Text: John 17<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I. A question that I’m asked repeatedly is which translation is best? <\/p>\n A. It is a good question because in English alone, one brother made a list of 128\ndifferent translations. The majority of them have been compiled in the last 100\nyears.\n B. Part of the reason for the wide variety is the fact that getting a translation\npublished is much easier today than it was several hundred years ago.\n
C. But it certainly doesn’t make it easier to select a translation<\/p>\n
II. What makes a good translation?<\/p>\n
A. The first thing to do is look at the preface to the translation.<\/p>\n
B. What style of translation was selected<\/p>\n 1. Literal – Here the text is translated word-for-word to the nearest English\nword or phrase. The original word order of the original text is kept, which\nmakes it very difficult to read since different languages have varying\ngrammar rules. \n a. You usually find these in Hebrew and Greek Lexicons where the\ntext is given in the original language and the equivalent English\nwords are printed underneath.\n 2. Essentially Literal (also called Formal Equivalence) – Once again, the text\nis translated word-for-word to the nearest English word or phrase, but the\norder of words is modified to match the grammar of English.\n a. Examples are the King James Version, the American Standard\nVersion, the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard\nVersion, the New King James Version, and the English Standard Version.\n 3. Dynamic Equivalence (also called Functional Equivalence) – Here the text\nis translated phrase-by-phrase. The original wording is generally followed,\nbut where phrasing is different between cultures, such as through the use of\nidioms, the dynamic equivalent translation is substitute a more modern way\nof phrasing the idea.\n
a. It is sometimes called thought-for-thought.<\/p>\n b. For example, the New International Version translates “the Lord of\nhosts” as “the Lord Almighty” because they felt this conveys the\nsense of the Hebrew expression.\n c. Examples of dynamic equivalence are: The New International\nVersion, the Amplified Bible, and the Homan Christian\nStandard Bible (the latter less dynamic than the NIV).\n 4. Gender-Neutral – Like the Dynamic Equivalence version in rendering the\nphrasing thought-for-thought, but the translators take this a step further to\nremove what they believe to be culturally unacceptable ideas from the past.\nThus, phrases like “son of man” is changed to “mortal” because using\nmasculine phrases to represent men and women is considered to be\npolitically incorrect.\n a. Examples of gender neutral are: the New Revised Standard\nVersion, the Contemporary English Version, the Today’s New\nInternational Version, the New Century Version\n 5. Paraphrase (or free) – These are not truly translations. Rather what you\nhave is a running commentary on the text. Many paraphrases are based off\nof other English translations. A few go back to the original languages, but\nno attempt is made to say precisely what was said, only what the\ntranslators thought was meant. The interpretation is generally done\nsentence-by-sentence.\n a. Examples: The New Living Translation, the Today’s English\nVersion, and Good News for Modern Man, and the Message.\n 6. When considering the style of translation, many people like the more\nnatural flow of the dynamical equivalent or paraphrases, but we must keep\nin mind that inspiration means that God gave the prophets and apostles the\nvery words to write – I Corinthians 2:10-13; John 17:8\n a. Substituting words or phrases means the translators believe the\nwords selected can be altered – as long as they are close enough.\n b. Substitution also allows the translator’s personal bias or beliefs to\nbe interjected into the text because what is being written is what the\ntranslator thinks the writers meant and not necessarily what they\nwrote.\n
C. What Greek text was used?<\/p>\n 1. We have the Bible preserved for us in well over 5,000 manuscripts and\nfragments. But because scribes will make mistakes at time, there are\nwording variances in these texts.\n a. People have taken the various manuscripts and created a composite\ntext where every word and sometimes even letter is scrutinized to\nattempt to root out copy flaws and determine what the original text\nstated.\n b. The Bible manuscripts themselves are grouped into classifications\ndepending on their history of copying. \n
(1) Byzantine texts by far have the most copies (about 90%).<\/p>\n
