The End of Moral Absolutes?

I recently stumbled upon a poll by the Barna Group, an Evangelical Christian polling group that conducts surveys about the thoughts, attitudes, and spiritual beliefs of America. Over 1000 individuals of different faiths were surveyed and asked various questions regarding the state of morality in America and the nature of moral truth.

Frankly, the results are fairly disheartening to read, but they aren’t all that surprising. Let’s take a look at some of the most important findings here.

Question: Are you concerned about the nation’s moral condition?

Demographic Percent “Yes”
 Overall  80%
 Elders  89%
 Baby Boomers  87%
 Gen-Xers  75%
 Millennials  74%
 Practicing Christians  90%
 No Faith  67%
 Faith other than Christianity  72%

An overwhelming majority (80%) of the American population as a whole is concerned about America’s moral condition. As one might expect, the amount of moral concern decreases as the age of the group decreases. While 89% of elderly people show concern, only 74% of Millennials show the same. Practicing Christians are the most concerned about the nation’s morality at 90%, as they should be. The widespread acceptance of things like abortion and sexual deviancy have further polarized our nation’s moral views.

While a majority of adults with no faith (67%) said they were concerned about the moral state of America, I can only assume that some of these respondents said so because they believe America is too conservative in its moral convictions. There are many atheists who believe the moral constraints of our culture that result from being a majority Christian nation are problematic and need to be thrown off. Many of them view traditional Christian moral values as hindering to America’s “social progress” (whatever that means.)

Statement: Whatever is right for your life or works best for you is the only truth you can know.

Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 9.03.17 AM
From barna.org

An overwhelming majority of Millennials (74%) agree with this statement to some degree. 31% of them strongly agree with this statement. Younger generations are increasingly given the impression by our culture that the only truth in this world is what you feel works for you. Obviously, this is a dangerous message to convey to a culture that increasingly needs to hear the absolute truths of God’s Word.

67% of adults with no faith agree with this statement to some degree. I’m puzzled by the other 33% who do not agree with the statement. While it’s possible for an atheist or agnostic to behave in a moral fashion, the belief that there is any kind of absolute moral standard is completely inconsistent with their atheistic worldview.

While it’s good that only a minority of Christians agree to some degree with this statement (41%), that minority is nonetheless alarmingly large. Take a look once again at the statement they were asked to react to: “Whatever is right for your life or works best for you is the only truth you can know.” I would agree that every individual has unique experiences and has a life that functions differently from other individuals. However, that’s not what this question is asking. To sincerely believe that “what works best for an individual is the only truth one can know” is to completely deny the foundations of the Christian faith. While some of the Christian respondents may not have recognized the implication of their response, or even misinterpreted the question, I still feel spiritual concern for the 41% who answered in the affirmative. God’s Word is ultimately the only truth we can know and trust, and anyone who believes differently is not familiar with the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.

Statement: The Bible provides us with absolute moral truths which are the same for all people in all situations, without exception.

Question 2.png
From barna.org

According to the survey description at barna.org, a majority of all American adults (59%) agreed with this statement. 83% of Christians agree with the statement to some degree. There are some interesting things about this. First, I would love to have a conversation with someone from the 17% who disagree with this statement. It would do them some good to open up their Bible sometime. While not every statement or commandment in the Bible applies to all people at all times (take, for instance, the Old Testament ceremonial laws), the Bible nonetheless communicates many absolute moral truths that are meant to apply to all people indiscriminately.

The other anomaly here is the disparity between the responses to this question and the previous one. 83% of Christians believe that the Bible has absolute moral truths for all people at all times, but 41% of Christians think that the only truth we can know is relative to the individual. Those numbers simply don’t add up. Either some of the respondents did not understand the questions, or they are simply inconsistent in their beliefs.

The other percentages in the graphic above aren’t too much of a surprise. What is fairly interesting, however, is the fact that 27% of adults with no religious faith still believe that the Bible has moral truths that apply to all people at all times.

Question: Is moral truth absolute or relative?

Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 9.35.30 AM

This question is the one that gets to the crux of the issue. Only 35% of American adults believe that moral truth is absolute. 44% believe that moral truth is relative, and 21% haven’t given it much thought. The fact that only 59% of Christians believe that moral truth is absolute is extremely disappointing and disheartening. These results all but confirm what many of us have sensed for a while now: America is rejecting moral absolutes that previous generations recognized.

Oh, but it doesn’t end there. I don’t want to ruin anyone’s day, but there’s even more frustration to be felt with these next results:Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 9.43.01 AM

 

These results are pretty self-explanatory. Sadly, more Christians seem interested in living a life of pleasure and personal fulfillment than anything else. To the 76% of Christians who think we need to just “look within” to find ourselves: you need to read Colossians 2:9-10 –

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.
We don’t “find ourselves” by looking inward. We find our true identity and fulfillment by looking to Christ who redeemed us and brought us to fullness. The same goes to the 72% who think fulfillment comes from pursuing the things you desire most.
The most disturbing thing here is the percent of Christians (67%) who believe the highest goal of life is to enjoy it as much as possible. I hope and pray that most of these people simply misunderstood the question. Where can you even start in responding to that kind of sentiment? Are these Christians so completely unfamiliar with what the Bible says about these questions? There’s certainly nothing wrong with wanting and striving for a happy and peaceful life, but I don’t recall any passages that address the importance of just doing whatever “feels best” and makes us happy. In fact, Scripture overwhelmingly says just the opposite –
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
– Romans 12:2
Scripture makes it clear that we are not to be conformed to the hedonistic and self-seeking philosophies of this world. We are to be transformed by renewing our minds in Christ, which means that our ultimate purpose is found in him.
While the results of this survey are certainly disappointing and even frustrating, they give us all the more reason to reach out to those around us and share with them what God has to say on these issues. Apparently, even many Christians need to be reminded of many of the basic things the Bible has to say about morality. As Paul says in Colossians 3:16 –
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Encourage, instruct, and admonish one another in love. And whatever you do, don’t be the 67%.
Advertisements

Why are There So Many Bible Translations?

12767995_10206314899854963_1630177739_o
The Gospel of John in Koine Greek – Byzantine Textform

Anyone who has spent a good amount of time shopping for a Bible knows that there is no shortage of Bible translations available today. There are hundreds of English Bible translations available today, and I outlined some of the most popular translations in my post “Bible Versions and Translations.”

Upon recognizing the fact that there are hundreds of English translations, the logical question(s) in response would be, “Why are there so many? What can hundreds of translations offer that a single unified translation can’t?” While this kind of questions warrants much more than just a blog post, I will outline the reasons here.

Ultimately, God inspired the text of the Bible as the original writers were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Peter 1:21 ESV) While the Word he has given us is perfect and inerrant, and the Greek and Hebrew words written by the Prophets and Apostles do not contain human error, there are difficulties and issues that come along with text transmission and translation. I focus here mainly on the New Testament, because that is the center of most of this debate:

1. There are different text “types” that differ from one another. As with any ancient document, we do not possess the original copy of the manuscripts. However, in the case of the New Testament, we have so many early copies that we can know with great accuracy what the originals said. Despite this, early New Testament text collections from a city like Alexandria differ slightly from the texts found in Byzantium. There has been a great amount of debate over which text type is closest to the original manuscripts. Because of this, different Bible translations are based upon different text types. This is why a translation like the ESV omits a portion of 1 John 5:7 that can be found in the KJV. In this case, there is little to no evidence that the longer reading found in the KJV is accurate to the original text.

The King James is based on a text type known as the Textus Receptus. However, as more evidence was discovered to suggest that the Textus Receptus contained certain errors, other scholars saw it necessary to produce translations that used a more reliable text. This is one of the reasons there are so many translations.

2. Language is dynamic and unpredictable, and can quickly become antiquated. This is why you’re less likely to encounter a congregation using the King James Version today than you would be 100 years ago. Both the King James and The Good News Translation are written in the same language of English, but render the same words very differently. For instance, see the differing word use between the two in Acts 21:39 –

KJV – But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

GNT – Paul answered, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city. Please let me speak to the people.”

