Throughout Scripture the biblical writers presuppose that God intends that His Word be understood by His people.Deuteronomy 6:6-7 assumes that fathers are able to teach their children the Law of Moses. In another passage Moses tells that the Word of God is clear and understandable:
ESV 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for
- Psalm 119:147
- Matthew 17:25
- I Thess. 4:15
- amerce (Deut. 22:19)
- blains (Exod. 9:9)
- brigandine (Jer. 46:4)
- crookbackt (Lev. 21:20)
- chambering (Rom. 13:13)
- champaign (Deut. 11:30 – not the drink)
- charger (Matt. 14:8 – not the animal)
- churl (Isa. 32:7)
There will always be some who intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to communicate false doctrine (e.g. The New World Translation), but this is a false and slanderous accusation against good, conservative translations, and a classic case of circular reasoning. Someone will open their KJV, compare it with a modern translation, and then show that a doctrine has been left out. They may then accuse the modern translation of heresy. But the original languages must be the standard, not the KJV or any other English translation.
- Romans 1:26
- I Corinthians 6:9
Another objection that moves in this direction regards Westcott and Hort. Some charge that these two men, who worked on the Greek text that underlies some modern translations (first published 1881), were heretics and sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. In response to this charge, I am not aware of any modern translation since WWII that has used Westcott and Hort’s text. In addition to this, the Roman Catholic monk Erasmus worked on and edited the text that underlies the KJV. If Westcott and Hort’s work should be dismissed because an alleged association with Rome (which is a false charge to begin with), should the text edited by a member of the Roman clergy be given a pass?
- Deity of Christ in the Psalms
- Virgin, not young woman
- Person of the Holy Spirit
- Propitiation not expiation
- Deity of Christ in the New Testament
Why is this a good time to change translations at SRBC?
. Grudem’s (292) sarcasm is helpful here, “In a day when it is common for people to tell us how hard it is to interpret Scripture rightly, we would do well to remember that not once in the gospel do we ever hear Jesus saying anything like this: “I sympathize with your frustration – the Scriptures relevant to this topic contain unusually complex hermeneutical difficulties.”
. Further examples of obsolete words can be found in Appendix B.. Other examples are Sheth and Seth; Pau and Pauh; Cis and Kish; Agar and Hagar; Jeremiah, Jeremias, Jeremie, and [Jeremy]; Henoch and Enoch; Jered and Jared; Noe and Noah; Jonah, Jona and Jonas; Jephthae and Jephthah; Balak and Balac; Sara and Sarah; Gidion and Gideon; Elijah and Elias; Kora and Core; Elisha and Eliseus; Hosea and Osee; Isaiah, Esaias and Esay; Hezekiah and Ezekiah; Zechariah and Zecharias; Judas, Judah, Juda and Jude; Zera, Zara and Zarah; Marcus and Mark; Lucas and Luke; and Timothy and Timotheus. Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 48, cited in White, 288.
. The word Paul employs here is καταρτισμός (katartismos). If Paul wanted to communicate the idea of “perfecting,” he could have used another word, such as τέλειος(teleios) or perhapsπληρόω(pleroo).