(2) Alexandrian, though few, are some of the oldest.<\/p>\n 2. In 1516 Erasmus made one of the earliest composite texts. It was based on\nthree Greek texts, the earliest that he had dated back to the twelfth century.\nIn a few places he didn’t have access to a Greek text and took some Latin\ntext and translated them back into Greek for his base text.\n a. From this Stephen made several revisions. The third, dating 1550\nwas called the “received text” or Textus Receptus\n
b. It was from this text that the King James Version was translated.<\/p>\n c. It is also known as the Majority Text because it closely follows\nByzantine texts\n 3. The Wescott-Hort text was heavily influenced by the Alexandrian texts\nunder the philosophy older is always more accurate. The result was a text\nradically different in many places from the Textus Receptus..\n 4. The Nestle-Aland text started in the late 1800’s and is one of the more\nfrequently used texts.\n
a. The New American Standard Bible is based on this text.<\/p>\n b. It tends to take the middle ground between the Textus Receptus and\nthe Wescott-Hort text. It is also considered to be the better\ndocumented text, showing the alternatives and where those\nalternatives came from.\n c. It used strict rules to determine which reading was to be preferred.\nNot favoring a particular text, but because of the logic behind which\nreading is probably more accurate\n d. It came out in the late 1800’s..It has under gone frequent updates – it\nis now in its 26th<\/sup> edition.\n 5. The United Bible Societies text.<\/p>\n a. Currently in its third edition, it is very similar to the Nestle-Aland\ntext. In fact the two texts are now being managed by the same\nparent organization.\n b. It is popular because it documents why certain readings are\nconsidered more accurate. It rates the scholar’s opinions on the\ncertainty of their preferred reading.\n 6. While the text used as the base varies only a bit, textual composites which\nare heavily biased toward only one family of text have proven to be less\naccurate. \n a. Wescott-Hort’s text has eliminated passages that later finds have\nproven ought to have been included. But the text is heavily weighed\ntoward the Alexandrian manuscripts which show evidence of being\nedited.\n b. The Textus Receptus shows evidence that some marginal\ncommentary was crept into text.\n c. The Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ texts still give too\nmuch weighting to the Alexandrian texts, but recent editions have\nbeen moving away from the extreme.\n D. How many translators?<\/p>\n 1. As much as a person might want to think he is unbiased, personal beliefs\nwill creep into a translation.\n 2. When multiple translators work together, they can balance out each other’s\nbias.\n 3. For the same reason, you don’t want translators all from the same\ndenomination.\n 4. Preferably you want to know who were the translators so that you can\nexamine (in theory) their other writings and to see what their personal biases\nmight be. \n a. We especially want to know their attitude toward the Bible’s\ninspiration because that will influence their zeal to retain the\naccuracy of their translation.\n III. The choices<\/p>\n A. The King James Version<\/p>\n 1. What it is not<\/p>\n a. There are people who believe that the King James Version was\ninspired by God. \n (1) They will emphasize that it was the “Authorized Version”<\/p>\n (2) Problem is that the phrase is stating it was authorized by\nKing James of England to be used in services of the Church\nof England of which he was the head.\n b. Speaking of which, the Church of England, or the Anglican Church,\nwas a break off from the Roman Catholic church. It was essentially a\nEnglish version of the Catholic church.\n (1) The King James Version is not a Protestant Bible.<\/p>\n (2) In fact the first version included the Apocryphal books\naccepted by the Roman Catholic Church\n c. The version we typically used today is not the one published in\n1611. It went through nine revisions. The current King James\nVersion is the 1769 revision of the text, which made hundreds of\nthousands of changes, mostly in the spelling of words.\n 2. Strong points<\/p>\n a. Starting with 54 scholars, of whom six died before the text was\ncompleted.\n b. We know who the men were and that they were all very\nconservative in their attitude toward the inspiration of the Bible.\n c. It is a beautiful translation, written in the best English of that time.<\/p>\n 3. Weak points<\/p>\n a. All translators were members of the Church of England and were\nbeing financed by the Church of England\n (1) In Acts 12:4, pascha<\/i> which is translated everywhere as\n“Passover” except in this one verse where it is rendered\n“Easter.” Now why would someone do that? It won’t\nhappen to be that the Church of England celebrates a\nreligious holiday they call Easter, would it?