Is there a right Bible translation?

Is there a right translation? Is it true that KJV is the best one to use?
What is textual criticism? What are the greek families? What is the Textus Receptus? And more...

Timecodes:

0:00 - Intro
0:20 - What we are talking about in this video
1:46 - Are modern translations unreliable?
2:19 - Are the creators of modern translations immoral?
3:30 - KJV has the most accurate manuscriptal history?
3:45 - History of the Textus Receptus
9:29 - Discovery of the eclectic texts
9:43 - Proximity Test
12:48 - Difference between formal and functional translations
14:06 - Exercising love 
15:26 - Textual criticism
16:00 - Different greek families
16:55 - Are we given authority to write translations?
18:55 - Conclusion

Music by
Over the limits
Vernacolmusic

Chapters

• 0:00 Intro
• 0:20 What we are talking about in this video
• 1:46 Are modern translations unreliable?
• 2:19 Are the creators of modern translations immoral?
• 3:30 KJV has the most accurate manuscriptal history?
• 3:45 History of the Textus Receptus
• 9:29 Discovery of the eclectic texts
• 9:43 Proximity Test
• 12:48 Difference between formal and functional translations
• 14:06 Exercising love
• 15:26 Textual criticism
• 16:00 Different greek families
• 16:55 Are we given authority to write translations?
• 18:55 Conclusion

Transcript

Wildfire podcast is an extension of Wildfire, which has a focus of igniting men and women of God into a deeper discipleship with Christ, instilling people with a passion to radically and relentlessly pursue Christ wherever that leads.

That God's truth will spread like a wildfire.

Hey everyone, how's it going?

So, welcome to another video.

Today we are going to be talking about translations, okay?

This is a topic, I don't know, depends on what sphere you're from, where there's questions as to what's the right translation?

Is there a right translation?

Is there a translation that is more accurate than another?

Should there be a translation that is used universally by the church on a global, international scale?

So these are questions that we want to answer in this video, and we just want to have some clarity by the end of it as to what is the correct translation if there is one.

The angle to which I'm going to come at this is that, which is something that I've found is propagated, is that the King James version is the most accurate version, and that is the one that should be used.

But simply because of the archaic language that is used, we don't use it, and so you feel a sense of guilt as that I don't really understand the writing, but apparently it's the most accurate translation.

And so you're left in this point of instability.

You don't know what's right, you don't know what's wrong, and so you don't know how to resolve it.

But the whole point is that we're gonna say that the King James version is not actually the most accurate one, rather there's a broad range of translations that can be used by Christians today that preserve the integrity of scripture and allow true exegesis and expository teaching to take place.

Point number one, again, is the angle of the King James version is that arguments that they say is that other translations simply detract away from God's truth.

They diminish God's truth.

They dilute God's truth.

They diminish the authority of the Bible.

And of course, a lot of translations don't do this.

However, this is something that we can all have universal agreement on.

Anything that's gonna dilute scripture, detract it away, diminish it, destroy the integrity of the passages in question, then of course we don't accept that.

But the KJV version, along with other passages, does not do that.

Point number two that people bring up is that people who come up with these modern translations are simply immoral.

They don't have a good standard of morality.

However, this argument simply subverts itself because we're dealing with humanity.

So by that same logic, if you're saying that because they're sinful, they can't then write or formulate a new translation, then we sort of can't use the Bible because it was formulated by the divine inspiration of God, but through sinful humans.

And we see that even the King James version, it was also made by sinful humans.

So you can't really use that because there are days we're all immoral.

We're all in need of grace.

And that's the whole point of whenever we repent, whenever we see salvation and we walk in the righteousness of God, then God can use us.

And God can use us to formulate translations that actually have utility and uphold scripture.

And so that is something that, again, needs to be applied to all translations.

King James version, NLT, NIV, ESV, all these translations need to be held to the same criteria.

The third is one of the main arguments that is used by people who say that the King James version is actually the most accurate, is because of the manuscriptal history that is attached to it.

So in order to understand why the KJV is propagated as one of the most reliable text, we have to understand a bit of the history and how it used what's called the Textus Receptus.

This simply means the received text and was given this name by the Elsevier brothers who coined this term in 1633 when they published a new edition of this.

It is important to first recognize that the Complitensia in Polygot was the first Greek New Testament to make it to the printing press, but was not published first.

And the first Bible to be printed was the Gutenberg Bible, aka the Latin Vulgate.