The King James uses certain words that would not be used in English communication today. The GNT uses “an important city” instead of “no mean city,” uses “please” rather than “I beseech thee,” and uses “let me” instead of “suffer me.”

It seems rather obvious that the average new convert to Christianity would have a difficult time understanding some of the wording found in the KJV. In terms of being able to communicate God’s Word to modern people, newer translations like the GNT are very important. I think it’s important for translators to maintain the balance of using modern language while still preserving some “theological” sounding words that are necessary to accurately communicate Christian truths. For instance, some people have advocated for replacing words like “grace” and “justify” from the Bible with more common English phrases like “undeserved love” and “make righteous.” While this may be warranted in some contexts, theological words like “grace” carry far more history, connotation, and nuance than modern equivalents like “undeserved love.”

The dynamic nature of language has led some to go so far as paraphrasing the Bible, retaining the “meaning” of the words while using modern phrases and deviating from the original wording of the ancient text. The popularity of paraphrased Bibles has contributed to the large number of Bible translations.

3. Societal norms and values change, which leads to “updated” translations. This one goes hand-in-hand with point 2. As cultural expectations shift, the change eventually is reflected in our language. The most glaring example of this phenomenon is the recent trend of Bible translators using “gender inclusive” language. For instance, the New International Version, originally published in 1984, was edited an re-released in 2011 with updates in language and inclusivity. Many of these changes amounted to words like “brothers” being changed to phrases like “brothers and sisters” in hopes of sounding more inclusive to females.

Some of these changes may be warranted, such as when the original text actually is meant to include both genders, but there are times when the change is questionable. For instance, see the change in Acts 6:3 between NIV 1984 and 2011 –

NIV 1984 – “Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.”

NIV 2011 – “Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.”

We know from historical context and the rest of the New Testament that women would not have been involved in the choosing of the men as described here. The change here appears to be for no other reason than political correctness. Whether or not these “updates” are warranted, these kinds of changes are another factor that leads to more and more Bible translations. Well-established Bible translations are constantly being edited and re-published for reasons like this.

4. Translator bias finds its way into many translations. As with any two languages, there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between Greek words and English words. There are times when the immediate context of the verse does not adequately inform the correct translation, and the translator must look to the rest of Scripture for clarity. However, this becomes increasingly problematic when the translator does not hold to a “Scripture interprets Scripture” philosophy. Pastor Jordan Cooper, in his review of the Modern English Version, emphasizes this point well –

There is one place, however, where the MEV completely mangles a text: 1 Peter 3:21. The text reads: “Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The text is now completely incomprehensible. The first half states that baptism saves, but the second states that it is a human response to God for cleansing the conscience. Compare this to the NKJV which states: “There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

In the NKJV, baptism is part of what constitutes a good conscience toward God. In the MEV, it’s a response of having a good conscience. The first half of this text demonstrates where the MEV is a much easier read than the NKJV, but the second half is theologically incomprehensible, and grammatically confusing. [Full article here]

In this case, the translator of the MEV had their personal convictions influence the way they translated the text. Because the translator does not believe that baptism actually is effective for regeneration, they translated the text in a way that downplays baptism’s significance in the spiritual wellbeing of the Christian.

Biases like these can be found throughout the most controversial texts of the Bible. Some translators unfortunately refuse to let the text speak for itself, instead importing their own convictions into the translation of the text. If you want to see more examples of this, compare translations of verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 that outline the roles of men and women. Some translators will soften the clear message of these verses to make them more appealing to readers who don’t hold to traditional stances on the roles of men and women.

The amount of denominational bias in translations is what leads many to undergo their own translation of the Bible. However, in crafting a new Bible translation, the same kind of bias occurs once again in different forms, and so the cycle continues. This is one of the many reasons it is helpful to have access to multiple translations when studying a portion of Scripture.


 

If you look back at the four point I listed, they all have something in common. All four of them have to do with the imperfection of mankind:

  1. Humans have made mistakes in copying the original manuscripts.
  2. Humans, unlike God, change often. So does our language. This causes issues when we are trying to convey unchangeable truths with a changeable tongue.
  3. Human nature is selfish. When certain things in the Bible aren’t stated the way we expect them to be, we naturally want to change it.
  4. Humans constantly seek self-gratification. If we believe something about Scripture, we will want a translation of Scripture to articulate that same belief back at us. This leads to bias in translation.