\n (2) It also explains why the Greek word baptizo<\/i>, which means\n“immerse or burial,” was transliterated as “baptized.” The\nChurch of England practices sprinkling of infants as baptism.\nNone of the translators believed that baptism was by\nimmersion. If they directly translated the word, it would have\nconflicted with their belief, so they avoided the issue and was\nable to insert their belief in the text.\n b. The translation was divided among teams of eight scholars and there\nwas no independent review or overview\n (1) This is why names are translated in different fashion<\/p>\n (a) Noah (Hebrews 11:7) is also Noe (Matthew 24:37)<\/p>\n (b) Jeremiah is also Jeremias (Matthew 16:14) and\nJeremie (in older versions)\n c. Based on a composite text that, while fairly good, could not make\nuse of the over 5,000 manuscripts we have today.\n d. There is a lack of uniform translation.<\/p>\n (1) Ideally the same Hebrew or Greek word would be rendered\nto the same English word when used in a similar manner.\n (2) Examples:<\/p>\n (a) Reprobate (Romans 1:28) and castaway (I\nCorinthians 9:27) and rejected (Hebrews 6:8) are all\nfrom the same Greek word adokimos<\/i>\n (b) Stewardship (Luke 16:2-4) and dispensation (I\nCorinthians 9:17) are from the same Greek word\noikonomia<\/i>. \n (c) Two words sunairo<\/i> and logizomia<\/i> are both\ntranslated as reckon in Matthew 18:24 and Romans\n6:11 respectively. But sunairo<\/i> is also translated as\ntake (as in an account) in Matthew 18:23. Logizomai<\/i>\nis also translated reasoned (Mark 11:31), numbered\n(Mark 15:28), despised (Acts 19:27), thinkest\n(Romans 2:3), counted (Romans 2:6), conclude\n(Romans 3:8), imputed (Romans 4:6), esteemeth\n(Romans 14:14), suppose (II Corinthians 11:5),\ncharge (II Timothy 4:16)\n (d) One of the recent discussions here has its roots in the\nvery lack of uniformity. In I Timothy 2:11 heruschia<\/i>\nis translated as silence but in II Thessalonians 3:12 it\nis translated as quietness. Worse, a different Greek\nword, sigao<\/i>, is also translated as silence in I\nCorinthians 14:28, but it is also translated as “kept it\nclose” in Luke 9:36, “held their peace” in Luke\n20:26, and “kept secret” in Romans 16:25\n (3) The result is a lack of distinction where God’s word made a\ndistinction and distinctions where God’s word made none.\n (4) Some sections, like the Song of Solomon and the minor\nprophets were not translated well, making them hard to read.\nLuke and Acts are considered to be highly accurate. But then\nmuch depended on who was doing the translation of that\nsection.\n e. Italicized words<\/p>\n (1) We noted that literal translations are hard to read because the\ngrammar rules between languages are different. So the word\norder is altered\n (2) Sometimes, however, words needed to be added to make the\nreading smoother in English. These are not arbitrary words\ninserted, the translators feel that the context implies those\nwords and so they are added to make the translation clear.\n (3) To mark the added words, the translators marked them with\nitalics – sometimes. It was good for them to make note of\nthe added words, but they were not consistent in making\nnote of them.\n f. The English language has changed<\/p>\n (1) “Let” had two meanings in 1611<\/p>\n (a) to hinder, impede, or prevent<\/p>\n (b) to permit or allow<\/p>\n (c) both are used in the King James Version (See Isaiah\n43:13 as an example of the first)\n (d) In II Thessalonians 2:6-7 the same Greek word\nkatecho<\/i> is translated as “withholdeth” and “letteth to\nlet”\n (2) People use Matthew 6:34 “Take therefore no thought for the\nmorrow” to argue against buying insurance or having\nretirement plans. But the phrase “take thought” is the old\nway of saying “be anxious.”\n B. English Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901)<\/p>\n 1. The Church of England commissioned another translation in 1881<\/p>\n 2. Unlike the King James Version, the translators came from variety of\ndenominations. \n a. There were 101 of them<\/p>\n b. We know who they were and can read their writings<\/p>\n c. They were conservative people who all believed in the verbal\ninspiration of the Bible.\n 3. The only difference between the English Revised Version and the American\nStandard Version is the units of measure used. Each reflected their\naudience.\n 4. Strengths<\/p>\n a. It was uniform in its translation<\/p>\n (1) As far as possible, they translated the same Greek word with\nthe same English word\n (2) It isn’t absolutely perfect, but they did a very good job.<\/p>\n 5. Weakness<\/p>\n a. It retained the use of “thee,” “thou,” and “ye”<\/p>\n (1) In 1611 these words were used to address people you were\nfamiliar with\n (2) “Used in middle English and in early modern English into the\n17th<\/sup> century as the appropriate form of address to an intimate\nfriend or a person of lower social status than the speaker.”