I want to briefly look at several Bible versions that are out there. We will analyze their accuracy and motivations for their creation. This will not be an excessive list, but will look at some of the more popular versions.
King James Versions
There had been English versions before the KJV but they were not readily accessible. The Geneva Bible, for example, was bolted to a church, and could not be removed. King James objected to the fact that people would write notes on the margins, These notes were usually critical of his administration. King James commissioned a group of scholars to put together a new translation. These men had very diverse backgrounds. Some of them were men of questionable morals. But there were also learned men who loved the Bible. While King James had a questionable character himself, he had almost noting to do with the translation. The King James Bible we have is not the 1611, but the third rewrite. The king James Bible is the standard Bible for many years. It is very poetic and easy to memorize. Some object to the archaic words it uses. It used the majority text and did not have access to some of the later finds, like the Dead Sea scrolls or the NA27. For that reason, many believe it is inferior. KJV proponents would say that the newer texts are inferior. The KJV believe that the majority text is better than the oldest. Those who believe in the KJB believe that God has preserved his word. Some of the proponents of the newer translations believe that man must judge the worth of a text. They sometimes listen to non Christian scholars or non orthodox scholars who may dismiss miracles, for instance. I believe KJV is the best English text.
New King James
The New King James uses the same text information as the King James. It take out most of the thees and thous. It does not quite have the same poetic nature of the KJV. It can be bland at times. It has never really taken off. The Evangelicals view it as being boring, kind of like New Coke. The KJV only believe that it is unnecessary. The believe you can't improve on perfection. Several of the translator were known for being anti-Semitic. Some of their words were quoted by Nazis to justify their persecution of the Jews.
New International Version
The most popular version of the evangelical world, the NIV does not translate word for word, but uses dynamic equivalence. SOme versions are totally different from the NASB and KJV. The NIV i printed exclusively by Zondervan. The word of God should not be controlled by one business. The fact that it is called the New International Version implies globalism. This could very well be the global bible used by the false prophet of the apostate system of the tribulation. The Today's NIV has just been scrapped. That version used inclusive language. A new edition of the NIV is forth coming.
The New American Standard Version
The NASB came out a few years before the NIV. It ever really took off. It is too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. It is referred by conservative evangelicals but is seen as sub-par. Many have abandoned it for the English Standard Version. An Update, called the NASB Update, came out in the late 1990's. It was very close to being dynamic equivalent but still considered word for word.
Revised Standard Version
The RSV is the standard version used in liturgical and liberal churches. It is known for it's inclusive language. The textual information it uses is very good. I do not recommend it for new believers but more seasoned believers can read between the lines and find it valuable. A New Revised Standard Version has been translated. Some things have been improved in this version and others have turned for the worst.
English Standard Version
The translators, many of whom were from the reformed tradition, wanted to improve the NASB and establish a conservative text friendly to the reformed viewpoint. The ESV is a conservative rewrite of the RSV. It has become very popular with more conservative evangelicals. It is recommended by Mark Driskoll, John Piper, J. I Packer and Joni Erickson Tada.
The New Living
The Living Bible was written by a conservative and was not meant to be a version but a paraphrase. There were several objectionable sections. Because the standards fro translations was dumbed down, it was able to be classified as a version. The New Living translation has been made into a full fledged version. It is marketed to a more conservative audience.
Contemporary English Version
This is a paraphrase. It is very dumbed down. In 1 Timothy, it does not separate bishop and deacons. It refers as bishops as church officers and deacons as church officials. It is very over simplified. I would not recommend it be used for devotions.
The Message
The Message was written by Eugene Petersen. The Message does have beautiful language. Petersen puts his own thoughts into the work. If you compare it to other versions, you may pause and say, "Wait a minute." It was not meant to be a full fledged version but many use it as such.
I would recommend the KJV, NASB or ESV. I still prefer the King James, but the ESV is very good. I have preached from the NIV and somewhat recommend it. I would view the Message as a paraphrase and not an actual Bible. For more information, read How To Choose A Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas.
What Standards of Music Should Christians Use
Music is a very touchy subject for Christians. Should Christians only listen to Christian music? If you say yes, then you're faced with another question. Should that music only be hymns, or can Christians listen to Christian rock? If you believe that you can listen to some secular music, what should be the standards for music? If we believe that there are standards for music, what should those standards be? As Christians our source of authority must always be the Bible. I suggest Philippians 4:8 for a start. Many have called it the litmus test for Christians.