Nevertheless, God is gracious to His people and has promised to preserve His Word, telling us that it will never be lost, despite the sinful humans hands that handle it so often. Take heart and listen to God’s promises:

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

“All flesh is like grass
    and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
    and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

And this word is the good news that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:24-25)

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (1 Timothy 3:16-17)

Bible Versions and Translations

This article is a re-publishing from the Bible Versions and Translations article I wrote about a year ago. I added some new information and refined some of my statements, as I have learned a lot about this topic within the past year.


The poll I posted on Bible translations seemed to spark some interest among readers as to what all of the differences are between the most popular Bible translations used in American churches. This is a huge topic that can’t completely be covered in just a short article, so I also would recommend checking out the descriptions of different Bible versions on BibleGateway. It offers short and (mostly) impartial summaries of most of the English Bible translations used today. This chart from mardel.com offers a comparison of the different “reading levels” of popular Bible translations.whats-the-difference-between-various-bible-versions_2

I’m writing this from a slightly more opinionated approach, and I believe that Christians need to be very careful and considerate about the translation(s) they choose to utilize. God’s Word needs to be respected, and it’s a Christian’s obligation to recognize which versions of the Bible give Scripture its due respect. True, some translations are far less accurate to the original text and introduce more bias than others, but choosing a version is largely a matter of personal preference and Christian freedom. I would recommend, however, that one would research a potential Bible translation before committing to it.

There are two main philosophies for undertaking a Bible translation. “Formal equivalence” translations seek to retain a more “word-for-word” rendering of the original text, attempting to stay as close as possible to the original language and its phrasing. At times, this can make certain sentences sound awkward or confusing to Christians who aren’t heavily acquainted with Biblical phrases. “Dynamic equivalence” translations attempt to provide a more “thought-for-thought” rendering of the text, taking larger portions of sentences and translating them into phrases that sound more normal to modern English speakers. This helps some understand what they’re reading, but it can also introduce bias and inaccuracies into the text. Certain phrases in the Bible don’t really have a modern equivalent that retains the original meaning, so some of the intention of the original can be lost. In addition, those who are translating the text have to choose what they believe to be the best modern rendering of the text, leading to biases (as seen below.)

It is also important to note that it is often times very helpful for a Christian to make regular use of more than one Bible translation. For instance, one can use a more “dynamic equivalence” translation for personal devotion, as it may be easier to read and understand. In addition, if one comes across a passage that seems strange or out of place during devotion, they can consult a more “formal equivalence” translation that gives a better idea of the phraseology of the original languages. I often look up a single verse or section that I find confusing and compare it across multiple translations. That way, I can see if anyone else has it rendered in a manner that gives more clarity to the meaning.

With these things in mind, let’s take a look at some of the most widely-used Bible translations in America.

The King James Version (and the New King James Version)
This version, the most classic English Bible translation, was completed under the Commission of King James I in 1611. I agree, along with most of Christianity, that the KJV is a faithful rendering of God’s Word. It set the high standard for the Bible translations that would follow, and was used for centuries, even into the present. The KJV offers a very beautiful and poetic rendering of Scripture that is basically unparalleled in modern translations. (For a classic example, see Psalm 23)

Strangely enough, there’s a sizeable number of people in Baptist Christian circles that claim that the KJV is the only true Bible translation, and all others aren’t actually God’s Word. (This has come to be known as the “King James Only” movement.) The idea is that God Himself was personally involved with the translation of the KJV, and that He prevented any errors from developing in the translation. According to this position, all other translations since the KJV have been a purely human undertaking lacking God’s approval. Thus, it is argued, all other translations except the KJV are inaccurate or even “satanic.”  I’ve tried very hard to understand the reasoning behind this opinion, but there is really no Scriptural or logical evidence to back up this claim.