\n[Webster’s Third New International Dictionary]\n (3) That is why Quakers used “thee” and “thou,” to show that\nthey considered everyone to be brethren.\n (4) But because of its use in older English translations the\nmeaning has changed to be seen as a way to address divinity.\n b. It uses “Jehovah” for the translation of the Hebrew word yhwh<\/i>.\nWhile it was the best known at the time, we now know that Jehovah\ncomes from a mispronunciation of yhwh<\/i>. And advantage is that they\nare consistent in their translation, where the KJV varied between\nJehovah and LORD.\n c. It is hard to find because the copyright has expired and it is not a\npopular translation.\n d. The base text is much better, but it was done before the Dead Sea\nscrolls were found and it was somewhat influenced by Wescott-Hort’s work.\n C. The Revised Standard Version (1952)<\/p>\n 1. It was the first English translation to make use of the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/p>\n 2. It was done by only 22 translators<\/p>\n a. They came from various denominations<\/p>\n b. But everyone was held to liberal theology. Not one believed in the\nverbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, or the\nresurrection.\n c. Thus there is a weakness in potential bias<\/p>\n 3. It contains no italics to indicate the inserted words.<\/p>\n 4. It has mistakes<\/p>\n a. Genesis 9:20<\/p>\n (1) RSV “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a\nvineyard;”\n (2) ESV “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a\nvineyard.”\n (3) As the RSV renders it, it conflicts with Genesis 4:2 which\nsays that Cain was a tiller of the ground. The fault is not in\nthe Hebrew text, it is in the translation.\n b. Romans 11:20<\/p>\n (1) RSV “That is true. They were broken off because of their\nunbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not\nbecome proud, but stand in awe.”\n (2) ESV “That is true. They were broken off because of their\nunbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become\nproud, but stand in awe.”\n (3) The RSV conflicts with James 2:24<\/p>\n c. Matthew 5:17<\/p>\n (1) RSV “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or\nthe Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill\nthem.”\n (2) NKJV “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the\nProphets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”\n (3) The Greek word kataluo<\/i> means to destroy or to demolish.\nSame word is used in Matthew 24:2 for “thrown down”\n (4) As translated it conflicts with Ephesians 2:15 where Christ\ndoes abolish the law (katargeo<\/i> in Greek which means to\nrender completely useless).\n (5) By the way, the NASB and ESV share this same flaw.<\/p>\n d. Isaiah 7:14<\/p>\n (1) RSV “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.\nBehold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and\nshall call his name Imman’u-el.”\n (2) The translators argued that “young woman” was a more\nconsistent translation of the Hebrew word almah<\/i> and that a\ndifferent Hebrew word betulah<\/i> is used for virgin.\n (3) Actually, the context itself should have pointed out the flaw:\nHow is it that a young woman bearing a son to be a sign? It\nhappens all the time! Where is the miracle?\n (4) Besides the Jewish scholars in 200 B.C. translated this word\nas virgin in the Greek. Thus the contention that it only means\n“young woman” is false.\n 5. R. Laird Harris notes in Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible<\/i>, “It is a\ncurious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a\nmonument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old\nTestament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has\nbeen altered so as to remove this possibility. … It is almost impossible to\nescape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the\ntranslators has operated in all these places. The translations given are by no\nmeans necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases, like Psalm 45:6, are in\nclear violation of the Hebrew.”\n 6. It was only popular among the liberal denominations. The conservative ones\nrejected it. It is out of print and hard to find.\n D. The New American Standard Bible (1971)<\/p>\n 1. Done by 58 translators all who believe in the inspiration of the Bible.<\/p>\n a. However, the Lockman Foundation, who publishes this version,\nnever released the names of the translators.\n b. There is no way to independently check to see if a bias may exist in\nthe group.