At least once every
Below I’ve listed some of my favorite Bible translations—as well as some that didn’t make the cut. Though I consider the background of each translation or its gender-inclusiveness, I weigh most heavily how the translation handles the formal/functional balance, its elegance, and the worth of the sources it works from. I’ve also included for each a quotation of John 3:16 so you can see some of the different nuances of each version. It should be noted, however, that because that verse is so famous, translators often try to make the verse sound as similar as possible to what we’re familiar with. For that reason, it’s usually smart to check out a less popular verse to see the real differences.
10. New Living Translation (NLT) – I have little incentive to use the NLT, but as a
For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
9. Common English Bible (CEB) – Released in 2011, the CEB was also designed to be easy to read and used by a variety of denominations. The translation committee worked around the Dale-Chall Readability Formula to produce a rendering of the Bible at the same reading level as a USA Today newspaper. Like the NLT, this version tries to use gender-neutral language where applicable.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him won’t perish but will have eternal life.
8. New American Standard Bible (NASB) – A third of my life or more has been spent using the NASB; it’s one of the translations I’m most familiar with. Originally published in 1971 and revised in ‘95, it is considered one of the more literal translations as well as difficult to read (operating at an
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
7. New English Translation (NET) – This online Bible is designed to be free and accessible by all; it is also one of the more recently updated versions with a revision in 2017. The NET Bible is most notable for its tackling of the formal/functional balance by rendering a fairly readable text along with copious footnotes for in-depth and literal translations.
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
6. New Jewish Publication Society of America Version (NJPS) – This translation is done completely by Jewish scholars, trying to best bring out the Jewish theology in the text without Christian overtones—though they are particularly strict in their translations of the Torah. As you might suspect, this version doesn’t have the New Testament, so I’ve included another popular verse for you:
When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
5. New International Version (NIV) – I have a love-hate relationship with this most popular of modern translations. Like many around my age, I grew up using this translation, and it’s probably the translation I see most often at Church or other settings. And for good reason: it, more than any other, comes the closest to striking the perfect balance between formality and functionality, adherence to the holy text and readability for us today. It does this by working from the best Greek and Hebrew texts, utilizing the skill of excellent scholars from various denominations, and employing a real strategy for bringing the word to modern eyes. However, in several ways, the NIV (or Zondervan, its publisher) has stumbled since its rise to power with the 1984 version (the one many of us grew up with and have old copies of). I think the clearest example of this is how the 2011 version (the one most available now) has lost its elegance and idiomatic style in pursuit of—I’m not really sure, maybe the appearance of being more scholarly. This isn’t as obvious reading John 3:16, for reasons mentioned above, so instead go read an example from one of my favorite passages and tell me which sounds better: Phil. 2:5-7 in the 1984 text or in the 2011 text.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
4. Christian Standard Bible (CSB) – This is a significantly less popular version than some on this list but has the potential to grow in the coming years. It’s a 2017 revision of the Holman Standard Bible (which almost made the list) and was actually compiled to reflect the latest in biblical studies and fix some of the stylistic shortcomings of the previous version. It does a comparable job as the NIV in striking the formal/functional balance (what the version itself calls “optimal equivalence”) while maintaining a level of eloquence in the text.
For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
3. King James Version (KJV) – You know the King James. Maybe you call it the Authorized Version, but you know it. It’s old, and it uses a less than optimal textual foundation for its translating, but
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) – The NRSV is the Bible of choice for most scholars, particularly those with
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
1. English Standard Version (ESV) – Is this an anti-climatic winner? A few years ago, the ESV was considered new and cool as it was slowly supplanting the NIV in popularity. Now, people are more used to it, and that’s a good thing. The ESV is considered one of the more literal translations on this list, but it manages that achievement without expending readability or beauty. Through elegant translation and skillful word choice, the ESV manages to convey the original intent of the authors while still producing
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
A few other notes for the curious:
- Amplified Bible (AMP) – The idea of including every nuance of the language in the translation is neat, but the execution is not only a little biased but rather poor. I’m not sure about the 2015 update, but the original is not working from the best source.
- Contemporary English Version (CEV) – Its aim of being an easy-to-read translation is good, but it doesn’t bring a whole lot else to the table.
- Good News Bible (
GNT ) – Again, its goal is to be readable by children or people new to English, but it’s a little out of date. - God’s Word (GW) – I was excited when I first read the approach of this translation: to match the style of the original text, meaning where the Greek was difficult (e.g. Hebrews) the translation would be at a higher reading level, and where it was easier (e.g. John), it would be simpler. Upon actually looking into it, GW seems to be more akin to the other easy-to-read versions. If you are interested in this sort of approach, however, check out David Bentley Hart’s The New Testament: A Translation (2017)—it’s done much better.
- Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) – This is a good Bible, if not a little conservative for my taste, but its revision, the CSB mentioned above, is better.
- The Message (MSG) – This is a commentary, not a Bible.
- New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) – If you want Catholic theology and are OK with subpar sources, this one’s not bad. As a bonus, its original version had J. R. R. Tolkien involved in its composition.
- New King James Version (NKJV) – This is one of my least favorite translations because it chooses to base its text on a less-than-stellar textual tradition despite being
an update with availability to better texts. - Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) – This is a super-literal translation, which may be valuable for some, but you can probably find a better alternative in the NASB or ESV.
If you’re interested in this sort of practical Bible knowledge or any number of theological topics, go ahead and subscribe to Religion & Story!
Cool list. I can see that you are familiar with these various translations!
However, I will say that the ESV is actually less accurate and literal than many of the others, such as the NIV and NASB and NRSV. I’ve looked into the ESV and I cannot find anything in it that gives it an advantage over any other translation.
I’m surprised to see the NJPS on this list. For me, it is dangerous using a Bible translated by someone from a different religion.
That being said, and speaking about the Old Testament, I highly recommend that people add to their Bibles a translation from the Septuagint, which was the version of the OT that Jesus and the apostles used.
I’m super glad to see the CSB and HCSB on this list. The HCSB is my personal favorite, mostly because it is incredible accurate and it reads in the same way as I think. As you said, there is a translation for each person. 🙂
I’m glad you mentioned the GNT. I have found it to be surprisingly accurate given its more simple reading level. It is a REALLY good one for kids (as is the NIrV).
Lastly, your review of The Message is spot on. There is absolutely nothing more that needs to be said about it.
I’m surprised to hear you say that. Both in my own analysis of the ESV and in researching the methods/intentions of the translators, I have found it to be an exceptionally faithful translation. I’d think it is certainly more literal than the NIV and NRSV which are both highly idiomatic.
