Are Translations Relevant?

I recently heard a guest preacher--and I admit a good one--say that the King James was the best translation (he has been preaching for 64 years--old school!) and that most of the other translations are not "worth reading." I took umbrage but I listened to his sermon patiently and forgave him for his slight indiscretion. This really got me to thinking, though. When I saw him after the sermon I asked in a civil manner if he could come up with any reason to fault the NIV, a Bible used in my church--no response. I told him I thought the best translation--if you have to pick one--was the ESV; he told me to "enjoy it!" I wouldn't put someone down for enjoying his version, believing it is the best translation, but to say others are not worth reading I don't understand.

I enjoy many translations.  Charles Swindoll says that if you only listen to one preacher you will lose objectivity; I think the same goes for reading just one translation. Subjective judgment based on feelings is not the real reason to be partial to a translation. It is easy to understand that a preacher from Wales would think this though: because you like "Englishisms," or archaic words that are in Elizabethan English doesn't mean it's the best translation even if it's the best English (which is 400 years old this year).

It's good to enjoy your Bible but that doesn't make it the best one. However, bear in mind that having an "Aha!" moment,  inspiration or illumination does not mean your reading the "right" translation; like when neo-orthodox Swiss theologian Karl Barth said the passage "becomes" the Word of God when we have an "existential experience" with it such as: getting goosebumps, chills down your spine, or a warm feeling such as a burning in the bosom like Mormons get from the Book of Mormon to authenticate it. Enjoy the Word of God period; no if's, and's or but's about it,  case closed!

I read several versions and have memorized most of my verses in the New King James Version. I think that you can get "Bible fatigue" by reading too much of one version because the freshness wears out and you may not get the fresh insights and a new take that you can get from an unfamiliar version that might make you think twice. This is especially true when I read my Luther translation into German. If your doctrines depend upon one translation, then you are in trouble; the only "inspired version" is the original (no longer extant) autographs in the Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

We have a group of "King James only" people in our church that really said aloud "Amen" when the preacher said this. What about the people of France, and Germany? Do they have an "inspired version" too, or must they learn English? I read Martin Luther's translation from the original languages into Modern High German daily and I think his language is faultless, but even Luther made mistakes. I showed three obvious mistranslations to one of these King James adherents but they are adamant. This kind of stubborn thinking is divisive and counterproductive to a church.

The important thing is that people are reading God's Word--God protects His Word!; when I bought a Bible at Walmart for $5 and one of these adherents asked me what version it was saying, "Too bad, the King James is the "inspired version!" He went on about how it was "authorized" and the "first one." With all due respect, the King James Version was the favorite amongst evangelicals until 1978 when the New International Version replaced it, now there is a resurgence of what seems to be nostalgia and a throwback to the "good old days." Now, don't get me wrong! I think every well-read Christian should be familiar with the King James, especially since it has influenced our culture and language so much--many phrases of our language are right from the King James Version--it is English at its best!

Actually the Wycliffe translation ca. A.D. 1380 was the first in English ( though not modern English),  but Tyndale, a student of Luther, was the "Father of the English Bible,"[the New Testament published in 1525 in Germany because it was illegal in England and the Old in 1535 after Coverdale completed it, not knowing Hebrew--he used Luther's German Old Testament]. The Geneva Bible (first with verses and not to have Gothic letters, the one favored by the Puritans, as a household Bible and used by Shakespeare, d. 1616), the Great Bible, the official pulpit Bible dedicated to King Henry the VIII, whose eyes Tyndale prayed would be opened when he was burned at the stake, and the Bishops Bible, published 1568 for Queen Elizabeth I (revised for the King James and the "official" Bible of the time) preceded it, too. The official didn't mean popular, but it became popular later, and thus we have the King James which used Elizabethan English that had already been out of style just to sound "majestic." (Note that the King James Anglican translators were offended by the Calvinistic Geneva Bible.) Virtually all translations up to modern times have used Tyndale as the starting point directly or indirectly.