\n 2. It is consistent in its translations of words<\/p>\n a. Where complete literalness would might lead to difficulty in reading\nin modern English, the translators placed the literal wording in a\nfootnote.\n 3. It consistently uses italics for inserted words.<\/p>\n 4. It notes Old Testament passages by printing them in uppercase letters.<\/p>\n 5. It is the most literal translation of Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18<\/p>\n a. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever\nyou bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever\nyou loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matthew\n16:19).\n b. “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been\nbound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been\nloosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).\n c. Literal: “(And) (I will give) (to you) (the) (keys) (of the) (kingdom)\n(of the) (heavens) (and ) (whatever) (you may bind) (on) (the)\n(earth) (shall be) (having been bound) (in) (the) (heavens) (and)\n(whatever) (you may loose) (on) (the) (earth) (shall be) (having been\nloosed) (in) (the) (heavens)”\n 6. It uses the antiquated forms of English (“thee” “thou”) only when God is\naddressed, making it more difficult than necessary for modern readers and\nimplying a difference in the text that does not exist.\n 7. But it is not a flawless translation<\/p>\n a. It shares the problem of Matthew 5:17<\/p>\n b. Romans 4:3<\/p>\n (1) NASB “For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM\nBELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS\nRIGHTEOUSNESS."\n (2) The word translated as “as” is the Greek word eis<\/i>. This is a\npreposition that looks forward to something being\naccomplished. It would be properly translated as “for” or\n“unto”\n (3) Using “as” makes it sound as if it was equivalent or already\ndone.\n (4) The same problem appears in Romans 4:9<\/p>\n (5) Actually, the Revised Standard Version started this trend and\nmost of the newer translations picked it up.\n c. Matthew 19:9<\/p>\n (1) NASB “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except\nfor immorality, and marries another woman commits\nadultery.”\n (2) “Immorality” is too vague and doesn’t reflect the Greek\nword porneia<\/i>.\n E. The New King James Version (1982)<\/p>\n 1. It is an update of the King James Version. It used a newer Old Testament\ncomposite, but used the same New Testament Greek composite as the King\nJames Version.\n a. It does mark in the footnotes which sets of manuscripts deviate from\nits rendition.\n 2. It dropped all the “thee” and “thine” pronouns. It also removed the old\nphrasings that had changed meaning.\n 3. It retains the inconsistent word translation found in the King James Version<\/p>\n 4. It does italicize inserted words.<\/p>\n 5. Its translators were heavily Baptist. While the translation is fairly sound,\nthere are section headings using premillennialist terms, for example Matthew\n24:15 is titled “The Great Tribulation” and Revelation 20:11 is titled “The\nGreat White Throne Judgment”\n 6. The language style used is unique. It uses older English grammar with\nmodern words. Some people don’t like it.\n 7. It followed the trend of replacing “fornication” with “sexual immorality,”\nsuch as in Matthew 19:9, which is too vague, though much better than the\nNASB.\n F. The English Standard Version (2001)<\/p>\n 1. It used the best composite texts currently available plus consulted many\nadditional manuscripts in difficult cases.\n 2. It used the RSV as its base English text, but heavily altered it.<\/p>\n 3. Over 100 scholars worked on the translation.<\/p>\n 4. It does not use italics to indicate added words.<\/p>\n 5. It does use gender-neutral terms when the translators felt the context\nrequires it (Greek doesn’t have gender-neutral terms).\n 6. I Corinthians 7:15<\/p>\n a. ESV “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such\ncases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to\npeace.”\n b. NIV “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or\nwoman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to\nlive in peace.”\n c. NASB “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother\nor the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called\nus to peace.”\n d. The NIV is the worse in that it implies that the marriage bond can be\nbroken. The ESV is the clearest that it is talking about slavery.\n 7. It has its problems<\/p>\n a. It shares the problem of Matthew 5:17<\/p>\n b. It shares the problem of calling porneia<\/i> “sexual immorality”<\/p>\n c. In Philippians 2:6 it uses the past tense (as does the NASB) where\nthe Greek uses the present tense, leaving the impression that Jesus\nwas not deity while on earth.