Daily Archives: January 19, 2010

The History of the Bible Part 15: The Controversy & Textual Criticism

Isaiah (Dead Sea Scroll)

We are ready to move on and discuss some of the modern translations. I’m going to discuss a little on some of the major translations that you may hear of or see in a bookstore. This will not cover them all, but all bibles have an article in the front that describes their translation philosophy. I’m also not going in depth on any of these subjects but at the end of this series I will recommend some books that do.I’m going to group a lot in this category today, but there is a lot of misinformation and fear mongering out there with bible translations. First I want to say just because someone says something and they have the title Dr. in front of their name does not mean that what they say is the gospel. All Dr. means is that they received a piece of paper saying that they studied at a certain institution. They still have their own beliefs and opinions which may or may not be right.

First I want to look at the question. Why does my modern translation not say the same thing as the KJV? If you check the right websites or even published books you will quickly be informed that it is because of a satanic conspiracy to remove the fundamental doctrines required for salvation from the bible. You may also find out that it is because of false religions like Gnosticism and their corrupt texts being found and used for bibles. If you believe any of these, I’m not going to try and change your mind. I will say that with a little research you can see just how untrue some of these accusations are.

For example if the newer translations are trying to remove the virgin birth from Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:25, why would they have left it in at Luke 1:27? Logic tells us that they were trying to be truthful to what the text says and not trying to change anything. This can also be said with the many occurrences of where it is claimed that new translations are trying to remove the deity of Christ by only referring to Him as Jesus. Again if this was the case they would never refer to Him as the Christ, which they do and they would have to remove several verses to help them support an incorrect doctrine, which they don’t. Most modern translations also show alternative readings in the footnotes, which they would not do if they were trying to hide something.


Share