I think the NLT, the New Living Translation, popular for new believers, is nearly a paraphrase, but it is still technically a translation--and is an example of "dumbing down" the Bible. The NASB, New American Standard Bible, is the most literal, but difficult to understand figures of speech and idioms. The NIV is an easy read at a low-grade level and translates thought for thought instead of word for word, and it claims to follow the King James where it is accurate, which can be difficult to understand sometimes, such as idioms. It was the work of over one hundred scholars working from the best manuscripts and saw the need for a Bible in contemporary English. The NKJV or New King James Version tries to stay faithful to King James, except for the "Englishisms" and archaic words. Many people who loved the King James will accept this one readily. I recommend the ESV or English Standard Version which claims to be as literal as possible and this version doesn't do your thinking for you or "digest" it before you get to it. The CEV or Contemporary English Version is "user-friendly" for those seeking easy comprehensibility and speedy reading because it is written at the elementary-school reading level; it tries to be "lyrical and lucid" to the listener as well as the reader. I like to compare my Martin Luther translation to see how he translates something--it is very enlightening. The important thing is that you get a translation you can feel comfortable with--and don't judge people by their translations; for instance, the RSV of 1952 and 1971 or the Revised Standard Version, the first modern translation was largely a revision of the King James Version, was published by the National Council of Churches, which is dubious by evangelical standards.

If you want to be accurate and are debating doctrines you have to go to the original languages or trust some scholar of these languages, but when you do that you can be taken advantage of because you're vulnerable, and can be led astray if you're not a Berean who searches the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11).   [My brother tells me a good idea is to read the preface to see what kind of translation the publisher is trying to make and the disclaimers (such as not showing dynamic equivalence or mood word translations like Oh! or Ho! etc.) to note.] Some translations use functional (or thought-for-thought translation) equivalence that is what the author is trying to say in a way we can understand it and others use formal or word-for-word equivalence whereas the translation is more literal to what was written in the original. The goal is to get an experience that the original audience had when reading as a balance of the two--not so literal you can't understand it, and not so paraphrased it does your thinking for you.

A word to wise is sufficient: The King James and the New International Version (International Bible Society) rely on the Masoretic Text as published in the Biblia Hebraica (from a 12th-century copy), but the NIV also consults the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament. The American Standard Version or ASV was a revision of the KJV in 1901. The New American Standard Bible or NASB (from the Lockman Foundation) relies on Nestle's Greek New Testament. The NIV relies on the Textus Receptus and the Majority Texts for the New Testament. Sometimes notes are given such as: other manuscripts read as follows, the best manuscripts read so and so, etc. Sometimes we can go by what the Church Fathers said or quoted, e.g., they never quoted the longer ending of Mark. The newer translations have the advantage of better manuscripts than they had available for the Authorized Version, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and thousands in other translations to compare and see if the veracity of the copyists can be trusted. There is no evidence of the corruption of the text.

Some people are impressed that because 54 translators were commissioned for the Authorized Version that it was the best; actually more translators were used for the NIV, which was international in scope, and the result wasn't affected by sectarian bias,--using many denominations of translators--and the team for the ESV was over 100 different scholars, but the Anglican translators of the King James were subject to bias and didn't like the popular Geneva Bible that was published in Switzerland.

There is a niche market for everyone;
as they say: "to each his own!" The issue is whether we go to the lowest common denominator or try to edify believers. Words are the building blocks of knowledge and to use simplistic language is counterproductive because it compromises doctrine. For instance, the English prof who is a baby believer would not feel handicapped with the KJV while the mature believer who is unsophisticated in reading should probably read the New Living Translation by Tyndale publishers, the NLT, which is trying to stay loyal to the legacy of the Living Bible. To mention a few specialty Bibles: the NET Bible or the New English Translation Bible (lots of interpreters, textual criticism and study notes available at NETBible.org on the internet), the Holman Christian Standard Bible or HCSB (very contemporary translated by 90 scholars representing 20 evangelical denominations under the aegis of the Southern Baptist Convention), The Message is a paraphrase full of very modern, contemporary idioms, the NCV or New Century Version is based on the ICB or International Children's Bible, the NRSV or New Revised Standard Version is for mainline and inter-confessional adults, the NAB or New American Bible is Catholic, the AMP, or the Amplified Bible (good for word study), and the J. B. Phillips, A Translation in Modern English (a classic).

Some translations just try to put it in contemporary English which changes every generation and needs constant updating (the NET re-translates every 5 years). It is good to make an informed decision though and not pick one just because it is a best-seller. One must strike a balance between being completely literal where it is a word for word or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence, that is thought for thought and optimal equivalence, which is a balance of both. There is a trade-off between readability and literal accuracy--nuances of meaning exist. A totally literal translation is not readable (try reading an interlinear Greek text), and a totally readable one is not literal--there must be a compromise. Idioms don't always translate and are misunderstood if translated literally, as anyone who has studied a foreign language will tell you--like jokes that lose something in the translation; some things are untranslatable.

[Paraphrases are translations too but take great liberties with the text, mixing in interpretation with "pseudo-translation."] I think The Message by Eugene Peterson is a valid paraphrase by a true believer, but it is limited as a paraphrase and should be reckoned as just that--you won't even recognize some of the verses. The TLB or The Living Bible by Dr. Kenneth Taylor was the New York Times No. 1 best-seller in 1972 and 1973, but that is also a paraphrase. They may aid in study or give insight, but don't use them for proof-texting.

As for me, I have several Bibles of different translations and don't rely on a certain one as gospel truth and error-free but get edified by them all. I think we should be tolerant of others who favor different translations than the ones we've grown accustomed to. I still know so many verses in the NKJV that when I'm reading another version I can compare the verses. The psalmist said, "O how I love your law!" I really don't know which translation I like the most because I'm too busy reading the various versions and all I know is that I love the Bible, regardless of the version it's the Word of God. [The New Testament writers were often quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation.]

Soli Deo Gloria!
1 comments:

Randy Broberg said...

On target. One minor point is I think the "thought for thought" -- the so-called dynamic equivalence method is still a translation. A paraphrase departs even more from the original. Also, read any translation's forward to see what method it claims to use.

What Is Theology?

Theology is literally the study (ology) of God or Theos using the Greek. It is like a "God-talk." Theology has a bad connotation for some but I hope to clear this up:

I want to make it clear that every believer ought to have at least a working knowledge of basic doctrine and preferably to know the way around the block theologically. There are negative connotations to the word "theology" but it is about a doctrinal credo that we pursue.

Theology is not an "abstract science"  (according to R. C. Sproul, one of America's most influential theologians), like economics with many conflicting schools of thought and interpretation. It is the "queen of the sciences" because it deals with the truth of Jesus who is the embodiment of truth. It is not a fool's errand of speculation, but a revealed knowledge from divine revelation. We could not know God apart from revelation because the finite cannot penetrate the infinite--God must take the initiative because no man can see God and live.

Great preachers are those who have honed their theology to perfection and can then deliver the goods. Every Christian is a theologian, what kind of theologian is open to question. We all have a theology; the question is whether we have sound theology.  Note: You can have sound theology and an unsound life, but you cannot have a sound life without a sound theology.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Appreciating Humility

Humility is something we appreciate in the other guy, just like the virtue of patience. It is not low self-esteem; nor thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less. But as soon as you think you are humble you are not! Phil. 2:5 says, "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus [who humbled himself]." Isaac Watts penned a famous hymn, "When I survey the wondrous cross/On which the Prince of glory died/My richest gain I count as loss/And pour contempt on all my pride."

God is opposed to the proud and gives grace to the humble according to 1 Pet. 5:5 and James 4:6. Isaiah 66:2 says that God will look at the one who is humble. Yes, pride is spiritual B.O. and we must stop making ourselves the center of our universe. John the Baptist said it succinctly, "He must increase, I must decrease." It's ironic that we do appreciate humility in the other guy!   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Good Is ABC Preaching?

Case in point: Some churches are only hearing what "their ears are itching to hear."

