The Light of the World, The Light of the Life, The Logos of the Deity
The Logos
Jesus Christ is the Logos of the Deity in human form. This Logos, spoken to us by the Messiah, gives us an introduction to the Logic of the Father Deity: His Rationale, His Reasoning, the Way He Thinks: His Logic. It soon becomes apparent that the Logic of the Deity is completely opposite to Human Logic. As we become doers of this Divine Rationale, we prove its efficacy and everything begins to change for us: our thinking, our attitudes, our actions and ultimately our abilities.
Bible Translations
These days there are just so many translations available, that it is difficult for readers to make a good choice unless they have someone who is able to advise them. Even some of the better translations are now difficult to find in book stores. One of the best comments on the various translations available is given us in an article called, The Best Bible Translation by Gary Amirault. Gary writes:
“I just want to lightly touch upon an important subject regarding Bible translations. There are several different methods for translating the Hebrew and Greek into common modern languages. Various scholars use different terms to describe these methods. I’ll use John A. Kohler III’s terminology:
1. Concordant method - This is the woodenly literal, phrase-for-word method. It is based upon the idea that each Hebrew or Greek word should be translated consistently into an equivalent English word/phrase. It also attempts to follow the grammatical structure of the original language texts. Examples of translations produced by this method are Young’s Literal Version and Rotherham’s Emphasized New Testament. [Another excellent version is the Concordant Publishing Concern text — author’s comment]
2. Mildly Concordant Method - This is the literal, phrase-for-word method. It is not as extreme as the Concordant Method, but it tends toward a choppy style of translation that does not flow smoothly in the English. Also, it translates Hebrew and Greek idioms very accurately, but they do not always make good sense in English. Furthermore, it makes excessive use of conjunctions at the beginning of sentences, which makes for very poor English. … Examples of translations produced by this method are the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Version.
3. Static Equivalence Method - This is the word-for-word/idea-for-idea method. It attempts to follow the original Hebrew and Greek text word-for-word as long as this results in good idiomatic English that accurately conveys the intention of the Biblical writer. It does not always attempt to follow the grammatical structure of the original language texts and is concerned about the readability of the English text. Examples of translations produced by this method are the King James Version and, to a lesser degree, the New King James Version and the Revised Standard Version.
4. Dynamic Equivalence Method - This is the idea-for-idea method. It is not concerned with literal, word-for-word translation in most cases and often paraphrases God’s Word. It does not seek to translate the actual words of Scripture as much as it attempts to employ idiomatic equivalence. Examples of translations produced by this method are the New International Version, New English Bible, and Today’s English Version.
5. Free Paraphrase Method - This is the extreme idea-for-idea method. It simply attempts to restate the “gist” of the Biblical text in the translator’s own words. It is not at all concerned about word-for-word translation of the Biblical text, but seeks to express Biblical content in popular, readable, contemporary language. The leading example of a translation produced by this method, though there are many others, is Kenneth Taylor’s The Living Bible. (Peterson’s The Message is another example.) ”
While these words of Gary Amirault are helpful, comment needs to be made on those people who think the KJV is the only inerrant Bible. These "K.J. only" adherents believe that they have the original 1611 KJV bible and that it was inspired by God. However, they are unaware of several issues which make a nonsense of this claim:
1. that the KJV is itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568.
2. that the KJV translators were limited in the manuscripts available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls had not at the time been discovered and certain ancient Greek manuscripts had not yet been uncovered or released, For example, the Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century AD at the great Vatican Library in Rome was not made available until a photographic facsimile was published in 1889-90.
3. that since 1611, the KJV was revised in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1850 and 1885. The revisions included changes in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words. More than 400 errors in the first edition of the K.J.V. were corrected in a subsequent edition only two years later. There came to be well over 75,000 word changes.
4. that the original 1611 King James Bible contained many marginal readings which revealed the translators lack of understanding of certain words. These marginal references were commented on in the “Translators to the Reader” Preface found in the original KJV which has now been removed from existing renditions.
5. that the original KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha.
Quite apart from these significant issues, these KJV only adherents are also blithely unaware of the translation errors that this (and other versions) contain. To the rational mind it is quite apparent that no translation is infallible as they are all the works of men. There are no accurate translations. Period. Some, however, are better than others. Beside, if the “K.J. only” people believe it is the only Bible, what did the people follow for the 1500 years before the KJV was first written?
Below this text I have added a graphic which summarises the various translations on a scale of very literal to least literal. By literal I mean it sticks close to the original Greek.
It is the view of this writer that the American Standard version (ASV) is the best translation still available, though it is now difficult to find. It is the ONLY version of the Bible which renders the name of God as Jehovah in the Old Testament. However, its downside is, it still uses the old English, thee, thou, didst etc. The later revision of this is called the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and, while a more readable version, it changes God’s name from Jehovah to LORD and often changes the ASV rendering of a passage to a less literal and sometimes inaccurate rendition. The NASB is most literal in its 1977 version. In my opinion, the more literal the better, but it is sometimes more difficult to read.
Many people like a translation which they can read like they read a novel. But scripture is not a novel! It needs to be read slowly, thoughtfully, contemplatively. To this end, a translation which is a bit awkward to read is often a better translation since it slows down our reading and makes us stop and think about what we are actually reading. It gives us time to ask such questions as: why did God write it like that?
In essence, translation should be the process of putting in English what is actually in the Greek (in the case of the NT). As I studied, I began to discover that NT translators, without any hint to the reader, leave out of the English, words present in the Greek; add words to the English not present in the Greek; translate the same Greek word by numerously different and oftentimes unrelated English words; apply the same English word to several different Greek words; and, for no apparent reason, interfere with verb tense and voice. Instances of these will be discussed under the submenu, NT Translation Problems.
I am not the only one who sees these errors. Dr Robert Young in the Preface to his revised version (1898) of YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION has this to say:
If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
A strictly literal rendering may not be so pleasant to the ear as one where the apparent sense is chiefly aimed at, yet it is not euphony but truth that ought to be sought, and where in such a version as the one commonly in use in this country, there are scarcely two consecutive verses where there is not some departure from the original such as those indicated, and where these variations may be counted by tens of thousands, as admitted on all hands, it is difficult to see how verbal inspiration can be of the least practical use to those who depend upon that version alone.
Modern scholarship is beginning to be alive to the inconsistency of thus gratuitously obscuring, and really changing, the meaning, of the sacred writers by subjective notions of what they ought to have written, rather than what they did write, for if we admit that in a single case it can be lawful to render a past tense by a present, where shall we end? who is to be judge? if we do so in one passage, to bring out what may appear to us might, could, would, or should, be the Scriptural meaning, we cannot deny the same privilege to others who may twist other passages in like manner. The alteration of an a for a the may appear a small matter not worth speaking of, but an attentive comparison of the following Translation with the common one will discover numerous passages where the entire force of the verse depends upon the insertion or non-insertion of the article.
These issues disturbed me terribly, (these days we can prove mathematically that the text was verbally inspired — see proof elsewhere on this site), and lead me to begin correcting these instances, but as time went on I began to realise the enormity of this task and so I started my own translation. It is now complete but there are some difficulties due mainly to the meaning of compound words. I have published the text on this site for everyone to judge as to its accuracy and to make comment where correction is due.
“I just want to lightly touch upon an important subject regarding Bible translations. There are several different methods for translating the Hebrew and Greek into common modern languages. Various scholars use different terms to describe these methods. I’ll use John A. Kohler III’s terminology:
1. Concordant method - This is the woodenly literal, phrase-for-word method. It is based upon the idea that each Hebrew or Greek word should be translated consistently into an equivalent English word/phrase. It also attempts to follow the grammatical structure of the original language texts. Examples of translations produced by this method are Young’s Literal Version and Rotherham’s Emphasized New Testament. [Another excellent version is the Concordant Publishing Concern text — author’s comment]
2. Mildly Concordant Method - This is the literal, phrase-for-word method. It is not as extreme as the Concordant Method, but it tends toward a choppy style of translation that does not flow smoothly in the English. Also, it translates Hebrew and Greek idioms very accurately, but they do not always make good sense in English. Furthermore, it makes excessive use of conjunctions at the beginning of sentences, which makes for very poor English. … Examples of translations produced by this method are the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Version.
3. Static Equivalence Method - This is the word-for-word/idea-for-idea method. It attempts to follow the original Hebrew and Greek text word-for-word as long as this results in good idiomatic English that accurately conveys the intention of the Biblical writer. It does not always attempt to follow the grammatical structure of the original language texts and is concerned about the readability of the English text. Examples of translations produced by this method are the King James Version and, to a lesser degree, the New King James Version and the Revised Standard Version.
4. Dynamic Equivalence Method - This is the idea-for-idea method. It is not concerned with literal, word-for-word translation in most cases and often paraphrases God’s Word. It does not seek to translate the actual words of Scripture as much as it attempts to employ idiomatic equivalence. Examples of translations produced by this method are the New International Version, New English Bible, and Today’s English Version.
5. Free Paraphrase Method - This is the extreme idea-for-idea method. It simply attempts to restate the “gist” of the Biblical text in the translator’s own words. It is not at all concerned about word-for-word translation of the Biblical text, but seeks to express Biblical content in popular, readable, contemporary language. The leading example of a translation produced by this method, though there are many others, is Kenneth Taylor’s The Living Bible. (Peterson’s The Message is another example.) ”
While these words of Gary Amirault are helpful, comment needs to be made on those people who think the KJV is the only inerrant Bible. These "K.J. only" adherents believe that they have the original 1611 KJV bible and that it was inspired by God. However, they are unaware of several issues which make a nonsense of this claim:
1. that the KJV is itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568.
2. that the KJV translators were limited in the manuscripts available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls had not at the time been discovered and certain ancient Greek manuscripts had not yet been uncovered or released, For example, the Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century AD at the great Vatican Library in Rome was not made available until a photographic facsimile was published in 1889-90.
3. that since 1611, the KJV was revised in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1850 and 1885. The revisions included changes in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words. More than 400 errors in the first edition of the K.J.V. were corrected in a subsequent edition only two years later. There came to be well over 75,000 word changes.
4. that the original 1611 King James Bible contained many marginal readings which revealed the translators lack of understanding of certain words. These marginal references were commented on in the “Translators to the Reader” Preface found in the original KJV which has now been removed from existing renditions.
5. that the original KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha.
Quite apart from these significant issues, these KJV only adherents are also blithely unaware of the translation errors that this (and other versions) contain. To the rational mind it is quite apparent that no translation is infallible as they are all the works of men. There are no accurate translations. Period. Some, however, are better than others. Beside, if the “K.J. only” people believe it is the only Bible, what did the people follow for the 1500 years before the KJV was first written?
Below this text I have added a graphic which summarises the various translations on a scale of very literal to least literal. By literal I mean it sticks close to the original Greek.
It is the view of this writer that the American Standard version (ASV) is the best translation still available, though it is now difficult to find. It is the ONLY version of the Bible which renders the name of God as Jehovah in the Old Testament. However, its downside is, it still uses the old English, thee, thou, didst etc. The later revision of this is called the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and, while a more readable version, it changes God’s name from Jehovah to LORD and often changes the ASV rendering of a passage to a less literal and sometimes inaccurate rendition. The NASB is most literal in its 1977 version. In my opinion, the more literal the better, but it is sometimes more difficult to read.
Many people like a translation which they can read like they read a novel. But scripture is not a novel! It needs to be read slowly, thoughtfully, contemplatively. To this end, a translation which is a bit awkward to read is often a better translation since it slows down our reading and makes us stop and think about what we are actually reading. It gives us time to ask such questions as: why did God write it like that?
In essence, translation should be the process of putting in English what is actually in the Greek (in the case of the NT). As I studied, I began to discover that NT translators, without any hint to the reader, leave out of the English, words present in the Greek; add words to the English not present in the Greek; translate the same Greek word by numerously different and oftentimes unrelated English words; apply the same English word to several different Greek words; and, for no apparent reason, interfere with verb tense and voice. Instances of these will be discussed under the submenu, NT Translation Problems.
I am not the only one who sees these errors. Dr Robert Young in the Preface to his revised version (1898) of YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION has this to say:
If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
A strictly literal rendering may not be so pleasant to the ear as one where the apparent sense is chiefly aimed at, yet it is not euphony but truth that ought to be sought, and where in such a version as the one commonly in use in this country, there are scarcely two consecutive verses where there is not some departure from the original such as those indicated, and where these variations may be counted by tens of thousands, as admitted on all hands, it is difficult to see how verbal inspiration can be of the least practical use to those who depend upon that version alone.
Modern scholarship is beginning to be alive to the inconsistency of thus gratuitously obscuring, and really changing, the meaning, of the sacred writers by subjective notions of what they ought to have written, rather than what they did write, for if we admit that in a single case it can be lawful to render a past tense by a present, where shall we end? who is to be judge? if we do so in one passage, to bring out what may appear to us might, could, would, or should, be the Scriptural meaning, we cannot deny the same privilege to others who may twist other passages in like manner. The alteration of an a for a the may appear a small matter not worth speaking of, but an attentive comparison of the following Translation with the common one will discover numerous passages where the entire force of the verse depends upon the insertion or non-insertion of the article.
These issues disturbed me terribly, (these days we can prove mathematically that the text was verbally inspired — see proof elsewhere on this site), and lead me to begin correcting these instances, but as time went on I began to realise the enormity of this task and so I started my own translation. It is now complete but there are some difficulties due mainly to the meaning of compound words. I have published the text on this site for everyone to judge as to its accuracy and to make comment where correction is due.
Wisdom is a tree of Life to all who take hold of her; and blessed are they that hold her fast.
(Proverbs 3:18)