Why So Many Bible Versions?
Why Is There a Continual Stream of New Bible Verions?
The following statement is typical of the answer one will get to this question from the majority of Christian teachers/preachers/theologians:
“For over three hundred years the King James Version, published in 1611, was the prominent translation used in most Protestant churches. However, as the English language continued to change, it became increasingly more difficult for people to understand the Old English vernacular. Faced with the obvious need for our society to understand God’s Word, scholars sought to update the scriptures into more contemporary language.
Dr. Lewis Foster, one of those who helped translate the NIV and the NKJV says, It is necessary to continue making new translations and revising old ones if people are to read the Word of God in their contemporary languages. With the passage of time, words change in meanings. For instance, in King James’ day the word ‘prevent’ could mean ‘come before’ but not necessarily in a hindering way. So the translators in that day rendered 1 Thes. 4:15, ‘For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.’ But today the word ‘prevent’ has lost that earlier meaning (come before), so it must be translated differently to convey the proper meaning: ‘According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not ‘precede’ those who have fallen asleep’ (NIV). …To keep the translation of God’s Word living it must be kept in the living language the people are using.”1
The Real Reason for the New Translations
Perverting God’s Word: Westcott and Hort’s “Revised” Version2
As Moody and Spurgeon were in the twilight of their careers another very significant event was occurring in the Anglican Church in England, driven by the forces of “higher criticism.”3 In 1870, a convocation in the Church of England was successful in calling for a “revision” of the Authorized King James Bible, which had dominated the Protestant Christian world as “the” word of God for 250 years.
| 1 | Dr. Dale A. Robbins, http://www.victorious.org/translat.htm |
| 2 | excerpt from the book, 85 Pages in the Bible |
| 3 | A form of Biblical analysis, popularized by German Rationalist Johan Gottfried Eichhorn in the late 18th century, which bases the accuracy of its methodology on the assumption that the Hegelian concept of the “truth in synthesis,” and theory of evolution are facts. Where the King James translators considered the Biblical text alone—basing its accuracy on the quantity of manuscripts that are in agreement—the higher critics look beyond the mere texts to other literary works and history in their exegesis. Inspiration in the text is completely denied by higher critics. Because of all this, as one writer has well noted, new conclusions are being drawn with each new version—and thus substantial changes—despite the fact they are all supposedly being translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts. |
“The revisers began their work in 1871 and published their New Testament in 1881 and the Old in 1884. It was called the ‘Revised Version.’ When they were seated, the revisers were commissioned to “correct” what they perceived as errors in the Authorized Version.”4
Although they were instructed to maintain the Textus Receptus (the dominant text used in the translation of the King James) as the Greek text underlying their work, it was not long before that was discarded in favor of a new text produced by two members of the revision committee, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.5 This text was, basically, an edited version of the Alexandrian Text which was used by Jerome in his production of the “Latin Vulgate.”6
There were two sets of manuscripts which Hort and Wescott acquired from the Roman Catholic
Church, and worked from, known as “Vaticanus” and “Siniaticus.” “Siniaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monestary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Catholic priest, Constantin von Tischendorf. Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845. Together they totaled 50 copies. Westcott and Hort’s theory—which they were obviously successful in convincing the committee to accept—was that the KJB was translated from inferior and more recent texts than were now in their possession.7 The inferiority tag came from what has become known as the “Lucian Rescension,” which contends that the manuscripts used to translate the KJB were “loosely thrown together” by a man named Lucian, in Antioch, from where they originated. The older source that was claimed was none other than Origen’s8 Greek New Testament, which was Alexandrian (Egyptian) in origin; thus named the “Alexandrian Text.”
| 4 | Gipp, Samuel, Understandable History of the Bible |
| 5 | B.F.Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A.Hort(1828-1892) were members of the Broad Church or High Church. (On the contrary, the translators of the KJB were all Low Churchmen Party of the Church of England.) They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament. Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge |
| 6 | “Vulgate” means “vulgar.” There was already a Bible in the vulgar language of the Roman people in existence at the time Jerome produced his Latin Bible, which was written in classical Latin, and anything but a “vulgate.” Obviously, it was given the name to deceive the Christian populace into thinking it was one and the same as the old vulgate. |
| 7 | Westcott’s and Hort’s correspondence with each other clearly shows that they conspired (successfully) from the outset to replace the KJB with a completely new translation derived from their own corrupted text. There correspondence also reveals that they considered Roman Catholicism to be superior to Protestantism. Both held Biblical literalists in contempt. | 8 | A teacher and Greek scholar in the Alexandrian school of Philo, who was known to adhere to the teachings of Plato, and embraced the Gnostic proposition that the word of God is not contained in any written form. |
Although both theories have long since been debunked by reputable Bible
Scholars, the stigma stuck, and to this day it is still being put forth by the defenders of Bible versions.
The obvious significance of this, is that it began the systematic undermining of the belief that God’s inspired word could actually be preserved anywhere in writing (a belief they—like their predecessor, Origen—both adamantly held). The less obvious significance is that—since all new translations (which now number in the hundreds) claim to be derived from this text—they are, in effect, Roman Catholic Bibles.9
This goes hand in glove with the Roman Church’s efforts to bring Protestants (who it refers to as “our separated brethren”) back into the sheepfold. These efforts began in America with the Catholic Church initiated Ecumenical movement at the beginning of the 20th century, continued with Charismatic Renewal (1967), and culminated with the agreement between Catholic prelates and leading Protestant Evangelicals titled, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together; The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.” (1993)10
Mike Schroeder
| 9 | Further evidence of this is the Roman Catholic Church’s approval of the New International Version, the most popular Bible among Protestants and Protestant derivations. |
| 10 | http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html |
Related Articles:
Which Bible?
Why the King James (Only)?
Suggested Reading:
“New Age Bible Versions,” G.A. Riplinger
Post Script
Are you saved? Jesus Christ—“who knew no sin”—and his sacrificial death on the Cross, has made the way for “everyone that believeth…to be reconciled to God. History has shown that whatever peace man has achieved in the world can only be temporary. The Bible says that individual men and women can know, beyond a doubt, that they are saved and bound for heaven, and therefore have absolute and permanent peace, regardless of what is going on in the world, by trusting Jesus Christ and his death on the cross for their eternal salvation. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Have you done this? If not, why not now?
www.agbsf.com
Discuss this article