Thinking on Bible Translations

There are many people who have no use for a modern language Bible translation.  I am not in their camp and if you will be patient with me I will tell you why.  In my father's last couple of years of life he was in and out of the hospital and the nursing homes (for rehab) frequently.  He was at home when he could be but often that was not possible.  The pattern would be the hospital, the nursing home, and then back home where we would start the whole process all over again.  

One day when Dad was in the nursing home I asked him if I could bring him some reading material as it would help him pass the time.  His response was he would not know the words and would not know what they meant.  It was an honest answer.  While my father was a great math student he was a horrible English student and his grades in school reflected that.  Reading was very difficult for him. 

My grandfather on my Dad's side was born in 1879 and all my other grandparents were born in the 1880s.  My grandfather on my mother's side was off on his own when he was 13 working for one farmer and then another in the state of Illinois.  His education ended, I believe, in the 5^th grade and one must also remember the school year back then was very abbreviated compared to today.

None of my grandparents got past the 8^th grade.  I know the family purchased for my grandfather on my mother's side a Revised Standard Version of the Bible just because of the reading difficulty issue with the King James Version with one of so little education.  This purchase was made way back in the 50s or early 60s when for all practical purposes there were only 3 translations available to most people—the KJV, the ASV, and the RSV. 

As for today, I have spent nearly 40 years in classrooms either as a full-time teacher or as a substitute teacher.  I can assure you that even to this day many kids, and I am talking about high school kids, cannot read satisfactorily.  Reading is difficult for many of them and reading with comprehension is even more so.

My experiences with my own family and with kids in school have led me to have sympathy for those who have difficulty reading and understanding what they read.  I will never forget the words of my Dad that he could not understand the words.  Are we to deny people the opportunity to read a modern-day language Bible that they just might have a chance of understanding versus the King James Bible where chances are they just give it up as hopeless?

I personally gave up the King James Version when I came across the phrase "evil concupiscence" (Col. 3:5) one day in my reading.  I felt like there was probably not more than 1 person in 1,000 ordinary everyday Americans who knew what the word "concupiscence" meant.  I switched over to the New King James Version which I have now used for years.  (I might add that the NKJV and the NASU translate the Greek in Col. 3:5 as "evil desire" which even I could understand). 

Is making the Bible easier to read a sin?  Which translation, if one would learn its teaching and follow it out in his life, is so bad that it would lead one to hell?  Would it be the New King James Version, the New American Standard Version, the English Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the Holman Christian Standard Version, the Christian Standard Version, which one would it be?  Yes, they all have passages they have not translated well as judged by those qualified to make such judgments but so does the King James Version. 

My plea would be to have sympathy for those who find reading to be difficult.  Don't judge a man by the translation he carries and uses but by the life he lives.  "By their fruits you will know them" (Matt. 7:20 NKJV) and not by the Bible translation they carry.  Let me offer you a challenge.  Read the book of Job in the King James Version and then read it in say the New International Version and then tell me which one you got the most out of.  I'd say you already know but try it and see. 

[For those interested in reading up on the subject of Bible translations I can recommend the following books which I suspect are all on Amazon but you will have to check and see:  (1) How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss, (2) King James Only?:  A Guide To Bible Translations by Dr. Robert A. Joyner, (3) The King James Version Debate:  A Plea for Realism by D. A. Carson, (4) The King James Only Controversy:  Can You Trust the Modern Translations by James R. White, (5) Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations by Jack Lewis, (6) and saving perhaps the best for last One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? by Dave Brunn.] 

(While I originally wrote this article in 2013, I add this update in 2022.  I have expanded the translations I read and study from since 2013 to include the Christian Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the New International Version, and occasionally I even consult the New Living Translation.)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Rebellion Against the Word of God in America

 A couple of items in the news recently, the year 2013, caught my attention.  In New Jersey, Gov. Christie signed a bill "barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight."  If you want to read the article it is still online as I update this article here in 2022 under the title "Christie Signs Bill Banning Gay Conversion Therapy in New Jersey."  You can do a copy and paste and Google it.