Whatsoever things are true.
The Bible teaches that whatsoever a many thinks in his hear, so is he. The world is constantly trying to reshape our thoughts. They want us to think like they do. We must not be conformed to the world but transformed, Romans 12:1/ When we listen to music, we need to ask this question. Is our mind being manipulated to thinking contrary to the word of God? Is this song dragging our mind into the lives of the world. For example, is our mind being retaught that it is okay to be rebellious? If the answer is yes, then we should not listen to this song.
Whatsoever things are honest (noble)
Dr. MacArthur points out that noble means worthy or respect in the Greek. Christians should listen to music that is worthy of our listenorship. You want to listen to things that you would not be embarrassed if your mother or a church lady walked in. We want to listen to things we would not be ashamed if others knew we were listening to it.
Whatsoever things are just
Dr MacArthur points out that this is thinking that is in line with God's holiness. Songs that go against God's standard of holiness should be discarded. Even if a song does not advocate criminal activity, if it violates God's standards it should not be listened to.
Whatsoever things are pure
Our society is pushing the envelope as much as it can. Music that has sexually explicit lyrics should be avoided. Attention must also be paid to the artists' lives themselves. Is their life a blatant attack on God's word. If an artist is know for their impurities, even if their lyrics are not bad, one should think long and hard before listening to them.
Whatsoever things are lovely
Dr MacArthur says that we should dwell on things that draw us to kindness and righteousness. Music should not inspire us to bad behaviour.
What soever things are of good report
Doe the song have a bad reputation? Does the song inspire hatred? Some music are so against what is good that even the world recognizes it as bad. They may condone the song, but they still know that it is nasty. The world may celebrate a song because it is so bad. Christians should not listen to these songs.
If there be any virtue
Is there is a good reason to listen to this song according to God's word? Will it benefit my spiritual life or will it hamper my spiritual life?
If there be any praise
Can this song be praised by God's people? Can it be praised by worthy people? Now many Christians say, stick to Christian music. I disagree with that statement. Just because it has a Christian music does not guarantee that it's godly. I believe this is lazy. Instead of limiting ourselves to just Christian music, I want to Christians to think critically of all music.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Whatsoever things are true.
The Bible teaches that whatsoever a many thinks in his hear, so is he. The world is constantly trying to reshape our thoughts. They want us to think like they do. We must not be conformed to the world but transformed, Romans 12:1/ When we listen to music, we need to ask this question. Is our mind being manipulated to thinking contrary to the word of God? Is this song dragging our mind into the lives of the world. For example, is our mind being retaught that it is okay to be rebellious? If the answer is yes, then we should not listen to this song.
Whatsoever things are honest (noble)
Dr. MacArthur points out that noble means worthy or respect in the Greek. Christians should listen to music that is worthy of our listenorship. You want to listen to things that you would not be embarrassed if your mother or a church lady walked in. We want to listen to things we would not be ashamed if others knew we were listening to it.
Whatsoever things are just
Dr MacArthur points out that this is thinking that is in line with God's holiness. Songs that go against God's standard of holiness should be discarded. Even if a song does not advocate criminal activity, if it violates God's standards it should not be listened to.
Whatsoever things are pure
Our society is pushing the envelope as much as it can. Music that has sexually explicit lyrics should be avoided. Attention must also be paid to the artists' lives themselves. Is their life a blatant attack on God's word. If an artist is know for their impurities, even if their lyrics are not bad, one should think long and hard before listening to them.
Whatsoever things are lovely
Dr MacArthur says that we should dwell on things that draw us to kindness and righteousness. Music should not inspire us to bad behaviour.
What soever things are of good report
Doe the song have a bad reputation? Does the song inspire hatred? Some music are so against what is good that even the world recognizes it as bad. They may condone the song, but they still know that it is nasty. The world may celebrate a song because it is so bad. Christians should not listen to these songs.
If there be any virtue
Is there is a good reason to listen to this song according to God's word? Will it benefit my spiritual life or will it hamper my spiritual life?
If there be any praise
Can this song be praised by God's people? Can it be praised by worthy people? Now many Christians say, stick to Christian music. I disagree with that statement. Just because it has a Christian music does not guarantee that it's godly. I believe this is lazy. Instead of limiting ourselves to just Christian music, I want to Christians to think critically of all music.