Like I said, the King James Version is a useful and significant translation, but no Bible translation itself is “inspired” in the same way that the original manuscripts are. To claim that the KJV is the only true translation places a heavy (and false) restriction on Christians and their options when choosing a translation. The King James also isn’t without its flaws. At the time it was being translated, the scribes were using certain Greek texts (known as the textus receptus or “Received Text”) that have since been regarded as potentially containing textual errors. These inaccuracies don’t undermine significant aspects of Christian doctrine, but they are still thought to be less accurate than other text forms that have since been discovered. The argument about which text type is most reliable and accurate is hotly contested to this day, but it is simply wrong for one to claim that the KJV has no potential to be incorrect in its translation. There were also portions where the translators had no Greek manuscripts at all, and were forced to use more recent copies that were written in Latin, which themselves have been disputed in terms of their accuracy.

There are also a few portions where it seems as if the translators inserted certain portions of text to back up certain Christian doctrines which they strongly believed. The KJV translates 1 John 5:7 as “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” It is widely contested that original text of this verse doesn’t mention the three members of the Trinity. Instead it reads: For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” While it is admirable and right to have a strong belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, it is simply dishonest to insert portions into Scripture that aren’t found in the original, even if the additions reaffirm the Truth. There are a few other potential “errors” in the translation of the KJV, but none of them are necessarily dangerous or contrary to the rest of Scripture. In 1975, a group of scholars set out to write the New King James Version, an adaption of the KJV into more readable modern English while still retaining the character of the original KJV. A few (not all) of the aforementioned errors were corrected in this new version, and notes were placed in the margin where textual variances exist. These updates make the NKJV a faithful and useful translation of God’s Word.

(For a good review of the Modern English Version, the most recent translation in the King James Version tradition, see this post by Pastor Jordan Cooper at Just and Sinner.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The New American Standard Bible, first published in 1971, is a revision of the American Standard Version published in 1901. I have not used it much personally, but the general consensus I’ve seen is that it is a faithful and accurate literal translation. The most recent edition was published in 1995, and modernized some of the language. Pastor Brian R. Keller (of the Wartburg Project), in his essay Evaluating Bible Translations, says about the NASB:

The NASB stands as an excellent example of literal translation. The NASB is a very faithful, conservative Bible translation… You may decide for yourself if NASB ʼ95 reads well enough or if it is still rather stiff or wooden. Its strength lies in the fact that it closely follows the original text. For this reason, the NASB is recommended as a reference Bible. If someone does not know Hebrew or Greek, and would like to check the translation of a Bible passage, the NASB is helpful… The NASB ʼ95 is a fine conservative Bible translation, which does not introduce false doctrine. I am not aware of any problems with NASB ʼ95, other than whether it reads well enough. That can be decided by more use… Unfortunately, the NASB ’95 lacks confessional Lutheran materials to go along with it (i.e., no hymnals, Catechisms, Bible history materials, to my knowledge, make use of it). Some confessional Lutherans prefer it and quote it. NASB ʼ95 hovers near the bottom of the top ten list, in terms of sales, and can be more difficult than other choices to find for purchase. (p. 16-19) [Full essay can be found here]

By all accounts, the NASB appears to be a good literal translation. It might be harder to understand than many of the other modern translations, but it works very well as a reference Bible.

 

The New International Version (1984 and 2011)

I grew up with the NIV 1984 edition, using it both for school and church. It was adopted as the standard Bible translation for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. I still use the Concordia NIV Self-Study Bible in my theology classes today. The study version provides really great reader’s notes, maps, and other useful information.

The NIV is currently the most popular Bible translation in America. Fans of the NIV enjoy it because it strikes a nice balance between formal and dynamic equivalence. It remains faithful to the original meaning without sounding too complicated or formal. Again, with any translation that wants to sound modern, there are verses than don’t quite replicate the original meaning. I attempted to search for some issues with how the NIV 1984 is translated, but I could only find angry “King James only” Christians who were making fairly dishonest claims. (Like I mentioned above, they were attacking the NIV for not including certain parts that are in the KJV, even though these portions aren’t in the original manuscripts.)

