Have MV's caused more confusion than good?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

See the bold above -- wrong! These MVs said that Jesus' testimony is valid and not valid. Jesus contradicts Himself according to these passages in modern versions. Confusion? Do you deny it?

I fail understand why you seem to always seem to manifest such a mean spirit in these discussions.

Do I deny that confusion is caused by versions? Yes, I do.

Confusion is caused by Christians who do not take the time to study an issue and act accordingly. The way to adjust is, as suggested above, use the same Bible as the pastor uses when he preaches.

I generally preach out of the KJV, people in our church use the NKJV, the NIV, the ESV, and a Polish bible. There have been Tagalog and Afrikaner bibles in services as well as others. I have yet to see people looking around in confusion because of their Bible version. Perhaps it is because people are looking for something from the Lord and not hung up on specific translations or versions.

The example above really confuses me and the "testimony" question. That was not on topic first of all because we are not talking about confusions within translations, but confusion caused by using different versions. I won't get into the "second of all" because it would take this discussion back off topic, and I don't want the prophecies of imminent closure to come true .

 

[Keith M]

I believe that MV's have caused more problems/anger/confusion than benefits. People in my church use several different versions and in Sunday School classes and in my Pastors' sermons, people are often CONFUSED because their version doesn't say/read the same as other peoples do.......this is REALLY a concern for me, and truthfully, causes me to wish that there WERE only ONE version of the Bible..........I feel Satan uses this to deceive....thoughts?....BTW, I have a KJV (which I prefer) and a NKJV (I struggle with it because I've used a KJV for 50 years and anything else doesn't "sound" like Scripture to me), which is what my Pastor preaches from.

And...

All the different meanings from all the different translations bothers me, too. Has God given us a spirit of "a sound mind" or "discipline?" (2 Tim 1:7) These two words have vastly different meanings to me.

Truthfully, I find the variations in meaning disturbing, but no less so than some of the disagreements on the boards here lately, where we cannot agree on such basics as what a Christian is, whether being saved means being born again, etc.

I've been struggling with NKJ lately, too, as I seek a translation to move to, after many years using the NIV. Currently I'm comparing NAS, NKJ, and Amp. Not 100% on any of them, but favoring NAS, atm.

Sure wish I could believe some version, say KJV, was truly superior, but it seems like each of them has flaws. The whole subject bothers my faith that God preserves His Word for us. What to do?

The confusion is not in the so-called modern versions. Every legitimate MV I have read presents the Gospel (God's word) just as God has preserved it for us - accurately, inerrantly and perfectly. The problem lies with the fact that some folks confuse the preservation of God's word with the preservation of a particular set of translated English words. God's word and English words are not the same, although some people are confused by the differences. The meanings of some words such as prevent (1 Thessalonians 4:15) have changed over the years since 1611, while the Gospel message, or God's word, has not changed in any way, shape or form. There is no new way of being saved found in any MV I have read.

Can confusion come from using one of the KJVs? Of course it can. In the KJVs Ahaziah, king of Israel, is said in 2 Kings 8:26 to have been 22 years old when he began his reign, yet in 2 Chronicles 22:2 his age is given as 42 years old. Another example of confusion found in the KJVs is the use of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 when in all other appearances of the original pa/sxa (transliterated as pascha) it is translated as "Passover."

Even more confusion is caused by those who try to "make mountains out of mole hills" by condemning modern versions for saying something when the KJVs have the same readings. An example of this can be found in Askjo's posts condemning the MVs for the supposed contradiction in "is not true" and "is true" (John 5:31 and John 8:14).

If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true. John 5:31 KJV (1611)

Iesus answered, and said vnto them, Though I beare record of my selfe, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I goe: but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I goe. John 8:14 KJV (1611)

The same "contradiction" condemned in the MVs is found in the KJV of 1611 and later editions. Taking verses out of context to "prove" a point is also a root of much confusion. In these verses we find Jesus speaking at different times and in different situations. When these verses are taken out of context, using any version, it can appear Jesus is contradicting Himself. However, that is not the case at all.

As has already been suggested, why don't you try carrying the same version read in the pulpit? It certainly is easier to follow along when you're reading the same version the preacher is reading. Our pastor always reads from a KJV, so I carry a KJV to church with me. Beside that, the print in the KJV I carry to church is larger than the print in some of the other Bibles I own - and with eyesight weakened by age and diabetes, and I find use of a larger print keeps me from having to use a magnifier or place the Bible at the end of my nose.

 

[Chessic]

Nice post!

My fears appear to be coming true: I will have to abandon any hope of finding an English translation that I can trust and feel comfortable with, and constantly check multiple versions and research root words (from multiple sources, since sources often do not agree) to do even the most basic Bible reading. My period of optimistic ignorance is going to have to come to an end and I will have to face the sad truth that no English translation, and few, if any, translations from other languages, can be trusted to be true to what God really means in a given passage.

I've always preferred to stand on God's word, and resisted man's efforts to make God's word mean anything he chooses. But that is getting harder every day, as word meanings change and philosophy continues its assault on language itself. Everywhere, I see only struggles to maintain any meaning at all in language. Post-modernism....hate it.

Sure wish C.S. Lewis was here to rewrite and expand his "The Abolition of Man."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Nice post!

My fears appear to be coming true: I will have to abandon any hope of finding an English translation that I can trust and feel comfortable with, and constantly check multiple versions and research root words (from multiple sources, since sources often do not agree) to do even the most basic Bible reading.

Why?

Do your research, find a solid translation, and stick with it. Depend on the Holy Spirit to illuminate your reading and rejoice in reading God's word.

 

[Mexdeaf]

From 2 Mexdeaf 3:12- "Confusion cometh not from the words of God, but from the flesh of man."

This is why we are admonished to STUDY the word of God. Too many Christians want it cut, dried, chopped up into little pieces; pre-chewed, easily digested, and in a form which their flesh is accustomed to and which 'makes sense' to their carnal mind instead of taking the time to get dirty and dig in the mines of the Word. Much study is a weariness of the flesh.

To attempt to limit oneself to ANY version as the be-all-to-end-all is to stunt one's spiritual growth, IMHO.

 

[HankD]

I've jumped to the end on this one so, someone may have made this point already...

But, for several weeks, maybe a few months, I did a generalized study of the early church fathers.

Some of these men actually knew an apostle or two and several of the original disciples of the Lord.

The point is that there was confusion even then when the eye-witnesses walked the earth and knew exactly what the Lord had said in the flesh.

Also, after about AD100 (John left the scene) the confusion abounded and almost all the heresies known (in one form or another) were born before the 4th and 5th centiries.

So, the confusion IMO is not a function of the MV's but satan and those whom he uses (ignorantly or otherwise). The translators of most MV's want to honor the Lord and His Word. It's the old story of the wheat and the tares and other parabolic examples.

Matthew 13

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.​

Someone else said it: Learn the Greek and Hebrew. Think of all the non-spiritual nonsense we get invovled in and the time and money we waste on it/them (myself included). Some advice FWIW: Invest at least the same resource in the spiritual.

Anyone who has learned enough and attained the knowledge to be able to master the art and science of Information Technology sufficient to logon and use the BB has enough smarts to learn the Greek/Hebrew alphabets and how to use a lexicon.

Also there are sites such as the Blue Letter Bible and others where all the tools and Bible versions a novice could dream of are available for nada.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

Luke 12:48 ... For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.​

HankD​

 

[annsni]

Honestly, reading Scripture should not cause confusion - in whatever translation you are reading. The issues that people bring up between the KJV and the MVs are a smoke screen - do you really think that you are going to be so confused by the difference between witness and record? Do they not say the same thing? What worries me is when people begin to get all sarcastic about the issue and say that they guess they can't trust the Scriptures because there's no perfect Bible - when God has shown us that He can use a donkey to get His Word to man - why not a Bible that was translated from another language?? Why can't we be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 - "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (ESV) Note they didn't take man's word for it - nor did they just read through the Bible as a book - they EXAMINED the Word. The Greek word used there is anakrinō - and it's meaning is wonderfully rich:

1) examine or judge

a) to investigate, examine, enquire into, scrutinise, sift, question

1) specifically in a forensic sense of a judge to hold an investigation

2) to interrogate, examine the accused or witnesses

b) to judge of, estimate, determine (the excellence or defects of any person or thing

And if you get hung up on the translation between the ESV ("examining") or the KJV ("searched"), the word is used 16 times in the KJV - and it's translated as "examine" 6 times, "judge" 6 times, "ask" or "question" 2 times, "search" once and , "discern" once. So "examining" is a valid translation.

I honestly have to laugh at people saying there's an issue where there really is one. I've never seen anyone sitting during a sermon - in any church - confused because one translation has one word and the other has another word. We all know synonyms and don't have issues with them.

 

[Chessic]

Thanks for mentioning the Blue Letter Bible. That site looks like a wonderful resource. If there are any other resources you care to mention, do tell!

 

[TCassidy]

The Greek word used there is anakrinō - and it's meaning is wonderfully rich:

Well, actually, the Greek word is ανακρινοντες, a verb, present tense, active voice, participle mood, nominative case, plural number, masculine gender.


Do yourself a favor and throw your Strong's Concordance/Lexicon away. It will steer you wrong more often than right.
By only giving you the root, it robs the student of the even greater riches found in the grammar of the word itself.

You see, they were presently, actively, in the continuing state of searching out the word of God to discern His Truth.

 

[Baptist4life]

I honestly have to laugh at people saying there's an issue where there really is one. I've never seen anyone sitting during a sermon - in any church - confused because one translation has one word and the other has another word. We all know synonyms and don't have issues with them.

I think the "issue" people have, at least from the people in my church, are SOME of the MV's are missing verses that other MV's HAVE .it's confusing to them.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think the "issue" people have, at least from the people in my church, are SOME of the MV's are missing verses that other MV's HAVE .it's confusing to them.

Then they need to study the issue out.

 

[BruceB]

Here is a simple way to avoid confusion when attending a church where people have different versions of the Bible. First, use the version/translation of your choice for your own study, carry, witnessing, etc. Then ask the church to project the text the pastor is using up on the screen (most churches have screens now, right?), then everyone can follow him on the screen in the version he is reading from. They can make notes in their bulletin, then write them in their preferred translation once they get home. In Sunday School most of the quarterlies I have used print the text right in them (KJV & NIV is what I see the most). You can use the same technique that I suggested for church service - just follow along in the quarterly and make your notes at home. You only have to be confused if you choose to be confused. Bruce

 

[Acumenical]

I agree with some other posters that whatever confusion exists today is due more to a general dumbing-down among Christians than it is a problem with translations being obscure or misleading. It's really not that hard to keep up when the pastor is using a different version. And the divergences are less obvious when the comparison is between essentially literal translations. The ESV and NASB don't differ that much, for example, but the ESV and NLT do. Even then, the problem is a looseness in wording, not necessarily a difference in theology. Studying, or at least being aware of, as many versions as possible is a great benefit, in my opinion.

 

[Baptist4life]

Look, here's the "just" of the matter. Our pastor preaches from the NKJV.....some MV's leave out certain verses/passages that the KJV/NKJV have in them. ...........then you're happily following along in your MV, and the pastor starts reading a passage of Scripture that's NOT EVEN IN your translation.......I have a dear brother in Christ, who loves the NIV, and we've compared passages and his translation leaves out a LOT of verses that are IN the NKJV and other translations!.......... THAT causes confusion about the Word of God.....whose translation is right?..........the one that HAS those verses or the one that leaves them out?......can you not see the confusion this can cause?....and the wondering about which translation is truly the Word of God?........they BOTH cannot be right..anyway, as I said, I've studied about this for 2 years, at least,.......... and BOTH sides have convincing arguments........someone has to be right or wrong since, no matter WHAT you think, versions DO change doctrine and meaning at times.