This is the first English translation.

But the Textus Receptus was the first Greek New Testament text to be published and printed.

And this was championed by a gentleman called Horacimus.

The Textus Receptus uses five editions of Horacimus.

It also uses four editions of Stephanus, actually the first person to add chapters and verses.

It also uses, at 1598, number of editions from Baza.

Now, Horacimus is a key figure in the development of the Textus Receptus.

He was the first person to actually get it published and printed, and many of his editions led the groundwork for the likes of Stephanus and Baza, and later people to come and add editions to it and simply refine and make it better.

But the likes of Horacimus used a limited amount of manuscriptal texts.

For example, Horacimus himself only used about 10 to 11 Greek manuscript texts.

He also had access to the Latin Vulgate and a commentary on Revelation.

Now, the KJV architects used the Textus Receptus, most notably the likes of Bizes Editions, Stephanus Editions and Horacimus Editions.

The KJV which used the Textus Receptus was centered upon the Byzantine text tradition.

And so KJV advocates assert that this is the most reliable text tradition.

This is the most reliable Greek family, the Byzantine text tradition.

But there are different Greek families of text tradition.

These include the Alexandrian Greek families, or the Caesarean Greek families.

But the reality is the likes of Horacimus, who created the Textus Receptus, along with later Editions of Stephanus and Biza, had a limited number of manuscriptal texts.

Horacimus again only had 10, 11, and used a commentary on Revelation, and also had access to the Latin Vulgate.

But the reality is, we have significantly more manuscripts today.

For example, Horacimus uses manuscripts that include 1 John 5, 6 to 8, where it says, testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three that testify in earth.

It's an example of words that have been added that don't show up in any Greek manuscript till the 14th century.

There's only one Greek manuscript where the words show up.

This is a scribal error based on a common scribal tendency to merge parallel passages.

But the reality is, this includes a text that does not appear in the majority of Greek texts.

In fact, it only includes, it only appears in one Greek text, which shows up later in the 14th century.

And that's because the likes of Horasimus, who helped develop the Textus Receptus, had a limited number of manuscriptal texts that they could appeal to.

So the idea that the KJV is the most reliable, as it comes from the most reliable manuscriptal history and the most reliable Greek family text tradition, would reflect a faith assertion rather than the historical evidence of what manuscripts were, how they were transmitted, and the scribal variations between them all.

God has left us a vast array of manuscriptal evidence that vastly agrees and has minute differences.

Modern translations can appeal to a broad base of Greek text, that is the eclectic text which we'll talk about.

Whereas the KJV, which uses the Textus Receptus, did not have the same luxury, that is not to diminish the beauty of the KJV, but instead to ensure we don't in equal measure diminish the modern text and the authenticity and reliability of the manuscriptal text tradition that they appeal to.

For example, if we gave an analogy, a witness analogy, if you were in a courtroom and 10 or 11 witnesses came, and then you had another 6,000 witnesses came and argued the other side, which one are you more likely to go with, the 10 or 11 witnesses or the 6,000 witnesses?

And that is the same here, the likes of Horasmus, Beisus, Stefanus, who developed the Textus Receptus that was then used by the KJV architects, had limited manuscripts that they could appeal to.

Whereas you see modern translations can appeal to the discovery of the eclectic texts, they can appeal to over 6,000 manuscripts, thus proving that they are reliable, and thus neutralizing the fact and the argument that the KJV comes from a more reliable manuscriptal history, when we knew that this is simply not correct when we look at the evidence.

And the reality is whenever this was formulated, it became popularized in the 1600s, and then it basically, for the next two centuries, became one of the most popular English translations, and is still one of the most popular translations, especially within reformed communities.

However, whenever you find in the 19th century, around the 1800s, there was the discovery of what was called the Eclectic Texts, the Eclectic Texts, and these are simply 5,700 Greek manuscripts.

5,700 to 6,000 original Greek manuscripts that were discovered.

Basically, it's called the Proximity Test within history, is that you have the original writers, the Gospels, for example, Matthew, Mark, Luke, they wrote on a specific papaya that simply could not be preserved throughout history because of the papaya it was written on.

So, and this is the same for all history of antiquity, you've got writings of Aristotle and Caesar.

So then what you do is you take the original writings, when was the manuscripts written and how many manuscripts were there?

So the earliest the manuscript was written to the actual event in question, and the amount of manuscripts, then the more reliable something is.

