Biblical Hebrew and Greek
For more than fifteen hundred years (around 300 – 1900 A.D.) Hebrew was not used as a spoken language. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, however, that ancient language became the lingua franca of the Jews returning to Palestine. Hebrew received official status in British Palestine, and, when Israel received statehood in 1948, it became an official language of that nation. Through the many centuries when it wasn’t used as a vernacular language, it nevertheless retained its use within Judaism as the language of the Hebrew Scriptures and for prayers.
Greek, on the other hand, has been a spoken language throughout the centuries, from before the time of Christ to this present day. However, the Koine Greek of the Old Testament differs from both the modern language and the ancient Greek that preceded it. Koine means common, and from about 300 B.C. to 300 A.D. it was indeed the ordinary dialect of the day. In no way, however, does this mean that it was slang, or a street language. This is a common myth spread by those who desire to reduce the language of the Bible to an English street vernacular.
These two languages, Hebrew and Greek, vastly different in character, were chosen by God, in His wisdom, for the recording of His Word. Even a little comprehension of these tongues gives one a small appreciation of their unique character. The abstract concepts of the New Testament are presented in the precision and detail of Greek, whereas, the figurative and concrete nature of Biblical Hebrew is perfectly suited to the Old Testament types and shadows.
Nevertheless, despite their beauty and appropriateness, these languages are foreign to most of us. If the Word of God had remained in the original Hebrew and Greek, it would have remained inaccessible to much of the world. In Christ’s day, a Greek translation of the Old Testament was commonly used (the Septuagint) as the many quotations in the New Testament attest. Moreover, the great commission is that the gospel should be “preached in His name among all nations” (Luke 24:47). On the very day in which the church came into existence, the Word of God was preached, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the native tongues of the audience. “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11). Paul, in correcting the misuse of tongues at Corinth, writes: “Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me” (1 Cor. 14:11). Christianity has, therefore, sought to make the Bible available to the peoples of this world in their native tongues. The Word of God is that very seed (Luke 8:11) which gives new life to the unbeliever: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23).
Our English Translation
As the power of Greece gave way to that of Rome, so too did the Greek language give way to Latin. In 382 A.D., Jerome was commissioned to revise the various Latin texts of the Scriptures, from which labors came the Latin Vulgate Bible. The title Vulgate is Latin and means commonly used; Latin was by then the common language of the day. This wasn’t the first translation of the Bible; earlier manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic attest to this, but its use was widespread and enduring. By the Middle Ages, however, Latin was no longer a language of the ordinary people. It was strictly the domain of the church and university. The Holy Scriptures had become inaccessible — and worse than that, it was deliberately kept from the people by the church. That deliverance, obtained only through the glorious light of the true gospel, was unknown, and a religion of works and allegiance to the church were used to keep the people in darkness and bondage.
Though partial translations of the Scriptures in Old and Middle English existed, it wasn’t until John Wycliffe (circa 1331 – 1384) that an entire Bible was translated from the Latin text into Middle English. Although unauthorized, the work was quite popular. Remarkably, more than two hundred and fifty copies have been preserved until this day! Keep in mind, Wycliffe’s Bible was published prior to the invention of the printing press and they were each hand copied and bound.
Around 1440 Johannes Gutenberg created one of the most significant inventions of all time — the movable type printing press. The mass production of books, and especially the Bible, has changed the world. Around the same time, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466 – 1536), a noted Catholic theologian, published a complete Greek text for the New Testament. Erasmus’ compilation used multiple sources, but these were mainly late manuscripts of the Byzantium textual family. The work of Erasmus influenced many translations and critical Greek texts that followed.
In 1526, William Tyndale completed an English translation of the New Testament using Erasmus’ Greek text. He published a revised edition in 1535 but was thereafter soon arrested and ultimately burned at the stake. Bible translation was a dangerous work! Miles Coverdale, an assistant to Tyndale, completed the work and published the first complete Early English Bible in 1535. After this, several translations appeared based on Tyndale’s work: Matthew’s (1537), Taverner’s (1539), and the Great Bible (1539). The last of these, the Great Bible, was the first authorized edition, having been appointed by King Henry VIII to be read in the churches. During the reign of the Roman Catholic Queen, Mary I (1553 – 1558), English Bible scholars relocated to the continent in fear of their lives. There, while in exile, a new translation effort was undertaken. It was completed in 1557, and in 1560 the Geneva Bible was published.
The Geneva Bible proved popular, and during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1559 – 1603) many editions appeared. The Geneva Bible was the first to have verse divisions, in addition to chapters. It also differed from previous translations in that it had numerous marginal notes. The purpose of these notes is given in the supplied preface: And considering how hard a thing it is to understand the holy Scriptures, and what errors, sects, and heresies grow daily for lack of the true knowledge thereof, and how many are discouraged (as they pretend) because they cannot attain to the true and simple meaning of the same, we have also endeavored both by the diligent reading of the best commentaries, and also by the conference with the godly and learned brethren, to gather brief annotations upon all the hard places, as well for the understanding of such words as are obscure, and for the declaration of the text, as for the application of the same as may most appertain to God’s glory and the edification of His church. The notes reflected Protestant reformation teaching, edited, as they were, by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, and other Reformation leaders. These notes were not popular with the established Church in England nor were they popular with its rulers.
Although there is nothing inherently wrong with a Bible commentary, when it is published with a Bible, there is the danger of its being received with the authority of Scripture. The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible do not rise above the Reformation truth of the time, a truism perhaps, but worth noting. There is, thankfully, much light to be found in them, but also a harshness (perhaps characteristic of the day) inconsistent with the character of Christianity. Witness the note for 1 Timothy 3:2: Therefore he that shuts out married men from the office of bishops, only because they are married, is antichrist. The anti-popery sentiments cannot be missed! More dangerous, however, are the misleading, if not erroneous, interpretations. The Old Testament prophecies are treated allegorically, robbing them of their true meaning and lowering the church from its heavenly position. Many examples can be found. The following note for Micah 5:6 will suffice to illustrate the point: These whom God will raise up for the deliverance of His church, will destroy all the enemies of it, who are meant here by the Assyrians and Babylonians, who were the chief enemies at that time. The church is not at all in view, and even as a figure, its teaching is faulty. Micah speaks of the attack of the King of the North against the land of Israel during the time of the Indignation at the close of the Great Tribulation; a day subsequent to the rapture of the church and still very much future.
At that time, the preferred Bible of the Church of England was the Bishops’ Bible. It was a revision of the Great Bible undertaken by Archbishop Parker, of Canterbury, with the assistance of fifteen or so scholarly men. It first appeared in 1568 — eight years after the Geneva Bible — with a revision in 1572. Although the Bishops’ Bible was sanctioned by the Church, the Geneva Bible appeared to be favored by the people. Not only was the Geneva Bible unpopular with the Church, it was also strongly disliked by the monarchy. In fact, it was considered positively seditious. Consider the commentary for Daniel 6:22: For he disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured. The message is clear, tyrannical Kings did not need to be obeyed. Interestingly, the Geneva Bible was popular with the Puritans and it was the first Bible brought to the American Colonies.
In 1604 a conference was held at Hampton Court near the city of London, for the reformation of some things amiss in ecclesiastical matters.42 It was presided over by King James I with bishops from the Church of England and representatives for the Puritans present. The latter were at a distinct disadvantage — there were nineteen from the establishment and just four Puritans. The topic of a new translation was not even on the agenda, but in the negotiations it became clear that something had to be done to appease the Puritans. Walter Scott, writes: In the course of the proceedings, the Puritan, Dr. Reynolds, proposed a new version of the Bible. The King, to please the Puritans, and attach them more firmly to his throne and constitution, and also because of his strongly expressed dislike to the two translations then in use, consented. The King’s cordial approval silenced the opposition of the conformist party. The superintending hand of God was apparent even in the preliminary arrangements.43
The Scriptures were divided into six sections with companies of translators meeting at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Around fifty individuals, all of them scholars and divines, were employed in the task. The exact number varies depending on the source — differences which may be accounted for by the three or four additional persons a team could call upon as needed. The new translation was not merely a revision of the former ones as the title page to any King James Bible explains: Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translation diligently compared and revised, by his majesty’s special command. As to the Old Testament, the Hebrew of the Masoretic text was all that was available. And as to the New Testament, by that time Erasmus’ Greek text had been revised, first by the Parisian printer, Robert Estienne, and then by the Genevan theological and biblical scholar, Theodor Beza. Beza’s Greek text — which later acquired the name Textus Receptus, that is to say, the Received Text — was used (though not exclusively) by the King James translators. Strictly speaking, the King James Version is not based on the Textus Receptus as the Greek text used was an earlier work by some years.44
Certain rules were laid out by Richard Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as to the translation. The first rule asks that the new translation follow the Bishops’ Bible as the truth would permit; rule fourteen required the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, or Geneva translations to be followed if they agreed better with the original text. The third rule is of special interest as it stipulated that the old ecclesiastical words be retained; church could not be translated assembly; bishop could not be translated overseer, and so forth. Rule six stipulated that there would be no marginal notes, except where needed to explain a Hebrew or Greek word.