Some Christians demean or disparage pastors who preach mainly to the infant Christians and do what you would call preach the basics or "milk" of the word. Christ never spoke above his listeners' comprehension and targeted his audience. Knowing your listeners and audience is key! It is more irresponsible to preach mainly solid food when there are baby believers or lambs that need the milk of the Word. There is something wrong with a wise-guy believer who thinks he knows a lot but has never mastered the basics--this goes for any endeavor.

The mature Christian doesn't get sick of milk just because he can handle solid food or the meat of the Word. "As newborn babies desire the pure milk of the Word..." says 1 Pet. 2:2. The adept pastor aims at his imaginary listeners and feeds them milk and solid food--something for everyone. The mature Christian, it should be noted, is apt to dig into the Word himself and get his own meat. However, we all need the gift of teaching in the church and it was given for a reason: Jesus said, "Feed my lambs;" Feed my sheep." He said sheep twice to make sure that Peter didn't get into a strict milk rut or diet, as it were.

The human body never outgrows its need for milk, a staple in the diet, for nutrition (calcium and vitamins A and D, for instance, and also a good source of protein). Likewise, we never outgrow our need and taste for milk: At the least, we are learning how to feed others milk and share the basics with baby believers--we have to learn and relearn until it is second nature; we can't just say, "O, I've heard of that!" Paul said that he would repeat something and that it was no bother for him and good for them to hear it again (cf. Philippians 3:1).

Now, to be sure, solid food is for those who have their senses trained to discern good and evil according to Hebrews 5:14. Preaching milk only will not feed the adult believers and preaching solid food will go over their heads and discourage the baby believers. A balance must be found, but we must never despise the basics or grow tired of them.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Genuine Repentance Is The Requisite For Salvation

Salvation is a summons to faith and is a turning from sin to God. Some believers refer to their salvation experience as when they repented or forsook sin. Paul says, "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret..." (2 Cor. 7:10). God isn't fooled by mere outward show: He says, "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (Joel 2:13). William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, deplored the rise of salvation without repentance.

Billy Graham says that genuine repentance and saving or true faith go hand in hand and are complementary to each other; faith is like the flip side of the penitent coin. Repentance is a recurring motif in the Bible. Jesus opened His ministry proclaiming, "Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand." One must bring forth the fruits of repentance for it to be real (cf. Matt. 3:8: "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance"). Faith and repentance are linked or coupled by Luke in Acts 20:21, "Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul said, "...Repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with [your] repentance."

Repentance is not a one-time act but according to Martin Luther a progressive lifelong event. We never stop repenting. This was the first of Luther's Ninety-FiveTheses.

Repentance is "coming clean" and it is "throwing in the towel." It is more than "eating your humble pie," and it is not a human work but the work of God in the heart. Watchman Nee says, "Our end is God's beginning." We all have to come to our limits or the end of ourselves. 2 Tim. 2:24 says that God "grants" repentance. "Then to the Gentiles God has also granted repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). It is a gift.

It is doing an about-face, doing a 180-degree turn, or making a U-turn. You renounce and repudiate sin--all your sins. Note that is imperative--it is a mandate. It is not simply regretted, feeling sorry, or emotionalism. Attrition is like feeling sorry over the consequences like getting caught. Esau had attrition and regretted what he had done. Contrition is true repentance. "A broken and contrite heart, you will not despise..." (Ps. 51:17).

We are commanded to preach repentance: "And that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations..." (Luke 24:47). "Unless you repent you shall likewise perish," Jesus said in Luke 13:3.

The Greek word metanoia means "afterthought" or to "think after." One must have a complete change of heart: intellect, affection, and will. Our whole being and soul is involved.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Plain Talk on Eternal Security

This doctrine is important because eternal security is linked to the assurance of salvation. These doctrines can be distinguished but not separated. If we don't know whether we will persevere how can we be sure of our salvation? If it were up to us none of us would make it.

Mentioning the phrase eternal security is a no-no to some Arminian believers because they say that those words are not in Scripture. True, but neither is trinity, Bible,  deity of Christ, or Father-God, yet they use these terms. It should be pointed out that this is just semantics because "eternal salvation" and "eternal redemption" are mentioned in the Bible (Heb. 5:9, 9:12). Do you realize that eternal life is a gift that is possessed in time, and eternity? John 5:24 says, "...Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." Logically, if you have eternal life right now, how can it be temporary or end? We are not saved on probation, but permanently. Hebrews 7:25 reads, "He is able to save forever [completely] those who come to God....  