Were the Good Old Days Really That Good
Mankind is obsessed with the good old days. The Beatles sung the song "Yesterday" about how they longed for yesterday. Bob Seiger sang these famous lyrics, "Still like that old time rock'n'roll, that kind of music just soothes the soul, reminiscing about the days of old, still like that old time rock'n'roll." This has even come into the church. The people's Gospel Hour theme song says, "Oh how well I remember in the old fashioned days when some old fashioned people had some old fashioned ways, in those old fashioned meetings how we tarried there, in the old fashioned manner how God answered their prayer." There is an attitude of "If we could only go back." We long for the days in the state of Maine when there was no shopping on Sunday. We commiserate how Psalm 23 is not longer read in schools. We hate that they've banned prayer in schools. We act as if it was so much better in the past. Was the good old days really that good?
Many say that they were. There was no shopping, but did people attend church instead of shopping. Lets say more did attend church. What kind of churches did they attend? Were they bible based or liberal churches? If the gospel was taught, was it believed? Did they attend out of love for Christ, or was it a town duty? When Psalm 23 was read in the school, was it read by a believer? Was it read liturgically or passionately. Were the hearers paying attention. Did it affect them? What were the classes like? Did the classes they attended go against the Bible reading. What was the prayer in school like? Was the person praying saved? Ever since the scopes monkey trial, evolution has been taught. From the 1920s on, what would have been prayed and read in the Bible reading would have been contradicted in the classes. Even if things were good in the past, things don't happen in a vacuum. Much of the reaction of the hippies was the result of insincere behaviours of the previous generation. Many long for the 1800s were it was seen as a more Christian culture. The fact is that the 1800s was marked by an external Christianity. They wanted people to not swear, drink, and smoke pipes. It was not a heart change. They wanted people to be primed and proper. It was interconnected with politics.
If you've read my blog postings before, you will notice that I am skeptical of America's "Christian heritage." I believe we are a church going nation, not a Christian nation. From the very beginning, faith and politics was intermingled. The founding fathers use Christianeze to get support from the common people who are church goers. We have come to see history as we want to see it. We have bought the propaganda that Americans was Christian. We believe God used to be honored. They believe now we have rejected God. We rejected him a long time ago. We pretend that we were right with God. I know there were precious saints in America's past, but they were not as pious as we thought.
We need to stop wanting what never was. Even if life was better in those good old days, it is not good to look back. We need to press on. Philippians 3:13b-14 says "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on towards the goal to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." We need to stop wishing for the past and work toward being closer to the Lord now.
Many say that they were. There was no shopping, but did people attend church instead of shopping. Lets say more did attend church. What kind of churches did they attend? Were they bible based or liberal churches? If the gospel was taught, was it believed? Did they attend out of love for Christ, or was it a town duty? When Psalm 23 was read in the school, was it read by a believer? Was it read liturgically or passionately. Were the hearers paying attention. Did it affect them? What were the classes like? Did the classes they attended go against the Bible reading. What was the prayer in school like? Was the person praying saved? Ever since the scopes monkey trial, evolution has been taught. From the 1920s on, what would have been prayed and read in the Bible reading would have been contradicted in the classes. Even if things were good in the past, things don't happen in a vacuum. Much of the reaction of the hippies was the result of insincere behaviours of the previous generation. Many long for the 1800s were it was seen as a more Christian culture. The fact is that the 1800s was marked by an external Christianity. They wanted people to not swear, drink, and smoke pipes. It was not a heart change. They wanted people to be primed and proper. It was interconnected with politics.
If you've read my blog postings before, you will notice that I am skeptical of America's "Christian heritage." I believe we are a church going nation, not a Christian nation. From the very beginning, faith and politics was intermingled. The founding fathers use Christianeze to get support from the common people who are church goers. We have come to see history as we want to see it. We have bought the propaganda that Americans was Christian. We believe God used to be honored. They believe now we have rejected God. We rejected him a long time ago. We pretend that we were right with God. I know there were precious saints in America's past, but they were not as pious as we thought.
We need to stop wanting what never was. Even if life was better in those good old days, it is not good to look back. We need to press on. Philippians 3:13b-14 says "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on towards the goal to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." We need to stop wishing for the past and work toward being closer to the Lord now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