So we see with regards to the Bible that we have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts.

And if you take in comparison, Aristotle, which again is heavily agreed, scholars agree that this is very accurate, they have eight to 10 manuscripts in comparison to 5,700 Greek manuscripts.

And this is excluding, if you take total manuscripts, there's 24,000 manuscripts that come from all different languages, not just the original Greek language.

So the reality is, the Bible passes with flying colors with regards to the proximity test.

There's over 24,000 manuscripts, and this was written about, people say 50 to 60 years before the actual event in question.

Some scholars actually say earlier.

So the proximity test is something that is written earlier, or the earliest it can be, related to the actual event in question and has the most manuscripts is the most accurate.

And this is something that all Christians can rejoice in.

We have so much historical veracity to the claims that are made within Christianity.

These are historical documents that can be attested and can be deemed definitely reliable with regards to the scholarly framework that we have in question.

So, with all that said, that narrative, modern translations can actually appeal to over 5,700 Greek manuscripts, 24,000 manuscripts in general.

And whenever you think of Erasmus, he only had 10 original Greek manuscripts.

So to say that the KJV version was predicated upon a more accurate manuscriptal history is just not accurate, because there are these modern translations today, especially with archaeological findings and technology and the eclectic texts.

We literally have so much vast material and array of material that we can use to get the most accurate representation of what scripture was saying.

And that's not being to say we eradicate the KJV version.

No, it's just saying that you can't say the KJV version takes a premise.

Rather, all these translations, especially modern ones, actually can appeal to a broader, more accurate manuscriptal history.

So there are three points of contention that scripture is diluted, detracted, that there's questions of morality, and that the KJV version has a more accurate manuscriptal history.

We've answered all those objections.

And point number four is what we want to talk about is that there is what is called formal and functional, formal and functional writing.

You have the more formal language, which goes word for word, and then you have more functional writing, functional writing, which goes phrase for phrase.

And so that is what translations do today, modern translations.

KJV version went word for word.

So that's, if you think of it on a scale, formal is here, functional here.

You have the KJV version.

It was written in a formal manner.

So it was written word for word for the Greek in the language of its time.

So 16th century language, sorry, 17th century language of the time in the 1600s.

Then you've got more modern translations.

They then take a more functional approach, which is on this end of the scale, where they don't go word for word, but they go phrase for phrase, and they use the language of today in order to breed better understanding, in order to understand the language as we know it today.

And the reality is, on this scale, you've got NLT down here at the more functional side.

You then got the ESV is up here in the formal.

You've got the KJV up here in the formal.

You've got the NIV, which is around the middle.

So again, you've got this idea of that, which is formal and that which is functional.

We need to take in consideration what the Bible says about do others what you would have them do to you, about love your neighbor as you love yourself, and that we exhibit the same love that Jesus exhibited for us.

And so whenever we look, we empathize with people.

What is our audience?

So if you've got 10 year olds in front of you, a KJV version may be a little bit more difficult to grasp as opposed to another translation, a modern translation that operates within the functional aspect of things.

And so you just have to gauge what is your audience and what is the translation that you should use that will simply just benefit the person in question, that will allow them to better understand God's word, because that's what we need to understand.

If you want to give a 10 year old a KJV Bible and also a KJV dictionary that allows them to understand the words that are used in that, that's not going to be as good as say, a translation that is simply just a little bit easier for them to understand and grasp whilst it still upholds all the same doctrinal truths.

So we have to exercise wisdom, caution and understanding whenever we are deciding these things.

Another comment to make though about the accuracy of recent translations.

Again, they appeal to a broader scope of manuscriptal evidence, which again allows for textual criticism to flourish.

So that is, how do we know what the words that we have today is the words that were used by Matthew.

Again, with the proximity test, the amount of manuscripts I have, and the earliest source that we have helps, but textual criticism basically means that we can trace back to all the manuscripts and that we can get a more complete view of what the gospel authors were trying to say.

And so, encourage you to research a little bit more about the manuscriptal history and the textual criticism.

It's very interesting.

Also with regards to the manuscriptal history of the KJV, there's different Greek families.

So you've got the KJV, they operate within the Byzantine text, which was the 11 Greek manuscripts that Horacimus used.

However, that is not the only Greek family that exists that is within like the language that is being used.

There's Alexandrian, Caesarean.

These are other Greek families that modern translations appeal from.

