Monday, September 16, 2013


Part Three: Antioch and Alexandria Bibles

Last week, I talked about formal and dynamic equivalencies. Remember that these were just methods of translating the Bible. You might ask, “Why is this important in understanding God’s Word?” I would suggest to you that if we don’t know word for word what God is saying to us instead of the translator’s interpretation of what he thinks God meant, how will we know what truth to pull from the translation that we are reading?

Now that we know how translators translate the Bible, we need to know from what original manuscript or Bible they are translating. Is it God or not? It is an established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). Remember now from last week when we learned that the KJV is in formal equivalency in a word for word format.

The Syrian text is the majority text from which our KJV 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which all new translations come. Whether they are word for word or not, these sources are important. As a side note of interest, notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a negative light, whereas His comments toward Antioch tend to be very positive.

This negative and positive light is the KJV purist’s most compelling argument. However, this argument falls apart when we ask the question, “Can the God who created the universe lead us into all truth [John 16:13] despite the perversion of His Word by Satan."

The KJV is a great Bible and if you are looking for an accurate, but admittedly a little archaic in language version, it is still the number one Bible in use today and in my opinion the most accurate word for word translation that we have. This is the general consensus among theologians today. Many pastors use the KJV exclusively. However, some believers (and even some on the pulpit) carry this to the extreme and end up out of balance and in a state of judgment against others and their chosen translation.

Many of the purist's assertions are accurate. For example would you be surprised to know that the NIV deletes about 40 verses from their Bible? Don’t shoot the messenger though; their own text proves the argument. Do your own research. Here are a few that will get you going: Matthew 18:11; 1 John 5:7; Mark 11:26, and Acts 8:37.

In my opinion, if the translators thought that their NIV was so true and accurate, why not, for example, make Matthew 18:12 number 11? In addition, make verse 13 number 12, and so on. In the NIV Bible, they remove the reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, which is the greatest verse in the Bible that testifies to the Trinity. The Jehovah Witnesses leave it out because they do not believe in the Trinity. Makes you wonder why the NIV translators left it out. This is very offensive to me as it probably should be to every believer. (My opinion.)

The NIV also removes around 64,576 (equivalent to 30 books) words from their translation. In other words, don’t look for the words mercyseat, Jehovah, godhead, or sodomy. (The removal of the word sodomy sounds suspiciously PC, doesn’t it?) All this despite the warning of “taking away” from His words. (Proverbs 30:5, 6; Revelation 22:19)

The NIV also contradicts itself and other translations in John 3:16, one of the most famous Scriptures in the Bible. Check it out against the KJV. The contradiction lays in the Verses Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; and John 1:12. The NIV even contradicts itself in Genesis 6:2.

However, here is the real tragedy in the NIV and by its own text. Read Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV and then in the NIV. This Scripture is ALL about Lucifer but when you continue to read the following verses, remember who the Morning Star is. Now go to Revelation 22:16.  Then read 2 Peter 1:19. The NIV has Jesus and Lucifer as the same person. Their own words make this irrefutable.

But don’t throw away those translations just yet. I used to be a KJV purist but since then have come to a higher understanding, which I believe is God inspired to my spirit.

In the beginning, there was one God, and He is the truth. He is also the way and the life. However, after Satan fell, he perverted everything. So. . .it is up to us to learn how to extract the truth and then to exalt the truth. Furthermore, God changes not, but language does. What an archaic word meant 2000 years ago might not mean the same thing today.

As language changes, so will the Bible. It is why I rely on the KJV because before too long as language changes, how much will be lost in translating the Scriptures? The Word is the conduit to our faith and the hearing from God. Food for thought.

In the meantime, as long as the translation has the SAME thought for thought and maybe NOT the word for word that we seek, does not invalidate the translation. However, I exhort you to check your findings against the KJV or maybe even the 1599 Geneva to see if the particular passage is missing or not, or if it contradicts any other passage. That is unless any of you read fluent Hebrew or Greek.

Now I do not have any titles or vegetable soup associated with my name and I am just His humble servant. However, I do, as we all do, have the Holy Spirit to guide us unto all truth. I hope that this has at least been interesting to you and that it has helped you in understanding God’s Word. It is really too deep a subject to cover in a simple blog, but that is where your research comes in. Have fun.

Part Four: Study methods.
We will learn of some ways to study the Bible. There are many books on the subject and the Lord has prompted me to add a book to that collection, but with a different angle. We will learn of some of it next week. I have the outline just about done.

Sunday, September 1, 2013


Part Two: Formal and Dynamic Equivalencies

Although poetic and beautiful, Old English is sometimes difficult at best to understand and it not only chases many a believer away from comprehending the Word of God, but also misrepresenting Scripture. Many times, we turn to newer translations, which have their own problems. We’ll cover this in Part Three.

Let me unequivocally state up front that this will NOT be a treatise or a crusade against any version of the Bible. I will though, be representing my humble opinion in terms of what I have learned in my own studies. I will leave it up to you to do your own research and decide for yourself. I did, and here’s what I found.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth [2 Timothy 2:15 KJV].

How do we rightly divide the Word of God? The crux of part two is that to rightly divide the Word, is to study the Scripture not only in the context of itself (the whole passage), but more times than not, requires a study of the times in which they wrote the text.

For example, an understanding of the customs, traditions, and marriage rituals of the day, is requisite. We will cover this in part four, but right now, let’s see how the translators translate the Bible. This will help because of the aforementioned study guides.

Formal/dynamic equivalencies
Translators of the Bible use two basic methods to translate Scripture: formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency. When they translate the Bible in formal equivalency, they are rendering the original text in a specific language. . .that’s it, nothing more, nothing less. The King James Bible is the only available version today that uses the formal equivalency method of translation.

However, translators translate all present day versions with the dynamic equivalency method. These versions will read like a book in story type form. With this method, the translator will go into teaching mode and slip out of the translation mode and will explain what the Scripture means according to his understanding of the original text.

We must therefore trust the translator’s theology to lead us into the truth. The present day translations are more commentary than translations. However, don’t get rid of your new translations just yet.

Part Three: Antioch and Alexandria Bibles. We’ll briefly get into manuscripts, Bibles, and some differences in them. There are many differences and some that will shock you, but I will only reference a few. I’ll leave the rest to your research and decision.