I quote from the article I read, "The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation . . . outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice."  Also quoting from the same article, "Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin."  California also has a similar law.

It ought to be obvious to anyone who knows the Bible and can read that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.  Here is what the Bible says, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.   Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV, my underlining)  Does Christie get to trump God in deciding what is and what is not sin?

In Romans 1 we read the following:

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, . . .  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom. 1:24, 26-27 NKJV)  Does Gov. Christie believe this passage teaches that homosexuality is not a sin?

Note from the passage just quoted that God gave these people up to uncleanness.  Now I ask you what was this uncleanness associated with?  Was it not with homosexual acts?  A homosexual act in God's eyes is uncleanness.  I do not mean to imply that homosexual acts would be the only kind of acts that fit into the category of uncleanness but certainly, they are included if this passage is to have any meaning.

Here are a couple of New Testament passages that associate uncleanness with sexual sin in addition to the one above.

Paul speaking, "Lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced." (2 Cor. 12:21 NKJV)  The word is clearly used in the context of speech about sexual sin.

Paul speaking again in Gal. 5:19 says, "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness." (NKJV)  Here again, uncleanness is in a list of sexual sins and we already know that while homosexual acts are not the only acts of uncleanness they are nonetheless one type of such acts based on Rom. 1:24, 26-27.  Do Gov. Christie and the lawmakers in New Jersey as well as those in California think the unclean will inherit God's blessing?  But then do some of them even believe there is a God?  If they do, do they believe the Bible is the word of God?  If so do they believe he meant what he said or is he wishy-washy?

But I want to mention one other thing in the news just this morning, Sept. 4, 2013, which I saw on Fox News.  It seems in the state of Oregon a lady by the name of Melissa Klein had a bakery and cake decorating business.  When a lesbian couple planning on marrying came in asking her to make a wedding cake for them she refused.  What happened?  It got in the news and on social media and she was besieged by demonstrators and protestors carrying signs in front of her store forcing her to close her business (she moved it into her home).

She refused to make the cake for the couple out of her Christian faith.  Did she do what was right according to scripture?  Hear Paul, "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure." (1 Tim. 5:22 NKJV, my underlining)  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph. 5:11 NKJV, my underlining)

Now hear John, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ (teaching of Christ-ESV), hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ (teaching-ESV), he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:9-11 KJV)  Would helping one commit sin be a thing God would look favorably on?

Solomon said, "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." (Prov. 8:13 NKJV)  So I guess the lady was to hate evil by making the cake and profiting off it and by helping out those who were engaging in it?  Is that right?  She did what was right and separated herself from any association with the sins of others.  She did not help others sin by assisting them in doing it.

The main point I wanted to get at in this article is the fact that Christianity and the Bible and even God himself are under attack in America today.  I have never seen a time like this where it has been so pervasive all throughout society and throughout our government.  People simply no longer care what the Bible says.  They are no longer willing to accept it nor want anything to do with it.  They are writing their own bibles, that is to say they are guiding their lives by the rules they have set up for themselves irrespective of any religion.

They are like Gov. Christie who is supposed to be a Catholic but does not care what his church teaches or what the Bible says and will not allow parents of homosexual children to get professional help under threat of law for those who provide the help.  I truly believe Christians in America are headed for persecution both by the government (by law) and by a people, fellow Americans, who have rejected the word of God and decided like the children of Israel to go their own way without God.

(All underlining was done by me for emphasis.)

[If you would like to download or print out this article click here.]

Preaching on Hell—Then and Now

I am reading a book entitled A Time to Laugh…Grandpa Was a Preacher by Leroy Brownlow.  Here is a short take from it:

"At a preachers' conference that was held to discuss the merits of preaching on hell, the chairman pointed him out and asked, 'Do you preach on hell very often?'

'No, not often.'

'Why not?' inquired the chairman.  'Is it because you feel that you are not effective on this topic?'

