BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: A BRIEF HISTORY AND SUMMARY

   The Father of English Bible translation was William Tyndale. He was executed in 1536 for the "crime" of putting the Bible into the language of ordinary people.  Ninety per cent of his words were retained in the KJV of 1611 and 75% were retained in the RSV of 1952.  Following his work came the Geneva Bible, the one that the Puritans brought to America with them.  The Authorized ("King James") Version of 1611 only slowly replaced the Geneva Bible.  The King James Version holds a place of great importance in the history of English speaking people.  I memorized extensive portions of it and still quote it often.   But, the claims of some people that it is "more accurate" or based on a "better Greek text" are utterly false and misleading.

   I sympathize with those who want to use the KJV because of familiarity with it or appreciation for its history.  But, I strongly recommend that they use the best edition of the KJV that was ever printed.  That was the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967.  It was essentially the KJV but with two very great improvements.  Archaic (no longer used) words like "kine" (cattle) were updated.  Second, the most egregious mistranslations were corrected.  "Vile bodies" in Philippians 3:21 was corrected to "lowly bodies".   The 1967 Scofield is no longer in print but copies are easily obtained on EBay.

   I have no respect at all for the New King James Version.  It is one of the most unnecessary versions ever done.  If you substantially change the KJV you no longer have the KJV and it dishonest to call it the "New" KJV.  It is simply a modern speech version based on the LEAST accurate texts that we have.  If you like the KJV by all means use the Scofield Reference Bible of 1967.  Also, its footnotes are a huge improvement over the original Scofield of 1909.  The notes on Genesis chapter 1 are excellent.
   

  The first alternative to the KJV for Americans was the American Standard Version of 1901.  It was replaced in 1971 by the New American Standard Bible.  That version is accurate and trustworthy but it has two main faults: 1) following the Hebrew and Greek word order makes for clumsy English sentences; and 2) making every verse a separate paragraph was a huge mistake.  It affects the way the reader understands the text.  This was also a main fault of nearly all editions of the KJV.  The NASB would be 100% improved if its text were put into normal paragraphs.
  

  The Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 but it was not accepted by most conservative, evangelical Christians.  That is discussed further down in this blog.

   The New International Version of 1978 involved more qualified scholars than any version in the history of the English language (105 as compared to 30-40 on all the others).  It involved multiple cross checking and final reviews more than any other version. The translators followed the method of translation that missionaries had been using with other languages for many years. It was well on its way to becoming the standard Bible of English speaking people . . . until . . . the committee that controls the text began to "tinker" with it.  First in 1984 and again in 2011 they changed the text.  The 1984 edition is OK but unnecessary and the 2011 edition got into "gender inclusive" language.  I use the original 1978 and WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS I LIVE.  All changes in the NIV should have been totally in the footnotes and the text should have been left alone!

    The same mistake is being made with the English Standard Version.  It is reported that they are going to tinker with the text.  The ESV, to understand it, is nothing but a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1952.  The RSV, while generally accurate, was never accepted by many evangelicals because of obvious liberal bias in several passages.  The ESV is probably the best translation currently IN PRINT  but it is no improvement at all over the original NIV of 1978.  If someone needs a Bible I urge them to go to EBay and get a like new 1978 NIV.

   I will not discuss other translations currently available, not because they do not have value, but because nearly all of them are "gender inclusive" translations to suit the feminist agenda by eliminating, as much as possible, the words "man" and "men" and male pronouns.  I do not speak against them, I just do not recommend them.  If someone wants to read a paraphrase of the New Testament there is none more refreshing than the Phillips New Testament in Modern English  (1958).   .