 

[mcdirector]

Having read the whole thread, I will come down on the side that feels the only reason any member is confused by the reading of a different version is because there is a general dumbing down of Christianity. (ok, so no one is surprised :laugh: )

We have to study the Scripture in whole to look at the parts. We have to look at the parts to understand the whole. This isn't a "I'm gonna hear what the preacher has to say about it on Sunday" endeavor. This is a life-long work. Having different versions and a variety of study tools is an enhancement to that study.

As to missing verses - there aren't that many. I pulled my ESV and NASB off the shelf (those are the ones handy - the others are in the room in which Ron is napping, so they'll have to wait), and looked at Mark 9. The missing verses are mentioned in the side/footnotes of both with enough information to glean what the verses were in addition to why they were left out of both.

I'm not only MV for modern version, but I'm MV for multiple versions. I'm so very grateful to have them all to read.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well, actually, the Greek word is ανακρινοντες, a verb, present tense, active voice, participle mood, nominative case, plural number, masculine gender.


Do yourself a favor and throw your Strong's Concordance/Lexicon away. It will steer you wrong more often than right.
By only giving you the root, it robs the student of the even greater riches found in the grammar of the word itself.

You see, they were presently, actively, in the continuing state of searching out the word of God to discern His Truth.

Can I repeat this?

Also, it's important to know English properly, when translating from Greek to English, so you will know what a present, active, participle is.

Edited to add: I think that dumbing down America is a very powerful tool that Satan uses to confuse the understanding of Scriptures. As one of my teachers used to say: "How can I teach someone Greek when they don't even understand English?"

 

[Hope of Glory]

Look, here's the "just" of the matter. Our pastor preaches from the NKJV.....some MV's leave out certain verses/passages that the KJV/NKJV have in them.

In most of those cases, those are verses that the KJV has added, not that MVs have omitted. I use primarily the KJV, but I make notes on those verses that have been added, and for this very reason. I know that some printed MVs have blank spaces by the verse number where the KJV has added verses.

 

[gb93433]

As a pastor I think it would be good etiquette for the pastor to let people know what version he uses when he preaches...

For awhile I noticed that people would talk and tried to guess what version I preached from. So one of them decided to ask me. I told him it was the UBS 4. He looked puzzled. Then asked some more questions. I finally told him it was a Greek Bible. Never got any more questions after that about what I preached from. They had no way of evaluating that issue.

 

[annsni]

Well, actually, the Greek word is ανακρινοντες, a verb, present tense, active voice, participle mood, nominative case, plural number, masculine gender.


Do yourself a favor and throw your Strong's Concordance/Lexicon away. It will steer you wrong more often than right.
By only giving you the root, it robs the student of the even greater riches found in the grammar of the word itself.

You see, they were presently, actively, in the continuing state of searching out the word of God to discern His Truth.

Oh - I agree - I was running out to church (hopped on to check the radar and got sucked in through my e-mail notification) and I didn't dig any deeper than the root word. You're correct about the tense - and the fact that they were continually checking out what they were hearing and studying it. That's so important - no matter what, study the Word of God ALWAYS.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Look, here's the "just" of the matter. Our pastor preaches from the NKJV.....some MV's leave out certain verses/passages that the KJV/NKJV have in them. ...........then you're happily following along in your MV, and the pastor starts reading a passage of Scripture that's NOT EVEN IN your translation.......I have a dear brother in Christ, who loves the NIV, and we've compared passages and his translation leaves out a LOT of verses that are IN the NKJV and other translations!.......... THAT causes confusion about the Word of God.....whose translation is right?..........the one that HAS those verses or the one that leaves them out?......can you not see the confusion this can cause?....and the wondering about which translation is truly the Word of God?........they BOTH cannot be right..anyway, as I said, I've studied about this for 2 years, at least,.......... and BOTH sides have convincing arguments........someone has to be right or wrong since, no matter WHAT you think, versions DO change doctrine and meaning at times.

So, a simple question. If you were a Christian in England in 1614 and were lucky enough to own a Geneva Bible would you have been confused by the preacher reading out of the MV (the KJV)?