Featured Books on Translation

The movement of the KJVO position into missionary translation efforts is too new to make this judgment.

Riplinger's book Hazardous Materials. I've read some of it, and it makes no sense to me. To his credit, Combs does not buy into all of Riplinger, since he does use some lexicons.

The author does not say that a translation can be inspired. There is a fine line there. Radical KJVO people say the KJV is inspired just like the originals. Combs does not go that far.

 

Dewey Beegle, God's Word into English. Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1960

This is another book on the history of the English Bible, but it's not near as good as the one by Ira Price. (See above.) It's actually more of an apology (in the sense of defense) for new translations in English. The preface says, "The immediate goal of this book is to indicate the essential translation features which enable the modern reader to understand most clearly the truths intended by God's messengers in the Old and New Testaments" (p. ix).

The very first chapter is, "Why Revise God's Word?" It tells of a few changed English meanings, and a few places where the author feels the KJV could have been translated better. The rest of the book is more of the same. So, this book is quite out of date, and has nowhere near the rich history given by Ira Price's book. It's interesting to have if you want a big library on Bible translation, and that's about it. (Someone remind me why I still have it, please. )

 

C. S. Lewis. The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1963.

This is just a pamphlet of 37 pages, but it's by C. S. Lewis, the great Christian author! While I disagree with much of his theology, he was an exceptional writer, so anyone ought to enjoy reading this book, especially if they love the KJV. The theme of the little book is how the KJV and other of the early English Bible translations impacted and changed the English language. It is well worth the read. You can check it out here: The Literary Impact of The Authorised Version · PDF fileC.S. Lewis, The Literary Impact of The Authorised Version. The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London - [PDF Document].

 

I remember reading this, though I did not read the book straight through.

He does put his foot over that fine line to say that the KJV is perfect, but I want to think--hope--that he doesn't follow his foot. I don't think he has thought through logically the implications of some of the things he writes.

Good catch. Maybe we should describe Combs, then, as holding to a perfect Scrivener TR--which was then translated perfectly into the KJV.

 

Seems like he tried not to say that but ended up saying it.

 

Back in 1961, a new translation of the New Testament came out called The New English Bible. The complete Bible came out in 1970. It caused quite a stir, was roundly criticized by conservatives, was revised as the Revised English Bible some years later, and seems to have sunk into oblivion. I have two pamphlets from those years by conservatives that are of historical interest. (I actually referred to them in that way in an academic paper I did some years ago.)

The pamphlets almost scream, "Bad translation!!!" I want to make it clear, though, that I personally would never refer to any translation with the rhetoric these titles use. The Bible, even badly translated, simply cannot be a perversion or a project of Satan, though individual liberal renderings can be wrong and twist the Scripture translated.

Ian R. K. Paisley, Version or Perversion? Belfast: Martyrs' Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, 1961.
This pamphlet is by the famous Irish Protestant pastor and politician. Yes, that Ian Paisley. He was a real firebrand (I've heard him preach), and a fundamentalist in the mold of Bob Jones, Jr., who was a close friend. Paisley was also a friend to some degree with my grandfather, John R. Rice, and I've been told that he attended a birthday party of JRR back in the day, but that's all I know about that.

The pamphlet's theme is kind of like, "That's not a Bible. Let me show you a real Bible!" But I must say Paisley was not KJVO. He simply objected to the liberalism of the translation. Here are some of his objections:
1. The NEB does not have "only begotten" for monogenes (μονογενής) in John 3:16 and other places.
2. Does not translate "Son of God" correctly in a number of passages. For example, it has "God's chosen one" in John 1:34 rather than "Son of God." Does not capitalize "Son" in various passages.
3. Does not translate "virgin" (παρθένος) in Luke 1;26-27, having Mary as just a "girl."

There are many similar deliberate mis-translations, so I have to say this might be the most liberal translation out there! Well, except for that Japanese translation I have that has in the table of contents "Books by Paul" and "Books Purported to Be by Paul."

 

Point taken. Didn't know that.

 

M. L. Moser, Jr. The New English Bible, Satan's Polluted Translation. Little Rock, AR: The Challenge Press, 1971.

I really don't like this title. Satan may try to influence Bible translations towards liberal (NEB, TEV) or cultic (JW) renderings. However, he has no Bibles.

Having said that, Moser does a good job of showing the liberal bias in this translation. Since he can look at the OT, which was not finished when Paisley wrote his pamphlet, he can point out some new errors.

He, too, noticed a bias against the virgin birth. For example, the NEB translates almah (עלמה) as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, a usual liberal ploy. Yes, yes, I know, some conservatives have also swallowed the line that almah actually means "young woman," but I don't buy that. I've done the research myself, and though the word occurs 9 times in the Hebrew OT, none of them demonstrably mean only "young woman" and not "virgin."

Moser quotes an article by John R. Rice, who debunked the notion that the true Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah (בּתוּלה) by pointing out that Joel 1:8 uses bethulah for a married woman.

Moser goes on to debunk the NEB treatment of passages proving the deity of Christ, and passages downplaying clear prophecies. Then he goes on to point out the clear liberalism of some of the translators, such as C. H. Dodd especially.

 

Thanks for the added helpful info.

"Only begotten" is one Greek word about which even conservative opinion has changed. Back in the day this pamphlet was written, conservatives felt that only liberals would leave off the "begotten."

 

I have two books for the bored about the history of the English Bible, both with photos on almost every page, so the bored BB denizen can always just look at the pictures.

David Beale, A Pictorial History of our English Bible. Greenville: Bob Jones U. Press, 1982.
This is a great little book (66 pages) for the beginner in Bible translation history. It even closes with a nice but short glossary, which however only has 17 entries. Like I said, it's for beginners. Here's an interesting quote: "According to the catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society, the number of editions of the King James Bible (or parts of it) between 1611 and 1800 reached nearly a thousand and produced tens of thousands of minor variations from the original edition" (p. 43).

 

John R. Hellstern and Donald L. Brake, Sr., The Fire of Devotion. Branson, MO: The Living Word National Bible Museum, n.d.

I got this short book (letter size, 22 pages) at the Bible museum in Branson, MO, when we visited there on a furlough from Japan years ago. It’s a nice little booklet with plenty of pictures of some of the items that were in the museum, including 2nd-6th century papyrus fragments, a 1450 Wycliffe Bible, a Gutenberg page, etc. Best of all, they had a full sized working replica of Gutenberg’s press. Best of all, after a demonstration of the press, each visitor was allowed to take home a page printed from it of either the Gutenberg Bible or the original 1611 KJV; I chose the latter. I hope the museum is still there, but I can’t find a website of it.