And you simply can't say that this Greek family is better than this Greek family.

It's just not the correct way to go about things.

So point number four is basically understand that, which is formal and functional.

Understanding the importance of manuscriptal history, textual criticism, understanding all these different Greek families and how you can uphold one higher than the other.

Rather take them all into consideration to get a more holistic, complete view of the Bible.

Point number five is then, are we given the authority to write translations?

And again, if you don't believe this, then we can't have the Bible because we can't have the KJV as a translation as well.

But also we need to understand transmission.

That is, we need to document, record and allow a progression to take place in order for historical documents to be sustained.

And in order to examine the attestation of said documents.

Are we given authority to then translate or transmit, and I believe that we are given implicit apostolic approval.

Because we see that the original Bible was written in the Torah, the Tanakh was written in Hebrew.

And then you then have the Maseratic texts, which were written in Aramaic.

And then you have the Old Testament was written in Greek, the Greek Subjugant.

And then we then see the New Testament was written in Greek.

Then we say that is then translated into the Latin Vulgate.

So from the Greek to Latin, and then we see from Latin to English.

So again, it's just the evolution of writing and of language and how we need, in order to understand something, we need to translate it in the language of today.

And also ensure that we're not compromising on anything, which is an important fundamental to highlight and understand.

So we are given implicit apostolic approval because the disciples themselves translated into Greek.

That which was spoken in Aramaic for example, or in Hebrew, much the same from the Latin to the Old English.

That's what Harasmus done.

Then we also see that from the Old English to the modern language of today, we see that there is translation.

So it's just this evolution that is progressive.

There's nothing that is wrong with doing these things, rather it is a necessity in order to maintain the historical documents, in order to maintain the writings of God's word.

So if we can wrap all that up and conclude it, because there's a lot in there, but I encourage you to go and seek secondary study on this, because this is just simply to, all these videos that I do are simply just to provide a brief foundation that allows you to build build upon these things.

To summarize, we've came at this angle from like, is the KJV the most accurate translation?

And we have argued that, no, it's not.

And that the arguments that they use, we have addressed.

So with that in mind, I'm just going to say then, what is practically then, what is the translations that we should be using?

Well, we need to understand that translations should not dilute scripture.

They should not diminish scripture.

They should not detract away from scripture.

They shouldn't diminish anything.

They shouldn't diminish any of God's word.

It should be upheld.

And that the inherency of God's word should be maintained.

The authority of God's word, we should come with humility and respect and fear when we are translating or transmitting something that we maintain what God said.

Also the morality, that is, we are all sinful.

We all need salvation and redemption.

And God has used us to advance his kingdom.

And a part of advancing God's kingdom is through translations and transmissions that aid people in understanding more about the character of God, whilst again, not compromising on any doctrine or truth.

Point number three is the manuscriptal history.

Again, so many of the modern translations, the most popular ones that are in circulation, they do have great manuscriptal history.

That is, they appeal to the eclectic texts.

They appeal to, again, these different Greek families.

And point number four is understanding there's formal and then there's functional.

And we basically need to gauge our audience and have empathy on the other person.

What is going to reap the most understanding?

What translation will I use that is going to reap the most understanding?

And then point number five is that basically we need to cross-check.

I recommend using different translations.

I would use a functional translation and a formal translation.

My functional one would be the ESV and my formal would be the King James version.

So I would use both of these.

And I basically just cross-check what God's word is saying.

And that way we can have a more complete, holistic view of scripture and that we can get the most accurate representation of what scripture is saying.

But the whole point is that this is a good debate to have that we have so much accurate material, so much manuscripts, we have so many translations and transmissions that are beneficial, but there is transmissions and translations that are simply just not, they're not beneficial.

And we need to use our wisdom and our understanding to discern what those are.

And we need to respond accordingly.

But there are just some brief points, historical understanding of what translations can be used, some practical tips, what I myself use.

And again, just a foundation, go and research more.

I'm still researching more.

Again, for all of these videos, just a disclaimer, that I just simply present that which I know now, some of which can be refuted and be corrected.

But I'm just really recording videos that sort of present my thought process and how I'm responding and how I am just learning and that I'm bringing you along for the journey to learn with me.

And I think that's something that we should all do.

You shouldn't start where you should be, but simply start where you are.

And then you'll find that you make a lot of significant progress.

So that's it for this video guys.

And I will see you next time.

Bye!