As for the NJPS, you’re right that it has no place in Christian devotional study–which I’d imagine to be the default for a personal Bible. Its main purpose here is as a lens into (possibly) older interpretive traditions of the OT.
I’m glad to hear you’re a fan of the HCSB/CSB. I’ve only recently discovered them in the last year and need to incorporate them more into my own study.
Great list. I’m curious about your view of the NKJV. I thought that it corrected many of the “issues with the AV while providing alternate readings in the text notes. For a while, I really liked it. I’m glad you included it in your list
Thanks for taking the time to read my list!
My criticism of the NKJV in the post may be unfair, but the point I am trying to make is: We’ve learned a lot about manuscripts to base our Bible translations on since the KJV originally was published—things that are pretty major and demand starting anew. So my frustration with the NKJV is, if you’re going to write a new translation, why start with a foundation you know if already obsolete? I get that it is helpful to provide some updates to those who are used to the KJV, but my thought is, either stick with the KJV (it’s nostalgic and historically important and familiar) or opt for something significantly more up-to-date.
Regarding the NJPS, The Jewish scholars have studied the English language to offer the translation and have excluded the New testament because they didn’t have it in their language from the beginning. On the other hand the, founding English New testament Christians have studied Hebrew language to translate the Tanakh and call it Old testament and in it find meaning pointing to the new testament and the messianic teachings and the Gospel of Christ, a subject greatly disputed by the Jews. Given that both sides have had to learn each others language and translate their understandings. Who is to be trusted?
I agree with most everything Mr. Xyhelm says. The ranking of NASB for not having a balance between form/function doesn’t line up with how KJV is included. Yet NASB has more up to date language and better sources.
I would also say NRSV wonders off the path and becomes based on traditional interpretations or assumptions.
Other than a couple verses that are pivitol, ESV would be more accurate than the NIV (1984).
I assume Mr. Xyhelm won’t mind if I tell you his name is Andrew–y’all dialogue enough in the comments.
I’m not totally sure what you’re getting at regarding the NASB and KJV, but to be clear on my part: I like the NASB a lot, but its prose is a little too stilted and takes away some of the beauty of the original text. You can see this by looking at the text and noticing words in italics which were added for grammatical purposes; you can usually take those words out and the text reads just fine (and usually better). You’re right that it is overall a better translation if you’re just measuring how accurately/probabilistically it conveys the original writings of the Bible, but I guess I rank the KJV higher because I valued more its historical importance and its nostalgic/poetic rendering of many verses. That certainly doesn’t count for much if you’re just looking for Bible for personal study, but my list is a little more subjective than that.
(Also, ironically, I think the NASB generally makes much more accurate translation decisions, but strangely it is the only other translation in the list that follows the KJV in its mistaken translation of “begotten Son.”)
That’s an interesting point about the NRSV. It does clearly lean on the older RSV in places, but generally people’s complaint about the NRSV is that it’s too non-traditional.
Out of curiosity, what are the verses you don’t like about the ESV?
Losing the beauty of the original text is very ambiguous. You are ranking KJV higher because it sounds better to the ears. It’s your list, so you have a right to your opinion. I feel it is inconsistent to rank NASB low because it loses it’s readability when the KJV is even worse.
ESV errors 2 Thess. 2:13 – Translates salvation to save. Calvinists are quick to point this one out and they are right to. Not to say that it supports their doctrine though.
Many would point to 1 John 5:7 for the ESV leaving out the Trinity that is mentioned in the KJV. But I think it is right to do so.
The ESV is guilty of omitting 17 verses. Some for good reason, but not all. The 17 verses removed in the ESV are Matthew 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 22:44, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29 and Romans 16:24.
Most ESV haters are KJV enthusiasts that are misinformed. See this link as a prime example: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=70138
Overall good list – my only complaint is that you gave into using the trendy name and called what should be the William Tyndale Version (WTV) the King James Version (KJV).
Hi Daniel, I am no translator- l, as most of us, have to rely on translators who (should) know their ancient Greek to help! Right?
What’s your feelings for Jason D BeDuhn? In his book ’Truth in Translation- Accuracy and Bias in English translations of the New Testament’ he compared 9 translations, namely; AB, KJV, LB, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NW (1984) and TEV.
He doesn’t just compare but looks at the original Greek- translates- then compares the above translations to highlight both accuracy and bias. (None come off unscathed.)
In the chapter “A final word”, on page 163, he says “…it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared”. A close second was the NAB. The NW is therefore conspicuous by its absence from your list and graph, why is that? Just curious.
Kind regards, Fritz
I have not read that book, but I recognize BeDuhn as a capable scholar. Most things he says are worth considering.
Regarding his examination, it’s worth noting that it’s essentially impossible to be unbiased when translating these ancient languages. Even BeDuhn’s criticism about bias probably have some bias to them.
I’m not too familiar with the New World Translation (or the Apostles’ Bible or Living Bible), but it mainly wasn’t included because I already had plenty to work with and was focusing on mainstream or popular versions.
A couple other things on the NWT: it’s a Jehovah’s Witnesses’s translation which I’m not too interested in (my own bias). Also, as mentioned in the article, there are a few other traits to consider in this examination besides accuracy. Elegance is big for me. Important also is the textual tradition used by the translation—all three of those I mentioned have some shortcoming in that regard.
Hi mate, l appreciate your candour and brevity! 👍
Ecc 12:12 is right. But this is one that is worth the read. The “truth” is the bit I’m after- an eloquently written half-truth is halfway to a lie, however well written.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond 🙂
Hi Daniel.
I’d like to challenge your bias for a moment – but please take this in the spirit of a genuine discussion – I’m not just trying to be controversial. And – full disclosure – I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, so you may presume I am biased to worship “in spirit and in truth” to the best of my ability. 🙂
I’m sure that every translator professes a particular religion. Other respondents here have commented that a particular translation – because it was translated by a non-Christian – is less worthy of consideration. That, too, is bias. I’m fascinated that you chose to include a translation in your list which has omitted the entire “New Testament” from God’s word, yet you acknowledge a bias against a “Jehovah’s Witnesses” translation.
The best we non-language-scholars can do is seek translation that is as true to the source as possible. For those of us who do not know the original languages, we must consider the opinions of scholars. Many scholars and commentators. By the way, this is why I found myself reading your opinions too! By considering many such opinions we might see past any bias.
Any translator who genuinely intends to honour God’s Word, neither adding to it nor taking away from it in the process of translation, is of necessity biased to his/her human understanding of God’s Word. A serious scholar will pray for the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit while translating it and will endeavour to render it with integrity to God’s intent. Where translation is performed with humility and with love for God, Holy Spirit may guide the translator, just as is guided the original writers. And we pray that Holy Spirit guides us as we read the translations we have in our languages.
Here is one interesting point of bias – I would be interested to hear your view? The vast majority of English translations claim to follow a Jewish tradition (or else site some other reasoning) which prevents them from using God’s own name. Some use it just a few times (KJV has it in just 4 verses) whereas the original text includes it nearly 7,000 times. This is one matter of translation which cannot be explained as anything but bias, and I find it remarkable. In fact, inexcusable. There are some who debate whether the tetragrammaton should be transliterated into English as “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”. I see merit in both of those arguments, and though I personally say “Jehovah”, I find “Yahweh” perfectly acceptable. But to simply refuse to use God’s personal name at all has no merit nor precedent in God’s Word. Rather I find it entirely disrespectful. God’s own son Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” How can we possibly sanctify God’s name, as our saviour Jesus instructed, while at the same time refusing to use it?
Daniel, thanks for taking a few minutes to think about this. May God bless you and guide you in your ongoing study of His inspired Word.
FYI – for comparison with your translations above, here is John 3:16 as rendered by NWT 2013 revision:
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”
Thanks Patrick for thorough feedback!
And the issue of using the divine name in translations isn’t an issue I’ve given much thought. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. With only a cursory thought, I think I would agree with you.
Could you please enlighten me on what “NW” refers to? I have recently started researching different versions of translations.
It refers to the New World Translation. Again, it’s a translation made by (and mostly for) Jehovah’s Witnesses.
New World translation has a few serious issues with it, which is why I would go back and question the author BeDuhn.
The NW translation supports the JW belief that Jesus was not fully God, but was created by God.
John 1:1 translated to say “…and the word was a god” lower case g. One among several attempt to separate Jesus from being fully God.
I second this. Another example is John 8:58 when Jesus says that before Abraham was I am, the New World translation says “before Abraham was, I have been” which I consider another sign that Jesus is separated from from the Godhead as a somewhat lesser figure than God, since God used I am as his name when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush.
Hi Barni, if you’d like to read my epistle to Stephen, I might add that Jason D. BeDuhn has an excellent chapter devoted to an exploration of how John 8:58 can – and cannot – be translated within the rules of grammar and translation. Frankly, it’s very cool. As John 5:32 says “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 😉
Jesus was Michael the archangel. He was created by God, destroyed and then recreated in the tomb (according to JW.org). NWT is no more biased than translations who render “almah” as “virgin” or people who believe in a post-tribulation rapture. I don’t think there is a completely accurate, non-religious translation out there. The arguments on this page prove this. Everybody has an opinion and some people will even become angry about their opinions.
This poses a few problems. Was Michael a God? A lesser issue: is there not a Trinity? How do we interpret John 1:1? Do we worship Michael and/or other angels?
Hi Stephen, l don’t know if you’ll ever get to see this, but for what it’s worth, please take the time to beg, borrow or buy Jason David BeDuhn’s book ’Truth in translation.’ He does an excellent job of explaining what the Ancient Greeks actually meant when writing in Koine Greek. He then reconstructs it into modern English, even explaining where there is room for “elasticity” -for the want of a better term- where a translator can venture- and where he/she cannot. Mr BeDuhn specifically chooses to focus on a handful of verses that have great importance theologically speaking, John 1:1 being one of them. If you are like me, you’ll want to know the truth. Our lord Jesus Christ himself warned all those who’d listen, at Matthew 7:13, 21-23, that the vast majority of those who declared themselves as his followers would be totally rejected by Jesus himself… So, do like verse 14. A million monkeys will (italics!) be wrong! Just because the NWT differs from the vast majority of other translations, it just might not be wrong. Happy trekking!
I’d be interested to know what the explanation is that he provides. It still stands that Jehovah Witness fellowship separate Christ from divinity.
Hi ya Stephen, on “separating Christ from divinity” – as you understand it, when Jesus was born to Mary, what was he? Fully human, but sinless, perfect, as Adam was at his creation? Would you call Adam “divine” before he chose to sin? Or was he ‘just’ a perfect human? Was Jesus, whilst alive on Earth a demigod, half human, half… divine? Or a god, but encased in flesh? Or even God Almighty, yet encased in not-quite-so-almighty flesh?
I’m not trying to be provocative by asking you these questions, but rather for clarity. Thanks for your time, Fz
The Bible teaches Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Something that is beyond finite comprehension when you get past the surface level.
Hi Stephen.
Okay, l found 1 John 5:20 “ And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” American Standard Version
Or “ … the intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one.” Apparently the Ancient Greek can be translated as “mental perception”.
So on a level he has given us the ability of understand even the deep things of God – “But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” (1 Cor 2:10 ASV)
The prophet Ezekiel was called “son of man” roughly 90 times, perhaps to reinforce that despite being given divine revelations, he was only human. The gospels refer to Jesus, whilst on earth, roughly 80 times as “Son of man” too.
Paul tells us that, at 1 Corinthians 15:45, “ So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (ASV)
So, eye for eye, life for life, the principal of equality, balance – a perfect man’s life in exchange for a perfect man – Jesus perfect life for Adam’s. Thereby buying back for all mankind what Adam had thrown away for all mankind. Like for like…
So yes, Jesus was very much, as you put it, “fully human” when he was born as such to Mary, right through to his death. On his resurrection he was given a spiritual body, otherwise he would have retained the value, the ransom* of his sacrifice and we could not be saved. Also he couldn’t possibly go into heaven to be “on the right hand side of God” (Romans 8:34) in a body of flesh.
So yes, fully human. But, also fully God at the same time? Where do you find the scriptures to support that statement?
Yours, ever curious, Fritz 🤔
*Parkhurst’s Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament says “ransom” (Greek antilytron) means: “a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a corresponding ransom.”
We are told in John several other times that Jesus is God and preexisted creation. John 8:58, 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 10:30; The entire reason that he was killed was because he claimed to be God. The Old Testament also makes reference to Jesus beyond his earthly birth. He also accepted worship of men. John 20:28
Yep, Jesus most definitely had a pre-human existence in heaven. John 8:58, yes, he existed before Abraham, I’m with you there!
1 Cor 8:6 “…for us there is one God, the Father, out of whom comes everything and into whom come we; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom comes everything, and through him we.” (Byington)- “one God, the Father, out of whom everything […came], and one Lord, through whom [everything came]… so yes he existed before Genesis 1:1 in fact. Again, totally with you.
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.” Hmmm, yeah nah on this one Stephen. To quote you; “…when you get passed the surface level…” In John’s Gospel, the unity in fellowship, will, and purpose between the Father and the Son is often mentioned. The Greek word here rendered “one” is, not in the masculine gender (denoting “one person”), but in the neuter gender (denoting “one thing”), supporting the thought that Jesus and his Father are “one” in action and cooperation, not in person. (e.g, John 5:19 “So Jesus replied “Verily, verily I tell you, the Son cannot do anything from himself unless he sees the Father do a thing; for what he does, that the Son likewise does.” – Byington) That Jesus referred, not to an equality of godship, but to a oneness of purpose and action is confirmed by comparing the words recorded here (in 5:19) with his prayer recorded in John 17, e.g, verse 11 “and I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I am coming to you. “Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given to me, that they may be one just as we are.” [ italics mine ] And again verse 21 “that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you; that they too may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” – Byington
So, God the Father willing, “may we all be one” with him and his Son – but you and l would be daft if we thought that this “oneness” would mean we had equally with the him!
You said “The entire reason he was killed was because he claimed to be God” Umm, yeah nah on this one too mate.
(By the way, to lay some groundwork, if there is no definite article in Koine Greek, it means you cannot translate this phase in John 10:33 “make yourself God”. As in Big ‘G’, as in the God. It can only be translated god-like, divine or ‘a god’, one of a group.
Jesus went on to answer his accusers in verse 34 “Is it not set down in your law ‘I said, You are gods’?” He was quoting Psalms 82:6 “…Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High. (ASV) Or god-like ones. the Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) is used of men, human judges in Israel. They were “gods” in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for God. Similarly, Moses was told that he was to “serve as God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1 “And Jehovah said to Moses “See, I make you a god [literally “make you God (Elohim)”] to the Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. – Byington)
So I’m afraid that if Moses was Elohim, the demon/false god Dagon was also referred to by the Philistines as Elohim at 1Sam 5:7, a bunch of wilful disbelieving Pharisees calling out Jesus as blaspheming by making himself God’s son doesn’t make him “fully God” whilst “fully human” at the same time at all!
As for “he also accepted worship [from] men.” You really should beg, borrow or buy Jason David BeDuhn’s book Truth in Translation- chapter four entitled “Bowing to bias” lifts the lid on what the term ‘worship’ and the related word ‘obeisance’ means to us now, compared to 4 centuries earlier when King James “authorised” an English edition of the Bible. I will try to write it down for you if you’d like.
Finally, in conclusion: Jesus said that he will totally reject the vast majority of those who claim to be his followers. Most are on the road to destruction. Blaspheming God the Father is a biggie. Jesus said a whole lot of things – introducing the Trinity to monotheistic Jews of his day that worshiped their God, they knew as; “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah” (Deuteronomy 6:4 ASV) would be no simple thing. Only he didn’t. The “apostle to the nations”, Paul, a lawyer who deals with complex things in his many letters, would have had a much easier job explaining the trinity to pagans – as they already had heaps of them… but he didn’t either. He spent most of his time explaining that the first century Christians were not bound to the Mosaic law and didn’t need to get circumcised! Why didn’t he explain the idea behind the trinity? Why would he rabbit on about a pagan concept that was no part of ancient Jewish theology, nor fledgling Christianity?!
…if he’d written a letter 300 years later he probably would have- as that was when the apostasy of Christianity had really taken hold- just as Jesus foretold- the wheat and the weeds were indistinguishable by then…
We will have to disagree on how we extrapolate the effect of oneness’s meaning. It could very well speak to Jesus and God being aligned in their goals. But we cannot eliminate equality from an example where it does not exist.
It says in John 19:7 that the reason they handed him over to be killed was because he claimed to be the Son of God. But this argument falls apart for both of us if we recognize our interpretation of that title is different.
Another thing to consider, however not the the strongest argument, is Jesus claims the kingdom as his (John 18:36)
In regards to men worshipping him, Matthew 14:33 shows he accepted prostrate worship (prosekynensan) and the title Son of God without any correction or hesitation. Bowing in this case goes beyond respect. The same word is used throughout Revelation in reference to God. The lack of direct Trinitarian theology in Paul’s letters does not mean that it can be disregarded. In opposition to that we can see how Paul refers to Jesus in the exact same way the Old Testament refers to Yahweh.
This was a really great overview, with thoughtful and useful commentary added at each point. Thanks!
Wow! You guys! I just want to know GOD. In the end, my opinion has no relevance, but HIS WORD is altogether relevant. It is insightful to see what people are thinking, but, praise the LORD, I one day have to stand before HIM, and not before you guys, and you know what, HIS WORD is all that will stand. If you know HIM, praise GOD. If you don’t, however you want to translate it, oh my.
Thank you Stephen, as ever, for your gentle tone and reply, I do value it and appreciate it very much too.
Sorry – this is a bit of an epistle.
So, the resurrected, glorified Jesus Christ “God [having now] highly exalted him, and given him the name above every name…” (Phil 2:9 Byington) reigns for 1000 years and then he does this; 1 Corinthians 15:24- 28 “then the end, when he hands the empire (the kingdom, his kingdom) over to God the (sic) Father, ( ‘to the God and Father’ – τῷ (to the) θεῷ (God) καὶ (and) πατρί (Father)” Kingdom Interlinear) when he has superseded every government and every authority and power, 25 for he has to reign “until he has put all enemies under his feet.” Last of the enemies death is superseded. 27 For “he has subjected everything under his feet”; but, when it says “everything” is subjected, evidently exclusive of him who subjected everything to him. 28 But when everything has been subjected to him, then the Son himself too will be subjected to him who subjected everything to him, in order that God may be everything in everything.” (ASV)
So if he (the glorified Christ) were part of a Trinity, the above verses wouldn’t make a lot of sense. If he is equal, he wouldn’t be “made higher”, nor would he be made “subject” to his father, but we are obviously subject to him – the “subjected” word means the same thing when applied to us and the resurrected, glorified Jesus Christ. Again, the apostle Paul had another beautiful opportunity to clarify the relationship of Jesus (the only begotten Son) and Jehovah (the Father) as co- eternal, co- powerful etc… But he doesn’t, instead, he reinforces the language and cultural understanding of not only his time, but historically- both as a Jew to Jews and to his Greek audience.
Their cultures, both Jewish and Greek were deeply, deeply hierarchal. And everybody, everyone, knew their place within it. Everyone. If you said “father and son” to Hebrew shepherds, or to Greek philosophers, they knew that you weren’t describing two individuals that were co-eternal, co-powerful, in fact you were clearly implying- not even implying- categorically stating- the exact opposite!
If you used the illustration of “the triplets” or “the three brothers” to the shepherds and the philosophers, they’d start on the right foot towards grasping the trinity. But use the term “only begotten son”, “Father and son” or even “Son of man” screams, clearly, hierarchal strata, and who’s superior to whom. Simple and clear.
Now to what is implied by what Moses, Jesus, Peter, James, Paul and John DIDN’T write…
The principle contained in Revelation 22:18 & 19 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.”
And Galatians contains a similar principle in 1:7 & 8 “Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.” So Paul, John etc, had every reason to teach the Jews of his time, the people of the nations – and as late-comers, us! Only, again, they did not say “ah, well chaps, when l said “Father” and “Son” what l really meant was.., um, oh yes the holy spirit, did l mention it? Well it, well he is the third triplet.., um…,” Nope, he does not. Simple and clear.
The multiple things we’ve covered must surely have had some impact on you Stephen? Step back, metaphorically, and blur your eyes* and you cannot but see that millions of people are not on the “narrow and cramped road leading off to Life”. The trinity doctrine – a fundamental to virtually every “Christian” group – in it’s present form wasn’t even fully hammered out until 300+ years after Jesus last apostles had died and the great prophesied apostasy had taken full hold on the congregation- hellfire, immortality of the soul, “fornicating” with various political powers (often times those on opposite sides) and… the trinity. The ancient pagan world was already full of them. Virtually every culture alienated from Jehovah had them. Even when the ancient Israelites apostatised, they’d start worshiping the god Baal, one god – but with multiple personalities- sound familiar? There is “nothing new under the Sun”. Satan was, and still is, hell bent on the pollution of all that is pure – especially pure worship. It worked for him then and it works for him now.
So this cannot just be of academic interest, because our eternal lives are at stake. If you’re right, and Jehovah, Jesus and the holy spirit are to be worshiped as one as the trinity- l denigrate Jesus, diminish him – to the role of God’s only directly created son, Mediator, his sacred blood potentially buys me back from the abyss of eternal death, he is the second highest of all sentient beings,ever, in all of existence – and yet I still worship Jehovah, “the only true God” (John 17:3) and “to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matt 4:10, Deu 5:9) But if the trinity is a falsehood of Satan, we are simply NOT worshiping him with “those who worship must worship in spirit and truth”. Dangerous differences- the devil is in the detail.
Incidentally, Jesus said that (Joh 17:3) to Satan- who knew exactly who Jesus was, as he tempted him. Yet – James 1:13 says “ let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man.”(ASV) That is what Satan said, tempting the newly baptised Jesus to sin just once… “if you are [a] son of [the] God…?” (Again go back and look at the Greek, you can’t translate that any other way) So Almighty God, in fleshly form, was tempted by a fallen angel? If it wasn’t a temptation, why would Satan bother? On the other hand, if it was a true temptation, Satan could have de-railed God’s purpose right then and there.
When “ordinary, unlettered men”, fishermen recorded these things for us ordinary, unlettered men and women – Justin’s Jesus himself said (Mat 11:25) “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and revealed them to babes.”- the truth of the nature of the Father and his son (even THE ONLY son) is simple and clear. …Until a bunch self-appointed clerics and a pagan Emperor with political agendas did their dirty work. Well, Satan’s dirty work actually…
Sorry, I forgot to add the asterisk bit!
*l used to colour-match automotive paint as a Laboratory Technician as part of the duties of my first job. This was a technique of defocusing one’s eyes to see the overall tone of something, rather than fixing on a particular detail.
Fritz, it would be best if we don’t jump to accusations of heresy until we attempt to hear out the person we are talking to. Do you really believe it is fair to imply that I am adding to God’s word as described in Revelation/Galatians? I have made several references that show Christ as God that are in scripture. It would only be fair for us to hold you to the same standard if you are going to imply cultural examples as a reason to support a view.
The arguments used continue to extrapolate that there is more than one God in the doctrine of the Trinity. Thomas called Jesus “God” and no rebuttal was given. Why didn’t Jesus nor the author not make the time to correct the fallacy?
The argument using Matt 4:3 doesn’t make much since to me. Satan says, (Translated from Greek) “If Son you are of God…” Huios is capitalized also showing that Son of God is a title. Compare James 1:13 with Exodus 17:2 and many other verses where God asks Moses why he is tempting him. Tempting can also be worded as to solicit or put to the test. Which is exactly what happens to Christ.
The Spirit is mentioned through out the Bible. Did any author stop to clarify if it was or was not God or did they allow the reader to conclude the obvious? If the Spirit is miraculous and displays all the same abilities as what God (The Father) does then what is the Spirit? Was it also blessed by God or is it another way for God to make himself known? The same would apply to God (The Son).
I can see how this becomes a salvation type issue from your side. Because it becomes idolatry. I may be from my side as well because you are denying God.
Hi Stephen,
Heresy, ay? “Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.” As l have already said: if Jesus himself condemns the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians, then l guess one has to look reeeeeal hard at what we consider “orthodox doctrine” and where it came from (Mark 7:13) and if we are in line with the majority of “Christians” around us- that mightn’t be such a good thing after all… Better be called a heretic by the majority in light of this don’t you think?
I have reread this entire thread several times and I thought I’d go back to where this all started. “10 top Bible translations” – that’s what drew me to your (brother, nephew, cousin?)’s page and his opinion & research in the first place. He was thorough, but seemed to be only comparing translations with other translations, which is of course all we non-learned, non-scholarly types who don’t know Ancient Greek, really can do, isn’t it? So the odd one out, when comparing them, must be the least well translated, right? Nyet as it turns out. So, yes, the 10 top translation by virtue of sales does say something, but my mistake was to think Daniel was talking about accuracy. “My bad” as they say.
I have spent hours and hours over many days writing this out (for a dyslexic- that’s a big deal!), it’s effectively almost the whole chapter entitled “bowing to bias” from BeDuhn’s book. I said that I’d pass it on to you. It’s about the Greek word proskuneō – what it meant to the Ancient Greek speakers and how it was used by them in the Bible. How it’s translated in theologically “important” places vs supposedly “unimportant” places, and what this reveals regarding the accuracy and bias in the Bibles that you and I can, not only compare, but what we rely on to learn the truth of, say, the nature of Jehovah and Jesus.
If our (& our peers) beliefs are shaped by a fundamentally flawed translation, then we may be deceived into thinking that we’re on the “narrow road”, when in fact, it’s unsettlingly “broad and spacious”… our Creator forgives ignorance to a point, but if we wilfully disbelieve and choose to “make the word of God invalid by [our] tradition [of men] that [we have been handed]” we’re in a tight spot.
If we imagine that the Bible, when the original books were penned, was effectively “an authorised biography” of the Almighty Sovereign Lord Jehovah, and we, thousands of years later, read a translation of that authorised biography- but the first thing we notice is that whereas all the false god’s names are still clearly recorded, but the one commissioned and who is featured throughout the book has his name completely erased-!? One has to cast a suspicious eye on what else is going on. Couple this with Satan wanting to do anything to pollute pure worship, the 1611 KJV having spurious text added, earlier by a century or two – the trinity doctrine slowly getting hammered out by an already apostate church… earlier still Jesus and John warning of that all pervasive apostate being prophesied. All of this means we cannot simply compare translations with other translations…
Anyway here is what Jason David BeDuhn has to say about the Greek word “proskuneō”, at least I’ve copied most of it out your perusal. This chapter has more examples than what I have copied here, his book is worth every penny, it really is.
“We begin our exploration of accuracy and bias by looking at the most basic component of translation: the accurate definition of single words, or what we call lexical accuracy. A source of trouble in English translations of the New Testament occurs when translators become fixated on a very narrow, specialized significance of a word that actually has a much broader meaning in its original context of use in the Bible. In such cases, the accuracy of the translation is hampered by a bias toward a restricted, theological importance invested in a term. I will illustrate the problem with the example of the Greek verb proskuneō.” (he puts this word in italics, but as Daniel’s page doesn’t seem to support these, I’ll put them in these square brackets [ ] from here on.)
“Ancient Mediterranean societies tended to be very hierarchical. It was a world where everyone knew their place in relation to countless superiors and inferiors. Those who neglected or forgot this stratification of rank would be readily reminded by those around. In the highest place stood God or the gods. Below that in the Roman Empire ranked the emperor, followed by senators, governors, and a very complex system of local officials, priests, and landowners. The bottom was occupied by slaves who might be owned by the lowliest of peasant.
Social convention dictated gestures of deference and respect from inferior to superior at every point along this hierarchy. In the presence of someone of high rank, low bows or prostrations were expected. The Greek verb that expresses making such a protestation was [proskuneō]. In the modern world, the best example of a protestation can be seen in the prayers of Muslims. Dropping to your knees, your bend forward and lower your head to the ground.
In the time of Jesus, prostrations were quite common throughout the eastern Roman Empire, both in official circles and in the less formal daily dealings of people of widely different rank. The Greek verb [proskuneō] gradually expanded its meaning to include a wide variety of formal gestures of respect. It even came to be used to colloquially with the meaning “kiss“ or a welcoming embrace.
The verb [proskuneō] is used fifty-eight times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek word was “worship”. At that time, the English word “worship” had a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek word [proskuneō]. It could be used for the attitude of reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The word was also used as a form of address to people of high status, in the form “your worship”. So the King James translation committee made a pretty good choice.
But modern English is not King James English, and the range of meaning for the word “worship” has narrowed considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of God, so it no longer covers all of the uses of the Greek verb [proskuneō], or of the English word in the days of King James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of [proskuneō] in the various passages where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old English word “worship” without acknowledging its shift of meaning since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into thinking that every kiss, or prostration in the Bible is an act of worship directed to a god.
Let’s look at some concrete examples.” (Jason D. BeDuhn then gives the full text at Matthew 18:26 from the NAB (New American Bible )
and then pertinent phrases of eight other translations, namely, AB (The Amplified New Testament), LB (The Living Bible, NASB (The New American Standard Bible), NIV Holy Bible, New International Version), NRSV (New Revised Standard Version Bible), TEV (Good News Bible in Today’s English Version) and the NW (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures 1984)
( In essence, all these translations recognise say “…fell on his knees…”, “did obeisance to him…”, “prostrated himself before him..” – I’ll carry on with BeDuhn’s comments after these…)
“Here Jesus is telling a story in which a slave, in trouble with his owner, the king, begs for leniency with a gesture of subservience. Clearly Jesus himself could imagine situations in which a person would do such a thing, with no intention of suggesting that one was “worshiping” the person to whom one bowed. In his story-telling, Jesus accurately reflects the social conventions of the world around him. All the translations accurately convey the meaning of [proskuneō] here. The KJV’s “worship” had the same meaning in the time the translation was made.”
(BeDuhn then looks at Revelation 3:9, with essentially the same results; again all the various translations agree that) “…the “false Jews” of the “assembly of Satan” come and prostrate themselves at their feet. The gesture is one of subservience towards superiors, not an act of worship of the Christians, or their angel, as a god.”
(BeDuhn then looks at the Mark 15:18-19, with essentially the same results; again all the various translations agree that) “…the Roman soldiers who have Jesus in custody are mocking what understand to be his claim to be king of the Jews. In their mockery, they kneel down and prostrate themselves to the “king”. There is absolutely no reference here to religious veneration or worship of Jesus as a god. It is (mock) homage to a king.
Notice that in the above examples the a King James translators employed “worship” even though they fully recognised that the religious sense of that term did not apply. You can see in each of these cases that the modern translations understand the meaning of the verb [proskuneō] and leave behind the King James Version’s “worship” as inaccurate in a modern English context.
But in other passages, translations revert to the KJV’s “worship” inappropriately. They do so primarily because the gesture of prostration is directed to Jesus, and in that circumstance they translate differently, under pressure of theological bias. Here is an example.
(BeDuhn sites Matthew 2:1-2, 8, 11 here the NAB and the NW use “prostrated” and “did obeisance” respectively, NRSV: “paid him homage”, whilst all the others say “worshiped”. I’ll let him carry on…)
“The magi drop to their knees and prostrate themselves to the baby Jesus. They do so because he is the “king” their astrological observations had led them to. The majority of translations (NASB, NIV, TEV, AB, LB) lapse into language of “worship” that simply does not apply in this context. Rendering homage to a king is not the same as worshiping a god.
The Magi were priests of the Zoroastrian faith, which like Judaism is monotheistic. In this story, their astrological talents have revealed to them the birth of a new king. Herod and his advisors correctly discern that this new king — not one of Herod’s sons — must be the messiah. So Herod feigns willingness to go himself to render homage to the new king. In the Jewish tradition, the messiah is merely a chosen human being; there is no suggestion that he is a divine being. The whole episode works with royal images and privileges, and the language of “worship”has no place here.
We can take the passages in the Gospel according to Matthew where [proskuneō] is used, and see how “worship” works its way into modern translations. If the word is used to refer to the actions of a leper (Mat 8:2), a local Jewish authority (Mat 9:18), or women (Mat 15:25 and Mat 20:20) most translations stick with the literal meaning of kneeling, or bowing (only the AB and LB, along with the KJV, regularly employ “worship” in these passages). But when the disciples of Jesus are the actors, suddenly we see “worship” everywhere.
Matthew 14:33 NAB “Those who were in the boat did him homage, ‘Truly, you are the Son of God’.
NW …did obeisance to him…
(BeDuhn then lists the other translations, almost all the rest say “…worshiped him…” except the LB: “sat there, awestruck…”
Now on with his comments…)
Jesus has just performed the superhuman feat of walking on water. In awe of Jesus’ power, and in some fear of it, the disciples prostrate themselves in the boat. Within the cultural context of the events, the gesture makes perfect sense. In the ancient world, one bows to power. Most translations choose to import the modern meaning of “worship” into the passage, apparently because the recognition by the disciples that they are in the presence of “a son of God”. Yes, that’s what the Greek says: “a son of God”. This title was used of someone especially chosen and protected by God, and bestowed with power by him — especially a king. The idea was used with Solomon (2Sam 7:14) in the Old Testament, as well as Alexander and Augustus in the larger Greco-Roman world. By misreading the words used of Jesus by the disciples, by wrongly reading them in light of the Christian doctrine [ l have to interject for a moment here- this is actually another of example of false Christian “doctrine” – Mark 7:13 & Matthew 15:6, in a nutshell !] about Jesus’ divinity as “ the Son of God”, most translations add to the text the false idea that the disciples are depicted worshiping Jesus, when in fact, in this particular episode, they merely are reacting to his evident powers with awe.
(BeDuhn then uses another example and then continues…)
The prostrations made to Jesus fit within the cultural attitudes l discussed at the beginning of this chapter. They are gestures of respect made to a superior, in either the spiritual, social, or political sense. In every case, we are dealing with a physical gesture that was used more broadly than just the context of “worship”. You can see, however, that the nine translations we are comparing show varying degrees of inconsistency in how they translate [proskuneō]. Rendering a single Greek word into more than one English alternative is not [necessarily] (again in his italics) inaccurate in and of itself. Since Greek words such as [proskuneō] have a range of possible meanings, it is not practical to insist that a Greek word always be translated the same way. There are more or less valid contexts to consider in making a choice. But in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all the translations except for the NAB and NW. There are passages where many translators have interpreted [Italics] the gesture referred to by the Greek term [proskuneō] as implying “worship”. They then have substituted [again italics] that interpretation in place of a translation.
I am not going to enter into a debate over interpretation. It is always possible that the interpretation of the significance of the gesture [may be italics] correct. But the simple translation “prostrate”, or “do homage”, or “do obeisance” is certainly [italicised] correct. So the question is raised, why depart from a certain, accurate translation to a questionable, possibly inaccurate one?
The answer is that, when this occurs, the translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognised to be God. But the presence of such an idea cannot be supported by selectively translating a word one way when it refers to Jesus and another way when it refers to someone else. Since such “act of worship“ are made to others aside Jesus in the New Testament, and Jesus even tells a story in which such a gesture is made to an ordinary person, we can rule out the idea that “protestation“ means “worship“ in the modern sense of that English word. When we observe how the same translators choose “worship“ when the gesture is made to Jesus by certain persons, and choose other English words to translate the very same Greek term when the gesture is directed to someone other than Jesus, or is directed to Jesus by someone who they regard as not qualifying as a true believer, their inconsistency reveals that bias.
….The reformation fought for the access of all believers to the Bible and the right of the individual to directly encounter and interpret the text. Modern translators undermine that cause when they publish interpretations rather than translations, still trying to direct readers to the understanding acceptable to the beliefs and biases of the translators themselves.
Few Christians still incorporate prostrations into their worship of God, and the prostrations once due to kings and other high officials have been refined into graceful bows and curtsies. The world of the Bible was quite different, and if we forget that fact we are apt to misunderstand what is on the page in front of us.”
Phew! I hope you have the time & patience to have read all of this. I fear that it will fall on deaf ears because you seem wholly unmoved thus far… but then again “love… rejoices with the truth… and hopes all things”, ay?
Thanks for the reply. Textual criticism is a double edged sword. Languages are not consistent. And since Koine Greek is not a prominent language anymore your expectations for translations seems far fetched. Where there is ambiguity readers need to look at the entire narrative. But according to your point, as time progresses the statistical likelihood of scripture being untainted heads to zero. And human error will lead mankind to damnation. And then we rely on divine intervention at that point. Or maybe we should just lace all Bibles with extensive commentaries and footnotes to better guide the readers so they can interpret more accurately.
This loophole, if you will, of negating worship due to ambiguity of the original Greek word used is an deflects from the spirit of what is being written. No pun intended. When it comes down to it, this is purely interpretation by BeDuhn and could easily be argued the other way. In the same way you have said that Paul had opportunities to clarify that Jesus is not God, Jesus also has the opportunity to outright say that he is not God. It is just as likely that NAB and NW also have theological bias. How can you say one interpretation of proskuneo is right and one is wrong when it is not clearly defined in any of the examples used?
John 20:28 still refers to Jesus as God an is not refuted by Jesus.
Wow, well done! You sure read faster than I can write! 😉
I have to completely agree with you that from one standpoint as you put it, “as time progresses the statistical likelihood of Scripture being untainted heads to zero. And human error will lead mankind to damnation.“ But I feel that your next sentence applies slightly differently; “and then we rely on divine intervention at that point.“ For example when the King James Version was first produced in 1611 the main source material was Jerome‘s Latin Vulgate completed in the fourth century I believe. The committee had very few other sources at the time (fewer than 25 apparently). So they did the best they could. Today in comparison, we have literally thousands (5,358) – whole families of translations and copies of copies – some of which were made only decades or perhaps a century after the originals were written. By being able to compare these, keen scholars like Westcott and Hort produced an excellent work in the original Koine Greek. And in the early part of the 20th century, Eberhard and Erwin Nestle did the same. Their work now appears in the “Nestle-Aland” edition. Obviously, each time a new scrap of parchment is discovered, it is carefully critiqued and ultimately may add to a clearer understanding of what we already have. I believe you are correct that God’s holy spirit is clearly active today, or as Daniel 12:4 says “as for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the end of the time. Many will rove about and the true knowledge will become abundant”.
So despite centuries of Orthodox churches attempt to destroy any Bible in the local vernacular, even burning to death those who owned such a Bible. And many churches teaching that you shouldn’t own a Bible yourself – coupled with the mistranslation of bibles, both unintentionally and intentionally (!) Today, in the last days of this system, we can now trust the Koine Greek Scriptures we have before us. God has made sure of it.