\n d. In I Corinthians 7:1 it translated haptesthai<\/em> "to touch" as "to have sexual relations". Paul was forbidding sexually touching (arousing a desire for sex). It is the only place they assigned this meaning to this word. Every other occurrence has "touch." The attempt to clarify actually obscures what was being said.<\/p>\n e. In I Corinthians 11:3-15 it changes some<\/i> instances of the Greek\n word gune<\/i> to wife and leaves others as woman. Yet there is no call\n for this treatment in the context – actually the context demands that\n it is in the generic woman sense. And they did do the same for the\n Greek word aner<\/i>. In only one place is it translated “husband” and\n the rest is translated as “man.”\n (1) “Now I commend you because you remember me in\neverything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered\nthem to you. But I want you to understand that the head of\nevery man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and\nthe head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or\nprophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but\nevery wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered\ndishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven.\nFor if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her\nhair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her\nhair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man\nought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory\nof God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not\nmade from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man\ncreated for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife\nought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of\nthe angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not\nindependent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was\nmade from man, so man is now born of woman. And all\nthings are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a\nwife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not\nnature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a\ndisgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her\nglory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (I\nCorinthians 11:2-15 ESV)\n f. In is not consistent in the translation of hades<\/p>\n (1) “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build\nmy church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”\n(Matthew 16:18)\n (2) “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your\nHoly One see corruption.” (Acts 2:27)\n g. Concerning Matthew 16:18, the footnote makes it appear that Jesus\nwas talking about Peter and fails to note that the two words are\ndifferent in regards to size of stone. \n h. It adds the word “only,” changing the meaning of Paul’s statement\n to one that faith is the only thing that matters.\n (1) “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor\nuncircumcision means anything, but faith working through\nlove” (Galatians 5:6 NASB).\n (2) “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor\nuncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working\nthrough love” (Galatians 5:6 ESV).\n i. It alters the text of Revelation 13:8 to make it appear to support\npredestination:\n (1) “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone\nwhose name has not been written before the foundation of\nthe world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain”\n(Revelation 13:8 ESV).\n (2) The problem is that the natural word order of the Greek\nsays that it was the Lamb who was slain from the\nfoundation of the world.\n (3) Another problem is that the Greek has apo <\/i>which is usually\ntranslated “from.” “Before” gives the impression of\nfinished entries that is not implied in the passage or the rest\nof the Bible. \n j. Regarding Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 it at least notes the literal\nreading in the footnotes.\n IV. Which one should you use?<\/p>\n A. There is no one perfect translation. In general, stay with the essentially literal\ntranslations as it gives you a better sense of what God said.\n B. Of the ones we reviewed, the Revised Standard is the worse because of bias. The\nNew American Standard, the New King James, and the English Standard are better\nchoices.\n\t And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.