As to the strengths of the King James Bible, one hardly need comment. No matter the political maneuverings of those at its founding, the providential hand of God is very evident in its translation and propagation. The number of souls saved as a result of this translation cannot be known, except by God Himself. Of secondary importance, but by no means insignificant, has been its influence on the English language itself. Some declare the King James Bible to be its very greatest literary achievement. What child of God does not know by heart the verse: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.” (Psa. 23:1-2). Who could question either the beauty of what it says or the prose in which it is said? The memorization of verses from the King James is aided by the language itself.
As to its weaknesses, none are of such a nature so as to call into question the translation itself. It has been said that the most unfortunate rendition of a verse is that given for 1 John 3:4: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” While it is true that transgression of the law is sin, sin goes beyond transgressions and is present even in the absence of law. Put simply, sin is living without reference to God — that is to say, being a law unto one’s self. A more correct rendering is: “Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4 JND).
As to the retaining of ecclesiastical words — church, bishop, deacon, and so forth — this was, no doubt, intended to protect a hierarchical form of church government with the King as head. As a result, it has perpetuated the confusion as to the true nature of the church and its administration. When the King James translators use the word church in connection with Israel in the wilderness, it was a poor choice: “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:3838This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)). The word assembly, or even congregation, would have been better. The church did not exist in the Old Testament.
Though not a rule, the translators state in the longer King James preface, that they did not tie themselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. They often chose English synonyms for the same Greek (or Hebrew) word. Romans 5:2-112By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5:2‑11) reads: “rejoice in hope ... glory in tribulations ... joy in God” — although the same Greek word is used throughout, it is translated, rejoice, glory, and joy. While this may have been valid at times (a word can have different shades of meaning) it often unnecessarily obscured the original text. A similar problem occurs with parallel portions in the Gospels. There are instances where identical sentences in the Greek have been translated differently, for example: Matt. 26:41, Mark 14:38.
We will close with one additional observation. In a very few instances, the Greek used by the King James translators contained additions which have since been shown to be late modifications to the text. Examples include: Acts 8:37, Romans 8:1, and 1 John 5:7-8. As to the last of these, Erasmus recognized that these additional words were not to be found in any Greek manuscript (though he included them) and that they were probably ninth century additions to the Latin Vulgate. In a similar vein, the source text used by Erasmus for the book of Revelation was very poor. Mr. Darby notes: Erasmus having translated that from one poor and imperfect manuscript, which being accompanied by a commentary, had to be separated by a transcriber; and even so, Erasmus corrected what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not.45
Modern English Translations
No one would suggest that translation is an easy task. Languages differ considerably in grammatical structure, vocabulary, and idioms. The expression “lost in translation” is often all too true! With the Bible there are additional complexities. The languages being translated are ancient and differ from their modern counterparts. Furthermore, there are those variations found in the original manuscripts. Although, in the majority of cases choosing a translation should be objective, there are clearly times when it will be subjective — and indeed must be. One’s belief (or lack thereof) will affect the translation, and when it comes to the Holy Scriptures this is most significant. In fact, to make the translation of the Bible a human and not a spiritual endeavor is a serious mistake.
Though a little ahead of ourselves, let us consider an example of what we have been discussing from the New International Version (the NIV). The translation for Hebrews 1:5 appears to be a combination of an overzealous desire to rid the text of archaic words and, at best, a lack of understanding as to the eternal sonship of Christ. The text in question quotes from the second Psalm and is translated: “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” (Heb. 1:5a NIV). Neither the Greek text, nor the Hebrew of Psalm 2:77I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7), contains any thought of God becoming a Father to the Son. It is quite simply false and suggests that the Son did not become son, in fact, until His birth. The second part of that same verse reads: “And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?” (Heb. 1:5b KJV). At first glance, this may appear to contradict what has just been said; it doesn’t. It speaks of the Father’s care for the Son in manhood — He would be to Him a Father; again it is not saying that He would become a Father to Him. Incidentally, the NIV footnote reads begotten which is correct.
As time has gone on, new manuscripts have been discovered and adjustments have been made to the Greek text. I wish, for a moment, to turn our attention to the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Beginning in 1853 they worked for twenty eight years to produce a Greek New Testament consisting of the so-called critical text — it was published in 1881. They were neither the first, nor the only men, who labored in this regard. Whereas Erasmus’ work, and as a result the Textus Receptus, may have been unduly influenced by the Byzantine texts, Westcott and Hort’s work was heavily biased toward Alexandrian texts — especially the Codex Vaticanus (commonly identified by the letter B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (identified by the Hebrew letter aleph, א). While the former had been held by the Vatican since the fifteenth century, the latter was discovered in 1844, and it captivated many including Westcott and Hort. Although the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete Bible (it dates from 325 A.D.), age alone, as noted earlier, does not decide the superiority of a text. In fact, the Sinaiticus codex contains numerous marginal corrections.
The variations in the Alexandrian text hint of Gnostic influences. Vaticanus omits the following verse from the Gospel of Luke — a verse which is so absolutely suited to that Gospel in which Christ’s perfect humanity is brought out: “And there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44). Sinaiticus has the verse but it is marked by a corrector as doubtful; a latter corrector, however, restored it. The Sinaiticus omits “Son of God” from Mark 1:1 which should read: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” J. N. Darby in his Introductory Notice to the New Testament observes: Westcott and Hort’s text, which seems to have influenced the Revisers in its excessive adherence to the so-called Alexandrian readings, or rather to the peculiarities of B [Vaticanus], especially when supported by some other ancient copy, was already known to many some years before it was published in 1881, when the Revisers’ New Testament also appeared.
As to Westcott and Hort themselves, there is much to concern us as to their Christian faith. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Westcott wrote: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did — yet they disclose to us a Gospel.46 Westcott viewed the creation story as poetry and not literal. As to the Lord’s appearing, Hort viewed this as figurative. He wrote concerning 1 Peter 1:7: There is nothing in either this passage or others on the same subject, apart from the figurative language of Thessalonians, to show that the revelation here spoken of is to be limited to a sudden preternatural theophany. It may be a long and varying process, though ending in a climax. Essentially it is simply the removal of the veils which hide the unseen Lord, by whatsoever means they become withdrawn.47 A great deal of material is available as to these men; nevertheless, in researching some of the more common accusations made against them, it must be sadly acknowledged that many quotations are taken out of context. That doesn’t mean to say that I agree with them; their statements are usually shrouded in an intellectualism that makes them open to interpretation and difficult to accurately represent in a few sentences. Darby and Kelly, contemporaries of Westcott and Hort, used language far more moderate compared to the violent attacks now brought against them. Unfortunately, nothing is terribly surprising as to the views expressed in the quotes given above. It is the sad, lifeless expression of rationalism and liberalism (they seem to go hand-in-hand) of which the Apostle Paul warned Timothy: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5). It is with a note of caution, therefore, that we observe that the influence of these two men over Bible translation since their time has been considerable.
Westcott and Hort were on the committee responsible for the 1881 Revised Version. In the United States, the Revised Version was adapted and re-revised resulting in the Revised Version, Standard American Edition of 1901 (otherwise known as the American Standard Version). Following in the same family we have: the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971), New American Standard Bible (1971, 1995), New Revised Standard Version (1989), World English Bible (2000), English Standard Version (2001, 2007, 2011). The New International Version (1978) was an independent work, but again, the influences of Westcott and Hort may be found in the Greek text used as the basis for its New Testament translation.
By no means do I wish to paint Westcott and Hort as being solely responsible for the questionable renderings in our modern translations. Many translations, including that of the King James, have been undertaken by a committee. The New International Version prides itself in the broad range of denominations and nationalities involved in the translation: Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches — helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.48 Rather than safeguarding the truth, such diversity has every potential for compromising the truth.
It is well known that the Jewish scholar, Harry M. Orlinsky, was on the editorial board for the Revised Standard Version. Incidentally, this was not the first time, nor the last, that an unbeliever has been included on such a board. Many have suggested, however, this as a reason for the unsettling RSV translation of Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” It is true that the Hebrew word translated young woman by the RSV committee is translated twice as maid and once as damsel elsewhere in the King James — the remaining four instances, including Isaiah 7:14, are translated virgin. Nevertheless, the very fact that it is quoted in Matthew 1:23, where the Greek word used means virgin, should have been decisive for the RSV translators. Furthermore, the Septuagint for Isaiah 7:14 (from which Matthew quotes) also uses the Greek word for virgin. One may also ask the rather obvious question, Where is the sign if a young woman conceives and bears a son? Though birth is always something to marvel at, it is not a miracle in the full sense of the word.