God never disinherits us, and like the analogy of a child to a family, we are in God's family by adoption and that is an everlasting arrangement. Our salvation cannot be forfeited by our bad behavior, because God disciplines His own and if we sin unto death He takes us home, rather than be condemned. True, there are some whose faith is spurious from the beginning, whose seed never took root; they will fall away and leave as it is written and apostatize--their departure manifests their true condition. 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." There are spiritual dropouts but true faith endures.

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints says that we will endure to the end because of God's power to hold us (1 Pet. 1:5 says we are kept by God's power). If we were left to our own strength none of us would endure or persevere. Preservation is a better word than perseverance because God gets the credit and glory.

Looking at the analogies: We cannot be "un-born," "un-adopted," or "un-justified." God doesn't renege on his divine promise as the Supreme Promise Keeper who gave the Holy Spirit as the earnest of our inheritance. Contrary to Romanist doctrine we have continuity in the state of grace and there are no egregious or heinous sins that require penance to get back to the state of grace. If we do sin we have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous (1 John 2:1; Heb. 7:25). No matter what sin we commit, Jesus intercedes for us. Finally, Rom. 8:30 says it best, "And those whom he called He also justified." This means God loses no one. NO ONE IS LOST IN THE SHUFFLE OF THE GOLDEN CHAIN OF REDEMPTION.     Soli Deo Gloria!

Example Of Two Brothers In Action

The Two Brothers, trans. by Karl W Broberg from Hermann Hesse

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"  (1 John 3:17).

"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"  (1 Tim. 5:8).


Once upon a time, there was a father, who had two sons. The one was beautiful and strong, the other was small and crippled, for that reason the big one despised the small one. This didn't please the younger one at all, and he decided to wander into the wide, wide world. After some time had passed, he met a carrier [Wagoner], and as he asked him where he was going, the carrier said, he must lead his treasures to the dwarfs in a glass mountain. The small brother asked him, what the reward was. He got the answer that the reward would be diamonds. Then the small one wanted all the more to go to the dwarfs. Then he asked the carrier if he believed that the dwarfs would accept him. The carrier said that he didn't know, but he took him with. Finally, they got to the glass mountain, and the overseer of the dwarfs rewarded the carrier richly for his efforts and released him. Then he noticed the small brother and asked him what he wanted. He told him everything. The dwarf said he should only follow him. The dwarf accepted him gladly and lead him to a grand life.

Now we will see about the other brother. It went good at home for him for a long time. But as he became older, he came to the military and had to go to war. He got wounded in his right arm and had to beg. Then the poor guy happened upon the glass mountain and saw a cripple standing there, he didn't suspect that it was his brother. The small bro recognized him at once and asked him what he wished. "O, sir, I am eager and glad for any crumb of bread, I am so hungry!" "Come with me," the small one said, and went into the cave, whose walls were glistening from diamonds. "You can take a handful for yourself if you can bring down the stone without any help," said the cripple. The beggar tried to do it with his one healthy arm, but naturally, he couldn't. Then said the small brother, "Maybe you have a brother, that I would allow to help you." Then the beggar began to cry and said, "Once I had a brother, small and misshapen, like you, but so good-natured and friendly, and I haven't known of him for a long time." Then said the small brother: "I am your brother, you shall suffer no want, remain with me."

Science Owes Christianity...

Science was made possible by the discovery of a rational universe, perceived by a rational mind, using rational modus operandi. Induction, deduction, experimentation, measurement, repeatability, theory and hypothesis make science possible. The Eastern religions don't believe in a rational universe, but in Maya or that the universe is a figment of our imagination and that it isn't really real. It was the Christian worldview of 15th century Europe that really got the scientific method off to its debut. Sir Francis Bacon is considered the "Father of the Scientific Method." All of the early great scientists (Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, et al.) were Christians. In fact, science owes its existence to Christianity. But the ironic thing is that now science seems to be thinking that religion, in general, is the "enemy" and incompatible with the scientific method.