\u00a0(Acts 12:4)<\/p>\n Noah (Hebrews 11:7) \u2013 Noe (Matthew 24:37)<\/p>\n Jeremiah \u2013 Jeremias (Matthew 16:14)<\/p>\n Reprobate (Romans 1:28) \u2013 Castaway (I Corinthians 9:27) \u2013 Rejected (Hebrews 6:8)<\/p>\n Stewardship (Luke 16:2-4) \u2013 dispensation (I Corinthians 9:17)<\/p>\n Reckon (Matthew 18:24) \u2013 Take (as in an account) (Matthew 18:23)<\/p>\n Reckon (Romans 6:11) \u2013 Reasoned (Mark 11:31) \u2013 Numbered (Mark 15:28) \u2013 Despised (Acts 19:27) \u2013 Thinkest (Romans 2:3) \u2013 Counted (Romans 2:6) \u2013 Conclude (Romans 3:8) \u2013 Imputed (Romans 4:6) \u2013 Esteemeth (Romans 14:14) \u2013 Suppose (II Corinthians 11:5) \u2013 Charge (II Timothy 4:16)<\/p>\n Silence (I Timothy 2:11) \u2013 Quietness (II Thessalonians 3:12)<\/p>\n Silence (I Corinthians 14:28) \u2013 Kept it close (Luke 9:36) \u2013 Held their peace (Luke 20:26) \u2013 Kept secret (Romans 16:25)<\/p>\n Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? (Isaiah 43:13)<\/p>\n And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.\u00a0(II Thessalonians 2:6-7)<\/p>\n\t Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; (Genesis 9:20)<\/p>\n That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. (Romans 11:20)<\/p>\n Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)<\/p>\n Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el. (Isaiah 7:14)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\t I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)<\/p>\n Literal:<\/p>\n (And) (I will give) (to you) (the) (keys) (of the) (kingdom) (of the) (heavens) (and ) (whatever) (you may bind) (on) (the) (earth) (shall be) (having been bound) (in) (the) (heavens) (and) (whatever) (you may loose) (on) (the) (earth) (shall be) (having been loosed) (in) (the) (heavens)<\/p>\n For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Romans 4:3)<\/p>\n And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)<\/p>\n\t But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (I Corinthians 7:15)<\/p>\n I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a]<\/sup> in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)<\/p>\n Footnotes:<\/p>\n 1. Matthew 16:19 Or shall have been bound … shall have been loosed<\/p>\n And I tell you, you are\u00a0Peter, and on this\u00a0rock[a<\/sup>]<\/sup>\u00a0I will build my church, and the gates of\u00a0hell[b<\/sup>]<\/sup> shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)<\/p>\n Footnotes:<\/p>\n 1. Matthew 16:18 Peter sounds like the Greek word for rock<\/p>\n 2. Matthew 16:18 Greek the gates of Hades<\/p>\n who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Philippians 2:6)<\/p>\n Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man<\/strong> is Christ, the head of a wife<\/strong> is her husband<\/strong>, and the head of Christ is God. Every man<\/strong> who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife<\/strong> who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife<\/strong> will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife<\/strong> to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman<\/strong> is the glory of man. For man<\/strong> was not made from woman<\/strong>, but woman<\/strong> from man<\/strong>. Neither was man<\/strong> created for woman<\/strong>, but woman<\/strong> for man<\/strong>. That is why a wife<\/strong> ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman<\/strong> is not independent of man<\/strong> nor man<\/strong> of woman<\/strong>; for as woman<\/strong> was made from man<\/strong>, so man<\/strong> is now born of woman<\/strong>. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife<\/strong> to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man<\/strong> wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman<\/strong> has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (I Corinthians 11:2-15)<\/p>\n Compare Matthew 16:18 (above) to:<\/p>\n For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2:27)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Text: John 17 I. A question that I’m asked repeatedly is which translation is best? A. It is a good question because in English alone, one brother made a list of 128 different translations. The majority of them have been compiled in the last 100 years. B. Part of the reason for the wide variety is the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[119,32],"tags":[316,219,985,317,313,315,314,319,311],"class_list":["post-11810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-audio","category-sermon","tag-american-standard-version","tag-bible","tag-english-revised-version","tag-english-standard-version","tag-king-james-version","tag-new-american-standard","tag-new-king-james-version","tag-revised-standard-version","tag-translations"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1303,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/which-bible-translations-are-the-best\/","url_meta":{"origin":11810,"position":0},"title":"Which Bible translations are the best?