think the worst thing to happen to more faithful denominations is the exceptance of the NIV which is not a direct translation and entering the paraphrase world on the borderline. There are others who attempt the latest and more modern direct translation. I found a copy called the "Berkeley Version" done around the 30's or 40's of last century. I had read a book concerning marriage and divorce and the author kept quoting from this version. I wondered why. I picked it up and have been doing comparative readings. I still wonder why. It stands as alternative read but suffers at its attempt to improve if not make you wince at words chosen. I told my kids the original language of the New Testament was written in Greek which was a language of expressive depth and that the King James version was the best in trying to translate that depth(thanks be to God for His servant Tyndale). Obviously we don't speak in whole like that but if you keep reading it you'll learn why it's one of the best God has given us and preserved for us as a translation. I'll admit I read the NKJV mostly but now I've gone back to the KJV as required comparative alternate reading. I know there is the KJV only crowd and even more hard core the 1611 crowd. I still think it's good to do alternate comparative readings. There is sometimes better translations of certain texts but the other benefit in comparing direct translations is that it brings you back to appreciate Tyndale's and certain other's labors in translating His Words to us in English. I just ordered a 1611 edition to see if there is any difference. In the end though, Hebrew/Greek scholar or not you need be born of God in Christ, sealed with His Spirit to truly mine it's riches as is His will whatever good translation.

This is a very good article. I would endorse it wholeheartedly. However, there is profit in using any translation to some degree. My own preference is the KJV.