With that in mind, and what you said earlier, about man’s damnation, we can find “accurate knowledge“ – truly accurate (I’d like to put italics here!) it is now up to us to “rove about“ and search for it. Whether we choose to do this or not, and what we do with what we find is what we are going to be judged on. Ignorance is not bliss!
We also have the collective learning of the last two to three centuries, and many great minds, to know pretty categorically, what was meant by the words those ancient men who penned the Bible meant.
I can’t personally vouch for BeDuhn, I haven’t had the chance to meet him yet, but I don’t think that what he has to say as an expert in ancient Greek could, as you put it “easily be argued the other way“, the whole reason he wrote this book, according to him, was that there were very few qualified scholars who ever joined in the fray with mere mortals like you and I. He had been on countless forums explaining ancient Greek to various parties and decided to put it down in the book, once and for all!
So there’s no way a loving Creator would leave us in the lurch in “the last days”, one way or another, both by the diligent search on the part of right-hearted men and also, no doubt, by means of his holy spirit, all of these fragments of parchments would help the right-hearted to find the truth that would ultimately “set them free.”
… The whole point of BeDuhn comparing those nine translations was to show “Accuracy and bias in English translations of the new Testament“ – so for sure, according to him, none of the nine translations comes off scot-free. Just that some show more blatant bias than others! And in theologically very important points too!
If there was one thing that Jesus did, it was to direct glory to his heavenly Father, I very much doubt that the faithless Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducces would have listened to Jesus illustration about the slave “worshipping“ the king and not say that Jesus’ illustration was not blasphemous! Worship could only be directed toward “the one and only true God Jehovah”. All nine translations clearly show that their translators knew exactly what Jesus meant; obeisance – not worship! Whether their bias is conscious or unconscious, ultimately, just like us, the Almighty Sovereign Lord will judge. (Hebrews 10:31!) So the examples of [proskuneō] DeBuhn uses are not ambiguous. Why would he use them? He would just be muddying the waters.
As for John 20:28, I genuinely don’t know… Facebook has tens of millions of teenagers saying “OMG!“ Many times a day. Are they referring to the person that they are speaking to as having equality with the Almighty himself? Probably not. Could that even be inferred by what they say? Probably not. In the case of those teenagers is “god“ even in their heads? Probably not.
Thomas was absolutely overawed at having the glorified, resurrected Jesus re-enact exactly what he, “doubting Thomas“, had said earlier…
I’m not saying this to belittle Thomas, nor denigrate the account, but we know that Jesus, just like the mediator of the law covenant Moses before him, was made “God“ ( Elohim – literally ‘gods’) to Pharaoh, and as I’ve said before, Jesus quoted scripture referring to unfaithful judges – human judges – as “gods“. So yes, as mediator and as a representative of the Most Holy Almighty Sovereign Lord Jehovah, Thomas was right. And in that context Jesus wouldn’t have reprimanded him. Not like he did to the man in the account recorded at Mark 10:17 and 18, 18 says “Jesus said to him; “why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God.“
And what did Jesus, John, Paul and others say that about the relationship between Jesus and his Father?
Quite a bit really…
John 14: 28 “…If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.”
John 8:28 “…and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things”
John 5:19 “Most truly I say to you, the son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that one does, these things the son does also in like manner.”
John 6:38 “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.“
John 7:16 “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.“
Jehovah‘s own voice, at Jesus baptism (Matthew 3:16, 17) “this is my son*, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
…And after he was resurrected (So now in his glorified spiritual body, about to ascend back to his father to sit “at the powerful right hand of God” (Luke 22:69) he said to Mary Magdalene at John 20: 17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.“
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6 “for us there is one God, the Father,… and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ“.
*I am still quite stunned that the obvious distinction and explicit hierarchy in the terms “father“ and “son“, both to the ancients (Hebrew, Greek and Roman) and to you and I, seems to have made so little impact on your reasoning Stephen. It’s not just a figure of speech, nor is the red herring, it’s just telling it how it is, plain and simple. Like Jesus teachings – sometimes really complex things, but stated simply so that we can understand, not the other way. Remember what I said earlier; Jesus was delighted that his Father had revealed accurate knowledge – not to the really smart guys and intellectuals, who were puffed up and arrogant with their knowledge – for in fact he had hidden it from them – but rather Jehovah had revealed this knowledge to young children.” (Matthew 11:25)
Why is the KJV a less than ideal text? Because scholars who have a vested interest in the perpetuation of an industry say so? Or are there good reasons, certainly none from the actual texts as we have them, indeed ‘begotten god’ makes John an idiot when he declares at the same time none have seen him. Unique not only begotten, of course sir scholar and that’s just how the ‘fathers’ read it. There might be an argument with God manifest but not because of corruption, how ironic that the Douay has it best. Although I go with the Knox translation based on the Vulgate ‘No question of it, it is a great mystery we worship. Revelation made in human nature, justification won in the realm of the Spirit; a vision seen by angels, a mystery preached to the Gentiles; Christ in this world, accepted by faith, Christ, on high, taken up into glory’. This is because it makes sense and despite all those voices that would denounce reason, reason is the God given tool by which we are to understand God’s revelation, thus even the Trinity although unbiblical is rendered sensible when approached through its Greek philosophic foundation, but still not grounded in holy scripture, merely made necessary my mad Augustine’s extremism and desire for baby washing.
Let’s be honest from the Douay down they’re all biased towards inculcating as true certain ‘core’ doctrines. so word in John 1 becomes a he, when it should be it, as it was until the Douay. Even the LSV – which I rather like – does so, how I wish someone without a religious axe with which to slaughter truth would translate the bible but until then we just have to constantly consult the Greek (they don’t tend to lie so much with the OT, as its mostly to pretend the Trinity is – by necessary inference – clearly a biblical doctrine) to see how the sleight of hand goes. Pros as with instead of pertaining to in John 1 ‘at the start was the expressed purpose, and the expressed purpose concerned God and God was the expressed purpose’; ‘the expressed purpose was flesh and tented with us’. It’s funny how ginomai is was when speaking of John, but became when speaking of Jesus.
The ESV adds the word Christ in Hebrews with the dishonest intention of suggesting pre-existence, that the Christ as ‘the eternal Son of God’, theorists do love speaking nonsense, came into a prepared body, but of course read that way how does the text then support Docetism, as my local Baptist Church billboard has as a poster Jesus APPEARED AS A MAN to take away the sins of the world (emphasis added) now the bloke who runs it has that English polite pleasantness reminiscent of the Raj, a complacent superiority which brooks no questioning of its right to rule, the nearest equivalent is America’s belief they’re the Good Guys as they perpetuate conflicts. I’m digressing peace.