Before we leave this subject of modern translations, we must address two alternate methods of translation. These go by the rather lofty names of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. They may be more simply understood as sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation. Clearly, no readable translation is ever literally word-for-word; nevertheless, since we believe in the inspiration of the very words themselves, a faithful translation should be as close to literal as possible. The King James, Darby, American Standard, Revised Standard, English Standard, etc. use varying degrees of the word-for-word approach. At the other end of the spectrum, however, we have those translations which merely attempt to convey the sense of the original text, that is to say, a sense-for-sense translation. The New International Version and various other modern translations use this methodology. Then there are those translations which go further still; these are the paraphrased versions. As we move from word-for-word, to sense-for-sense, and then into paraphrasing, the translation becomes increasingly subjective. At some point, it ceases to be Scripture. At best, it may be viewed as a commentary; at worse, a corruption of the Word of God. The reader is encouraged in the strongest of terms to stay away from these.
In a related vein, improving the readability through the modernization of the English is a stated goal of all modern translations. It is true that the English of the King James may be difficult for some. The use of thou, thee, thy, and thine, with their related verb forms, and even the use of you and ye, is foreign to many modern readers. Incidentally, these words were not used in the King James to make it more reverent. They were used because the original Hebrew and Greek used these pronouns and verb forms. Thou is the second-person singular pronoun, whereas you is the second-person plural. Thou corresponds to the French tu and the Spanish tú. The other forms of thou — thee, thy and thine — follow the same pattern as me, my and mine. When the Lord addresses Peter and says, “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32), this is singular; He is talking to Peter. Immediately prior to this, however, the Lord had said: “Satan hath desired to have you” (v. 31). This is plural; the Lord was speaking to all of His disciples and not just Peter. F. F. Bruce notes that the Revised Standard Version blurred some of the finer distinctions in New Testament wording which, while they are of little importance to the general reader, have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text.49 No doubt, this was not a specific reference to the abandonment of the archaic, second person singular forms, nevertheless, the observation remains true. Despite the reference to the general reader, no matter who we are (and perhaps more so, when we have no knowledge of the original language), we have every reason to be concerned for the accuracy of the text.
Even though the pronouns thou and thee were not terms of reverence in the days of King James, they ultimately became that. In modernizing the English of the Scriptures, it has become more familiar in tone, and it might be added, this has done nothing to stem the tide of irreverence so characteristic of this present day. “These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8).
It is rather remarkable, that while the established Church was working on a revision of the King James, we find in quiet obscurity, John Nelson Darby working on a translation of the New Testament. This was first published in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. The complete Bible was published posthumously in 1890. It was never Darby’s intent to replace the King James. His desire was to provide a resource to the student of Scripture. In his preface he gives his rationale for his translation. I have used all helps I could, but the translation is borrowed in no way from any; it is my own translation, but I have used every check I could to secure exactness. I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God, received by the Holy Ghost and communicated by His power, though, thank God, through mortal men: what is divine made withal thoroughly human, as the blessed Lord Himself whom it reveals, though never ceasing to be divine. And this is its unspeakable value: thoroughly and entirely divine, ‘words which the Holy Ghost teacheth,’ yet perfectly and divinely adapted to man as being by man. My endeavour has been to present to the merely English reader the original as closely as possible. Those who make a version for public use must of course adapt their course to the public. Such has not been my object or thought, but to give the student of scripture, who cannot read the original, as close a translation as possible.50 As to the Darby Translation, F. F. Bruce makes this observation: In the New Testament especially it is based on a sound critical appraisal of the evidence, and was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised New Testament of 1881.51
If, as the preface to the Revised Standard Version states, the King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying, how are we to trust it? Firstly, a translation that stood essentially alone for 300 years, to the great blessing of the English speaking world, speaks for itself. Secondly, the King James translation calls into doubt no doctrinal positions, not the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His death, nor His resurrection — no, nothing! This cannot be said of some modern revisions. The greater danger, it seems to me, is in the use of a modern translation with its doubtful interpretations. It seems as if every committee of modern time has blundered down some path or another in an attempt to arrive at the original Greek or to present it in modern English. This is not to say that every modern translation is inherently evil or that they offer no benefit to the Bible student. Nevertheless, they should be used wisely and with an understanding as to their origin and character. I would rather trust the Darby translation, as I know where the translator stood on questions of doctrine, than trust myself to a committee consisting of Evangelicals, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Unitarians, Jews — believers and unbelievers alike.
Part 2: Understanding the Scriptures