However, when the NIV was modified around 2011 to ensure it remained “up-to-date,” there were some changes that many might not find agreeable. Many of these alterations have to with with gender-inclusive language and more politically correct views on the roles of men and women. There is a fair and accurate critique you can read of the NIV 2011 changes done by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and I’ll try to touch on a few of the points it mentions. As one example, the original NIV 1984 rendition of 1 Timothy 2:12 reads – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” However, the NIV 2011 updated this verse as – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” While the new reading seems fairly close to the original at first glance, it also seems to imply that it is only wrong for a woman to have authority over a man if she takes such authority wrongly or forcefully. If a woman is, for instance, appointed to the Pastoral office and not forcefully assuming it, there wouldn’t seem to be any problem. The increase ambiguity of this verse would definitely lead to some confusion, and the NIV 2011 reading would be quite ineffective for arguing against the ordination of women.

To the credit of the NIV 2011, it does make some honest changes to gender usage. When the original context implies both men and women being mentioned, it’s translated as “people” (or similar words) instead of just “men.” Even though “men” is usually used to refer to humanity, some people see it as an attempt to exclude women.

Unfortunately, the bad changes found in the NIV 2011 outweigh the good ones.[1] The 2011 isn’t a terrible translation, but neither is it exceptional. I would still have to recommend the 1984 version, even though it is being fazed out by the 2011. However, it can still be found online and in certain stores if you look for it. The NIV 1984 is overall an accurate and readable translation, and I would recommend it for personal Bible study or for those who might find more formal versions difficult to understand.

The English Standard Version
The English Standard Version, first published in 2001, is generally a highly regarded translation because of its commitment to rendering the Bible in its literal sense. The ESV is essentially a revision of the Revised Standard Version published in 50 years earlier. There were many apparent problems in the RSV, at least from a conservative Christian standpoint. The translators of the RSV did not believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, and attempted to downplay any apparent Messianic prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. For instance, Isaiah 7:14 normally talks about the virgin conceiving and bearing a son. The RSV, however, renders “virgin” as “young woman” in an apparent attempt to downplay is Messianic and miraculous significance. Lucky, the ESV corrected many of these errors that were in the RSV.

A team of over 100 pastors and scholars collaborated to produce the ESV, giving it a high degree of credibility. I commonly use the ESV for my personal Bible reading and study because of its formal and precise rendering of the original languages. It uses a more extensive vocabulary than versions like the NIV, which can pose challenges to younger readers. However, the increased vocabulary makes it easier to replicate the intention of the original Greek and Hebrew.

The ESV was adopted for use in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, as it was found to be more desirable than the NIV or the NKJV. More “liberal” Christians might not embrace the ESV because it’s regarded as a more “conservative” translation, not taking many liberties to conceal parts of the Bible that are frowned upon by modern society (traditional roles of men and women, etc.) I would highly recommend the ESV to any Christian who has a fairly firm grasp on the concepts of Scripture, and would suggest the Lutheran ESV Study Bible because of its useful notes and commentary.

Various Paraphrases (New Living Translation, The Message, etc.)
I’m grouping the various paraphrased versions of the Bible together because they largely share the same strengths and weaknesses. Some of them are more accurate translations than others, so it’s good to do research before buying. Paraphrased Bibles seek to translate the thoughts and concepts of the original text into modern English equivalents. This is intended to lead to a clearer understanding for Bible passages that sound confusing in a word-for-word translation like the NASB. One major danger of paraphrased Bibles is the potential for bias on part of the translators. When a group of sentences is taken as a whole and paraphrased into modern language, sometimes the translator will have to look to their own theology for help. For this reason, paraphrased versions are more likely to introduce doctrinal errors than formal equivalence translations.

For instance, the Living Bible (TLB) paraphrase exhibits a number of errors in places where false doctrine was used in attempt to clarify certain passages. Mark 1:4 is (correctly) rendered in the ESV as, “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Sadly, the Living Bible handles this verse poorly, paraphrasing it as, “This messenger was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and taught that all should be baptized as a public announcement of their decision to turn their backs on sin, so that God could forgive them.

The amount of error in this paraphrased verse is fairly alarming. There is nothing in the verse’s context (or the rest of Scripture) to suggest that baptism here is meant to simply be something a believer does for God. Additionally, the verse makes God’s forgiveness dependent on the works of man. The traditional understanding of “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” has been that baptism is actually efficacious for forgiving sins. It is not man’s work, but solely God’s act of grace. TLB here unfortunately interprets this verse as the exact opposite.

