Do Translations Matter?

Some cults (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons) and conservative circles prefer the Authorized or King James Version, as you may well know. This was the favorite translation of evangelicals for decades before the NIV replaced it in 1978. Still today many conservative circles swear by the KJV. I've heard it said that the KJV is the "original" and that all other translations are corruptions (actually Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into medieval English, not modern English though). I think this is a "Bible-club mentality" or exclusive spirit (which is what a cult has) and can lead to a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures.

First of all, the original translation into English was by John Wycliffe (not counting King Alfred translating some Psalms into old English or Anglo-Saxon), but those were before the printing press. Also, Tyndale (who prayed to God to open the eyes of the king of England--King Henry VIII) is considered the Father of the English version, and Coverdale finished his work. The Geneva Bible (the first one in regular type and verses) was the most popular one of the 16th century and England was not happy that the Bishop's Bible was not as popular so they commissioned a new translation. The 54 scholars who translated the Authorized Version relied upon this former work heavily. Tyndale was a student of Luther's and relied upon Luther for his translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it is not the translation per se that is infallible and inerrant, but the original autograph--and these are not extant today. If you really want to be accurate in your study, you really should not just go to the KJV or any other version, but to the original Koine (common Greek), Aramaic, or Hebrew text! (Exegesis involves a working knowledge of the original tongues.) Modern translations rely on more accurate and better manuscripts than the translators of the Authorized Version had.

I think that one should read a translation that he feels comfortable with and "graduate" to more sophisticated or scholarly Bibles as he matures. I don't think one should base his doctrine upon a certain translation and I don't think any major doctrine depends upon any certain translation--God protects His Word, and that means you can get saved reading the Roman Catholic Bible or a Jehovah's Witness can be shown wrong from his own version (New World Translation). The "Englishisms" in the KJV is hard to understand by beginning Bible students, and some words are archaic and have changed meaning since the Elizabethan English days of 1611. The New King James Version stays loyal to the KJV and just removes the "Thees and Thous" et al., and the words that are now obsolete or vague (or have changed the meaning) now, making it more readable, but staying loyal to the beautiful language as much as possible. Remember this: The goal is to get you into the Word!

There is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. A paraphrase isn't a literal word for word, but translated thoughts into idioms or appropriate phrases instead of being literal, even if it is not understandable. There is always a balance to be drawn in how literal to be and where to paraphrase a thought to give the idea. We simply don't understand some of the expressions, idioms, or euphemisms of antiquity and need to relate them to our century. Newer translations usually rely upon better manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators.

There is a niche for every translation out there and God has a place of them. The NASB is considered to be very literal, while the Living Bible is a paraphrase, and the New Living Translation is cross between the two, and the NIV is a translation that looks at thoughts more than words for an easier understanding but keeps the KJV where it is considered accurate. Sometimes being literal means we can't understand it; the goal is to understand and apply!

It is good to have a favorite translation; let it be an educated or advised decision, though. For instance, some well known Bible teachers prefer the NASB as being the most literal. The next best thing to knowing the original languages is having a favorite translation, but know why it is your favorite. It is not good to just compare translations and pick out the one that suits your fancy or is the most convenient to your school of theology. Remember, it is the autographs in the original tongue that are inerrant, and all translations are fallible.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Did God Die?

I will use a syllogistic proof (a major premise, a minor premise, leading to a conclusion) that shows God as dying on our behalf on the cross: Christ is God; Christ died on the cross; hence God died on the cross. Now some may balk at this kind of logic and seem to think that it is impossible for God to die; but what is here, but separation from the Father and Holy Spirit, in a cry of dereliction, taking on the sins of the world until Christ pronounces tetelestai or "it is finished," [a done deal!].

You have to look at your definitions of God and to see the logic. The sky went black from 12 noon till three o'clock that day as the Father could not look on the Son bearing our sins. Since God is infinite, we cannot put Him in a box and confine Him to logic that makes His Godhead understandable to us, but as the song goes, "Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God, should'st die for me!" Lee Strobel refers to "Deicide" as what we did to Christ on the cross.

If Jesus was only a man the sacrifice would be imperfect and insufficient for us. The triune God works together to accomplish a unified plan and goal. The Father purposes and plans, the Son implements and carries through, the Holy Spirit applies and completes the plan. Jesus experienced separation from the Father and in this sense, He died and wondered about His being forsaken. This is a paradox because in one sense God died for us and in another sense, God judged sin in Jesus as our substitute and is very much alive and working to preserve the cosmos.

As long as you define your terms you can make this statement. God is three persons in one essence. Jesus is two natures in one person, neither separated, confused, mixed, nor divided. He is not a deified man nor a humanized god or theanthropos, but the infinite God-Man, perfect God, perfect Man, very God of very God, and very man of very man (not a God in human disguise, nor a man with divine attributes). Jesus' two natures can be distinguished, but not separated; due to the hypostatic union.

In the final analysis, it depends on how you define death.  Christ's Spirit was indeed separated from His body and when we die our spirits are separated from our bodies too.  Christ never was separated in His divine nature from the Trinity but lost fellowship during His passion on the cross.   Soli Deo Gloria!