'No, because it disrupts the service.'

'How's that?' continued the chairman.

'It's like this,' explained grandpa, 'the audience becomes so fatigued fanning that I have to declare a recess about every five minutes.'" (Page 23)

Funny, yes, but while funny there is truth here about the preaching of days gone by versus today.  Growing up in the 50's thru the early to mid 60's I often heard sermons that would figuratively speaking curl your toes and send chills up your spine.  In those days hell was real and man was in present danger of ending up there without faith, gospel obedience, and living thereafter a faithful Christian life.

Today it seems no one is afraid of God and everyone seems to believe that in the end no one is going to hell despite their disregard for spiritual things in this life.  The idea is just so you are a decent person, the way society today defines that, then all is well and you will be okay in the end.  No need to worry about reading your Bible, obeying all those commands, attending worship services, etc.  Why even non-Christians may get to heaven seems to be the thinking of the day.

Many despise all that old-time fear-mongering preaching but one wonders whether or not we are better off today without it than we would have been had we kept it up?  After all, those preachers of days gone by did preach on other subjects as well but they made it clear there were things you had to do to be saved and you left those services not doubting for a minute but what they were right.  If a tornado (think hell) is headed directly for you don't you think you might be better off if the weatherman (think preacher) warned you versus giving you soothing words of peace and all is well?

[To download or print out this article click here.]

Love Versus Love

In 1 Cor. 13 Paul talks about and defines love.  If we believe he was an inspired apostle of God then his words were the words of God.  He claims as much when he said earlier in the book, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Cor. 2:13 NKJV)

All of us seem to have our own dictionary when it comes to defining terms.  We want words defined the way we desire they be defined even if it means we write our own dictionary.   Even the word "is," as small as it is, came into question as to its meaning if you remember the days of Bill Clinton.  The word "love" is a word we all seem to want defined the way we want it defined.

American society today has defined the word love in a way that is contrary to the way the Bible defines it.  Love for the adulterer, for the one engaged in fornication, for the active homosexual in America today means you tacitly embrace them in the very acts which the Bible calls sin.  And, we are afraid not to do it as the ones involved are often family members or friends whose love we do not want to risk by upsetting them.  The end result is we never rebuke the sinner and he or she goes on their merry way as if all is well with their spiritual being.

They are not to be rebuked for sin, in today’s society, but are to be treated as if they were righteous.  You seemingly are to rejoice that they have been made free to sin without stigma.  If a couple has a child outside of marriage you are to think how wonderful it is that they have a child.  This reaction to sin is now called "love."

Of course, that means our society would have condemned John the Baptist who refused to hold his tongue with Herod and Herodias but rather told Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have her." (Matt. 14:4 NKJV)  Today we want to do what Herod did and persecute the one who speaks out against sin.  We would say John the Baptist was a hater and intolerant, the only true sinner among the three, and that beheading was too good for him.

But how does God define love?  In 1 Cor. 13:6 Paul says of love, "It does not rejoice at wrongdoing." (ESV)  The Bible has declared adultery, fornication, and homosexuality to be sin or wrongdoing (1 Cor. 6:9-10) yet how many Americans rejoiced with the coming of no-fault divorce freeing up the adulterer from blame?  How many rejoiced with the most recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage?  That was seen as being merciful, tolerant, and a loving act, and it was about time they received equal rights and ceased to be discriminated against.  There was no point in discussing it with God for if he was to disagree he would be wrong and besides we define love nowadays, not God.  Yes, we have love versus love and the only question is whose definition will prove to hold up in the end.  Most of the world seems to be staking their claim on man, not God.

Our society has had a desire to redefine sin for we as a people have been unhappy with some of God's declarations on it.  Sin is no longer sin because of anything God has said in the Bible but sin is now what man declares it to be.  It is no longer what the Bible declares but what man declares.  It is what seems wrong in man's eyes, not in the eyes of the God of the Bible.   

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

Woe, woe, woe to man.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]