Science is only one avenue to the truth. Some things are not verified by test tube, repetition, measurement or confined to laboratory conditions. E.g., you cannot take a pound of love and a pint of partiality nevertheless we affirm their existence.

All worldviews require presuppositions (propositions that cannot be proved), and so-called "natural science," as opposed to the supernatural, does too. In fact, it takes more faith to believe a naturalistic universe without any intentional design than it does to simply believe in a supreme being. The evidence is in favor of a deity, but people are not willing to take the leap of faith in the direction of the faith because of moral issues, not intellectual problems. They don't believe because they don't want to believe, not because they can't. "Even though he performed many miracles there, they would [not could] not believe in him" (John 12:37).  "The heart of the matter, is that it is a matter of the heart," says Rick Warren.    Soli Deo Gloria!

Common Sense On The Will

There has been debate over the will of man for centuries. Martin Luther debated Erasmus in a diatribe The Bondage of the Will, and Jonathan Edwards wrote the book The Freedom of the Will. Most of the problem lies with semantics because people don't understand the definitions. No one is saying we are automatons, chatty dolls, or robots, so to speak. But Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hands of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." Jer. 10:23 says, "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps." Prov. 20:24 says, "A man's steps are from the LORD, how then can man understand his way?" "...Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom. 9:19). There are numerous passages that seem to indicate that God is in control.

There are two kinds of free will. The will to do the divine and to do the mundane or temporal. We have not lost the free will to do a secular activity. We do not have the desire or inclination to choose Christ apart from a work of grace. "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44). Our destiny is ultimately in God's hands and He chose us according to His foreknowledge before the world began. (This refers to the doctrines of election and predestination.) Cf. Rom. 9:16, "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy."

Is His sovereignty limited by man's freedom? The most fanatic Calvinist will admit that man is free to do what he desires to do. God never forces anyone to do anything he doesn't want to do--that would be coercion or determinism. He feels no outside force but God is still able to influence Him to do His will. "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13; cf. Col. 1:29; Heb.13:21).

The will is defined as that by which the mind chooses and is the referee, as it were. Finally, Prov. 16:9 says, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." He is "Lord of all."NB:  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL/SPIRITUAL FREEDOM AND MUNDANE FREEDOM.   Soli Deo Gloria!

How Depraved Are We?

Man is depraved through and through, as bad off as he can be, but not as bad as he can be. It is like being pregnant; you can't be a little pregnant. Note that this is God's estimation of man, not man's estimation of man. Sin affects every aspect of our being which means we have a radical corruption or total depravity. Rom. 7:18a says, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh."

I don't mean utter depravity (that we are as bad as we can be), but total depravity (every aspect of our being is spoiled by sin). We all have feet of clay (we all have weaknesses not readily apparent) and can't "clean up our act;" nor ingratiate ourselves to God. We show our solidarity in Adam when we sin--we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin. It is not okay to "fudge a little" because we a diabolically alive--we all are like a moon that has a "dark side" no one can see. We may be a run-of-the-mill sinner compared to Hitler and see ourselves as saints in comparison; but Christ is the standard and exemplar, not Hitler.

We are inherently bad, biased to evil, having lost our inclination to good at the fall. Evil permeates our nature and we are defiant volitionally. This is all God's estimation of man, not man's estimation of himself. This is called original sin by some. Augustine of Hippo said we can only do evil (non posse non peccare). But Jesus sees through the veneer and our facade. We are "by nature children of wrath" and enemies of God before we are saved.

We must see how bad we are to be good and we don't know how bad we are till we've tried to be good. There are many verses that support depravity including Jer. 17:9 ("The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?"); Isa. 1:5-6, 64:6; Jer. 13:23; Rom. 8:8; Gen. 6:4-5. The law shows us how we are: "Indeed, it is the straightedge of the law that shows us how crooked we are" (J. B. Phillips trans. of Rom. 3:23).  Soli Deo Gloria!