It is also important to note that many popular paraphrases of the Bible were not actually taken from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but were only paraphrased from existing English versions. Unfortunately, this means there might be errors in places where an English translation is hard to understand. Additionally, if the referenced English translation was wrong in its translation of certain verses, the error would potentially be even larger in the paraphrase.

Sometimes it’s difficult to find modern equivalents for the original Greek or Hebrew meaning, causing the paraphrase to ironically sound awkward or unclear. Paraphrased Bibles also don’t make as much use of “theological” words like propitiation and reconciliation in an attempt to be more readable, but this sacrifices the specific meaning that these words hold. It is important for a translation to be accessible and readable, but theology is often very precise and relies on these kinds of words to get the proper point across.

The Message Bible, a paraphrase that has gained popularity in certain Evangelical circles, should generally be avoided. The Message was essentially developed by a single person, pastor Eugene Peterson, which immediately would suggest low credibility. In an attempt to sound modern and relevant, The Message often ends up sounding comical and confusing. 2 Corinthians 2:17 is translated as These hard times are small potatoes compared to the coming good times On other occasions, Peterson seems to insert a certain personal/political agenda into the text, as is the case in The Message‘s rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom.” The original text makes no condemnation whatsoever of those who “use and abuse the earth.” The paraphrase also removes the explicit reference to homosexuality as a sin, replacing it with the phrase “those who… use and abuse sex.” The translator’s bias seeps into the text on more than a few occasions.

Although paraphrases are generally more prone to error than the more “formal” translations, they can still be used well by Christians who wish to have a “more readable” version for personal devotions. However, they shouldn’t be used as a Christians “main source” of Biblical doctrine, one should look up controversial or difficult texts in more than one translation in order to avoid falling into the translator’s bias. Paraphrases can also be useful for teaching children, as they make use of simpler terms that are understood by a younger audience. The most widely used paraphrase in America is the New Living Translation, but I can’t personally attest to it’s reliability. You might consider reading this article that examines the NLT.


 

Dishonorable Mention – New World Translation
If there is a single Bible version that Christians should stay away from, it’s the New World Translation. The NWT isn’t really considered as a Bible translation in Christian circles. However, it’s worth putting it out there because it should be avoided. The NWT is a project undertaken by the Jehovah’s Witnesses church body, a group that usually presents itself as Christian yet denies things such as the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity. The main issues with the New World Translation lies in the fact that it holds an extreme non-trinitarian bias. There are countless examples of passages that are mistranslated to fit their beliefs, but their translation of John 1:1 pretty much tops them all. As I said, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that Jesus is truly God, rather than just a divine being. Let’s see if you can detect their doctrine in the NWT rendering of John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

That’s right, Jesus (the Word) isn’t described as being God. He’s portrayed as a god. Jehovah’s witnesses believe that there are multiple other deities apart from God, but they seem to have an issue with Jesus being a member of the Godhead (the one True God). They will argue that this translation is accurate, because the Greek word for God (theos) can be used to refer to either the true God, but it can also be used to refer to “gods” (any type of supernatural/divine deity.) There are Greek grammar rules that refute their mistranslation, but it’s plain to Christians how the word should be translated in this case. (For a thorough refutation of this translation, check out this article.) I doubt many Christian will ever encounter the NWT, but it’s worth warning against.


 

Whichever Bible translation you use, I pray that you would “read it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in all believers” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

I also encourage you to check out the Wartburg Project, a group of Lutheran Pastors and professors who are working to produce a versatile translation that corrects many of the issues contained in other modern translations. Their translation is called the Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV), and their translation of the New Testament is planned to be released in Fall of 2017.


[1] For more discussion on the good and bad updates to the NIV 2011, as well as a general discussion on different modern translations, see the following essay by Brian R. Keller: http://wartburgproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Essay-Keller.pdf

The following resources were used in research for this article:

Bible Versions
Top 10 Bible Translations
The Message Bible