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"April 6, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Which Bible translations have the highest accuracy? Answer: At one time, Bible translations were an arduous task that took years, if not decades, to complete. Now translations are appearing in rapid succession, and it is becoming difficult to keep up with the many that are available. I'll restrict my\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":8848,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/what-would-be-a-good-translation-for-children\/","url_meta":{"origin":11810,"position":1},"title":"What would be a good translation for children?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"March 2, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: I would like to buy a new Bible for my children that is easy to understand but is still in keeping with the Word of God. They currently have the King James Version. There are so many translations out there; you just don't know which version to buy. Answer:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":19269,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/which-one-translation-would-you-recommend\/","url_meta":{"origin":11810,"position":2},"title":"Which one translation would you recommend?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"June 24, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: I have been searching for articles online regarding which English version of the Bible would be best (most accurate) for me to purchase and use to study.\u00a0 I happened across your web page: Which Bible translations are the best?\u00a0But I don't think one version was actually picked out above\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":21920,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-there-a-great-difference-between-the-nasb-and-the-kjv-can-the-nasb-be-trusted\/","url_meta":{"origin":11810,"position":3},"title":"Is there a great difference between the NASB and the KJV? Can the NASB be trusted?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"February 7, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Your web site is very informative. I attend a church that only recognizes KJV and no other. I read between NASB and KJV. Is there a great difference between the two? Can the NASB translation be trusted? Thank you for help in this matter. Answer: Both the King James\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":86411,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/which-new-testament-translation-should-i-read\/","url_meta":{"origin":11810,"position":4},"title":"Which New Testament translation should I read?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"April 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Good morning. I wish to ask you which New Testament to read: one written by a Catholic publisher or one written by a Protestant publisher? Thank you very much. Greetings from Argentina. Answer: It isn't as much a matter of who printed the pages as it is the accuracy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":58329,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-new-esv-translation\/","url_meta":{"origin":11810,"position":5},"title":"The New ESV Translation","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"January 23, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"by Mark Roberts I am moving toward using a new translation of the Bible: the English Standard Version (ESV). I have used the New King James Version (NKJV) for years and I love it and appreciate it as a fine translation. However, the new ESV is, in my opinion, just\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11810","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Judging a Translation<\/h2>\n
Style of Translation<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Literal<\/td>\n Word-for-Word<\/td>\n Thought-for-Thought<\/td>\n Gender-Neutral<\/td>\n Paraphrase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Base Text<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Textus Receptus<\/td>\n Wescott-Hort<\/td>\n Nestle-Aland<\/td>\n United Bible Societies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n How Many Translators and Who Were They?<\/h3>\n\t
King James Version (1611, 1769 revision)<\/h2>\n
Religious Bias<\/h3>\n
Inconsistencies<\/h3>\n
adokimos<\/i><\/h4>\n
oikonomia<\/i><\/h4>\n
sunairo<\/i><\/h4>\n
logizomai<\/i><\/h4>\n
heruschia<\/i><\/h4>\n
sigao<\/i><\/h4>\n
Archaic Meaning<\/h3>\n
Revised Standard Version (1952)<\/h2>\n
Mistranslations<\/h3>\n
New American Standard Bible (1971)<\/h2>\n
Some Passages Are Particularly Well Translated<\/h3>\n
Some Passages Are Poorly Translated<\/h3>\n
English Standard Version (2001)<\/h2>\n
Some Passages Are Well Translated<\/h3>\n
Some Passages Are Poorly Translated<\/h3>\n
Inconsistencies<\/h3>\n