THE NEW TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY BIBLE

(Continued from July)

Another thing to which I most earnestly object and protest against is the fact that this Bible is being called authorized, because this, too, is misleading. The word itself demands authority and makes impression upon the average person but who has authorized this RSV? The National Council of Churches of Christ, a body representing forty Protestant denominations.. This sounds impressive enough but our group, for one, denies them any authority in matters pertaining to God’s Word. Moreover, and this is much more serious, this organization certainly does not represent the most orthodox elements of Protestantism but, to the contrary, the mose modernistic groups. There are many groups in this organization which flatly deny the Deity of Christ. Must we then expect and accept a translation out of the hands and minds of such people? “God forbid!” as Paul would say.

I would be the last not to give credit to the scholarship of the 32 people who are responsible for this version of the Old Testament but I repeat that I have more confidence in Luther’s single translation than in the combined efforts of 32 people some of whom are outspoken modernists and unitarians. Some of the criticism I have read has even gone as far as openly accusing some of these men as belonging or having belonged to communistic organizations. Naturally, I have no proof for this and would not wish to quote such statements, neither do I agree with the crazy public burnings of this RSV. To me this is turning the clock back to the Middle Ages and the sole motive was not defending the honor of God but evil sensationalism and self-advertising.

Can we not say anything good about this new Bible? Certainly. In many cases it has indeed improved upon the style of the KJ Bible, especially as far as the removal of archaic words and expressions is concerned. The finding of older manuscripts, excavations in the Orient, and a greater knowledge of the ancient languages, have provided the scholars of this present day and age with many more and better tools than the translators of 1611 had. No one can deny that. It all depends upon who is making use of these tools, how they use them, and to which end.

Finally, as I have done in my Dutch article, I will give a few instances which to me (and many others) prove that this translation bears the marks of its composers. They had agreed upon the removal of all archaic personal and possessive pronouns as thee, thou, thy, thine, ye, etc., except when these parts of speech referred to God. We could have fully agreed with them if they had done so consistently. The Dutch Bible has something very similar. However, what do we find in the N. T.? This, that Jesus is exclusively addressed as “you,” etc. Now it is known that the language spoken in Jesus’ day and by Jesus himself—Aramaic—was rather colloquial but even so this does not give anyone permission to place Him on one level with all other human beings. Surely, Jesus was true Man but He was also true God and remained such even after assuming our nature and flesh. As stated before, many of the translators do not accept the Deity of Christ but who gave them the right and who authorized them to demonstrate their view in the use of pronouns and adjectives? The National Council of Churches (of Christ!), so that body is responsible. Someone may argue, “Not everybody who addressed Jesus recognized Him as the Son of God and consequently did not have to use “Thou” but what about the ones who did? Martha is made to say, “Yes Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” Martha and Mary surely recognized the Deity of Jesus. Still others may say, “Even though the translators did not use thee and thou, this does not necessarily prove that they don’t believe in the Deity of Christ.” This may be true but I cannot see it any differently since they started out by saying that they would retain the old pronouns and adjectives when referring to God. A Dutch proverb says, “To keep silent about a thing is to confirm it” and I am convinced that this is true in their case.

Another word which has been sacrificed to the spirit of our day is the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14. The RSV has, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son,” and this mysterious fact has been made more acceptable. True, a footnote states in tiny print “or virgin” but who of the modern readers not acquainted with theological disputes is going to read all the footnotes at the bottom of every page? After all, has it not been said that this Bible was especially put out for people who otherwise would not read the Bible because of its antiquated style? The super-natural birth of Jesus is incompatible with modern science and so no occasion must be given to such contra-natural conceptions! Even though they use the word virgin in the N.T. they have at least weakened the idea by undermining the prophetic announcement of it in the O.T. Dr. Wm. Hendriksen, formerly of Calvin Seminary, says that there is no basis whatsoever to change the word virgin of the KJ into young woman, since parthenos means virgin. Of course, a young woman may be a virgin, so the translators do not state that she was not a virgin but neither do they state that she was. To me, all these instances are subtle ways of doing away with many very fundamental Reformed doctrines and therefore we could never accept a translation like this in our churches and circles. May God give us men who are able to discern and thus warn our people against the cunning ways of satan, because he has many allies also among so-called Christians and so invades the realm of religion. Satan is never more dangerous than when he assumes the appearance of an angel of light.

Finally, to mention only one more change, the KJ always indicates where it has added words to clarify the meaning of a text or phrase. The original text contains many so-called elliptic phrases which means that certain passages miss certain words the meaning of which is understood. English has this too and Dutch also. However, the parts omitted in the original text may not be understood in the translated text and therefore any translator feels the need of filling these gaps with words of his own choosing to convey the meaning of the original text. The translators of the KJ felt, justly, that this was not sticking to the text as closely as possible and therefore indicated this by printing their added words in italics so that anyone could clearly see what was in the original text and what not. The translators of the RSV have taken the liberty to do away with these italics and so we have no means of discerning between what was original and what has been added. In other words, their own added words—and they have taken far more liberties than the KJ translators—are on the same level as God’s inspired Word, or to say it differently, God’s inspired Word is on the same level as their own words.

It seems to me that these examples are sufficient to prove that we cannot endorse this RSV, and I am sure that Synod will express itself along the same lines. Of course, nobody can prevent you from reading this RSV. This is a matter of individual decision. I would not even want to go as far as to say, “don’t ever touch one.” After all, it is still the Word of God and even if men have tampered with it, God has seen to it that it still contains His precious Word. It may very well be that He wishes to bless the reading of it by someone who never opened a KJ Bible. I myself have a copy, given to me as a present by the publishers since I am engaged in the book business. Occasionally I read in it just for the sake of comparison and, as I said before, it often clarifies the meaning of dark passages in the KJ. But it will never become as dear to me as the KJ because one misses badly the dignified and sanctified tone of the KJ which I have learned to love just as much as my Statenvertaling. No. the KJ has been good enough for almost 350 years for all of God’s dear children who spoke English and it will remain good enough for all of them as long as God has a Church upon earth.

It may be true that certain words are outdated and need explanation but what of it? The Bible itself admonishes to study and search the Scriptures and nowhere is promised that a casual reading or glancing through it will be blest. But this present day and age, which feeds all instruction and information—good and especially bad—in the easiest possible way which takes no effort on the part of the recipient (think of television, radio and the filthy magazines) requires that God’s Word, too, must be light and easily digestible.

Is it not strange that anyone who claims to have any education is, or at least is supposed to be, familiar with Shakespeare? It is a must for any High School or College education. Yet, who would dare tamper with the original text and spelling? To many a young person, so-called Christians included, Hamlet is more familiar than David or any of the other Biblical personalities. I have great regard for Shakespeare’s mastery of the English language but I gladly exchange a thousands Shakespeares for one John Bunyan because what he has written down in English has contributed more to the edification of God’s children and the glorification of His Name than has ‘the prince of English poets.’ Eternity will reveal this.

I would like to conclude this article with the most earnest advice to all our young people to search and study the Word of God. You could not spend your time any better. The days we are living in are very dark and exceedingly evil. The apostacy is tremendous. False religions crop up like toad-stools out of a muggy soul. Thousands of people accept a Jesus of their own imagination and God’s true children are being ridiculed. There is no merit in being conservative or old-fashioned but let us stick to the old truths as our forefathers have lived and experienced them. God nor His Word ever change but neither does the work of the Holy Spirit when converting a poor sinner. When that has become our portion then there will come a time that we shall not need a Bible any longer because then we shall be able to say with Paul, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen