Expert: Thurman C. Petty, Jr. - 2/26/2007

Question
Dear Mr. Petty , Thank you for the info.  I'm still not clear on the sources of the translations you mentioned.  I understand from my research, that the ASV & NASB are not from original texts.  How about the NIV?  Thank you.
-------------------------------------------
The text above is a follow-up to ...

-----Question-----
Can you please tell me which English translations of the Bible are directly from the Classical Hebrew (OT) and the Koine Greek (NT)?  I don't want  a translation that is 3-4 translations removed from the original languages.  Thank you!
-----Answer-----
Dear Barbara,
As you suggest, there are a number of translations which are 3-4 generations from the original text. But many of the best known are good translations.
The New International Version is a good translation that is close to the original, but put in the language we use today. This is the translation I use.
The New American Standard Version is perhaps the most accurate version, but it’s not quite as easy to read.
The King James Version, in spite of its archaic language, is still considered a very good translation. I use this a lot because it’s the Bible I grew up with and I memorized a lot of Scripture as I was growing up.
The New King James Version, while primarily a revision of the KJV, followed the original languages closely to assure accuracy.
There are others, of course, but these are the principle Bibles you’ll find in the Book store. There are some newer translations with which I’m not familiar, so you’ll have to ask another person about them.
The paraphrases are good for general reading, but don’t base your understanding of the teachings of the Bible upon them, as they reflect the personal theology of the one who wrote them.
I invite you to visit my web page www.PettyPress.com. Besides 16 of my books, you’ll find 40 Bible lessons and over 100 Bible questions answered (and much more).
Feel free to write me directly if you have other questions.
Always be ready for Jesus to Come.
Thurman C. Petty, Jr.
      petty@hyperusa.com  

Answer
Dear Barbara,

Thank you for seeking clarification of the answer I gave you. Perhaps a fuller explaination would be of help

To begin with, all of the translations contain the word of God, and a sincere seeker for truth can find it in any of them

When it comes to manuscripts that scholars use for translation, it is true, that usually, the older
the better. This rule does not necessarily apply to translations, however, because language is a
living thing that changes from decade to decade. So the newer the version, the more likely it is
that you will be able to understand the meaning of the language.

But any version that has been faithfully translated from the original Hebrew and Greek is most
likely a good version to read. Versions that have been translated by a group of scholars are more
likely to be accurate than those which have been the work of just one person.

Versions like the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), The New
International Version (NIV), The New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the Revised
Standard Version (RSV) are among the most recognized for their accuracy. Scholars by and large
prefer the RSV because it seems to be closest to the original, although some feel the at the NASB
is very close as well.

The KJV is an excellent translation, and many people have grown up with it and feel comfortable
with its often beautiful language. But many of the words and phrases are archaic, and unless one
is schooled in Shakespearian English, it can have its difficult passages, or verses that by modern
language may give the wrong impression. An example may be seen in Phil. 3:20:

         KJV: Phil 3:20  For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the
    Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
         NIV: Phil 3:20  But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from
    there, the Lord Jesus Christ,

The word “conversation” in 1611 evidently referred to the place from which one originated, but
would be misunderstood by modern readers. There are about 2000 such words or phrases in the
KJV that, though none would lead a person astray, do muddy the water a bit.

The NKJV is a revision of the KJV, but has been closely compared with the original languages.
The NIV is considered to be a very accurate version, and perhaps the most easily readable of them
all.

There have been a number of paraphrases and/or translations that are very good for reading
purposes, but should not be used as the basis for establishing doctrine because they often reflect
the thinking of one, or only a few select individuals. Among these are The Living Bible, the
Phillips Translation, and others.

The publishers of the Living Bible, unfortunately, have caused confusion among some by putting
out an edition called the Living Bible Translation. This seems to be a form of the Living Bible, though
it may have been worked over some by a committee. But it still ranks among those of single
individuals. The translation, according to my evaluation, has actually reversed the reading of the
original in some places, presumably because the one who wrote it disagreed with the doctrine that
the original presented (I have no desire to judge the motives of the author of the book, but can
only draw that conclusion by its variant readings.)

The standard versions also have problems from time to time. But to make sure you understand the
true meaning of the original text, it would be a good idea, on texts that deal with a specific
teaching that is important to you, to read it, and compare it in several versions. This will assure
that you have the best translation.

All this said, if you plead for wisdom from the Holy Spirit before you study, you will find God's
truth in any one of these translations. They are all the word of God.

There are some versions that you may find it important to steer clear of, however. Bibles that are
“translated” for use by a specific audience, or which have an agenda to present, are quite likely to
lead you away from the truth. These would include the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
which is translated from a feminist point of view, and seeks to cater to other audiences as well.
I've found several inaccuracies in it, and according to a Biblical scholar friend, there are over 800
places where it has been mistranslated in order to be “politically correct.”

The New World Translation (NWT) used by the Jehovah's witnesses, is an excellent translation,
but it does lend its renderings of some texts toward their beliefs. The Clear Word (CW) is the
work of one man, a Seventh-day Adventist. It is an excellent book for reading the scriptures for
deep understandings. I would compare it somewhat to the Amplified Bible. However, here again
it tends to cater to Adventist doctrine (which, as an Adventist, I believe to be right) but isn't really
a version to be used for an accurate search for Scriptural truth. There are numerous other versions
that fall into this category as well.

The Catholic Church has a number of versions, including the The Rheims-Douai Version (RDV)
translated from Latin.  Protestants find this version unacceptible because we believe Bibles should
be translated from the Hebrew/Greek original languages. There is a special RSV version made for
Catholics, which, while the same in most every other respect, contains the Apocrypha. Other
Catholic Bibles include the New American Bible, which is a revision of the RDV, and The
Jerusalem Bible (JB). There are others, as well.

As for the Apochrypha, I quote from the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary:

         Among Protestants [the word] is generally used to specify those books that were included
    in copies of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, but which were excluded from
    the Hebrew canon of Scriptures. Catholics designate at least 12 of these books as
    “deuterocanonical,” and use “apocrypha” to apply to other extracanonical literature which
    Protestants have come to call “pseudepigrapha,” meaning “falsely entitled.” . . .
    “Apocrypha” is used, as in the Reformed churches, to designate the 15 documents found
    in some Greek and Latin manuscripts of the OT, but which were not included in the canon
    of the Hebrew Scriptures.1
1.Horn, Siegfried H., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association) 1979.

Thank you again for your question. Feel free to ask others, and if it is satisfactory to you, send them to my personal address, as it will save time. (I'm still on dial-up.)

Thurman C. Petty, Jr.
Burleson, Texas
petty@hyperusa.com