Part 2 - The Preservation of the Bible

The original "autographs"—the actual original documents—no longer exist for any book of the Bible. God, however, has preserved His Word in currently existing original-language manuscripts. The Greek New Testament is attested by 5,300 Greek manuscripts, the oldest dating within 25 years of the death of the apostle John (John Rylands Manuscript, A.D. 125, at the University of Manchester). In addition, there are over 19,000 early manuscript versions in translation, such as the Latin Vulgate, making the New Testament by far the most copied and circulated book of antiquity. In contrast, Homer’s Iliad, holding second place in the number of surviving manuscripts, only has 643. The works of the Greek historian Thucydides (ca. 460-400 B.C.) survive in only eight manuscripts, the oldest dating to about 900 A.D.—over 1300 years after they were written!

There are minor differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts that survive. The correct text of the Bible in these original languages, however, has been verified by textual criticism. Please note that textual criticism is not "critical" of the text in a pejorative sense, but rather—true to the meaning of Greek krites, a discerner, judge, or arbiter—textual criticism judges between the different options after analyzing all of the available grammatical and historical evidence as rigorously as possible.

By God’s providence, only minor differences exist between the original-language manuscripts. In fact, after removing easily-solved variants, we can affirm 99.9% of the words of the Bible without question. Further, no Bible doctrine depends on the solution to any one variant, and the gospel truths remain as clear as crystal.

Most conservative scholars, including the well-known brethren John Darby, Thomas Newberry, and Samuel Tregelles have taken a "balanced eclectic" approach to textual criticism. It is balanced because it weighs both internal evidence (clues in the linguistic features of the document itself) and external evidence (historical data about the manuscript, such as who wrote it or promoted it). The approach is eclectic because it uses the best evidence to select the proper reading, and holds no premeditated bias toward or against any particular text type. Each textual variant is investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.

Part 3 – Two Types of Translation – Dynamic Equivalent DE and Essentially Literal

The Lord Jesus and His apostles usually quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament—the Septuagint—when citing Scripture, and regarded this translation as the Word of God. This validates the use of translations throughout history, as the gospel has spread to "all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

Until about 1950, translators employed a time-honored word-for-word translation method often called "Formal Correspondence" or "Essentially Literal" translation. The translators reproduced the words and forms of the original text as faithfully and transparently as possible into the receptor language. Examples of English Bibles that follow the Essentially Literal translation method are the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Version (NASB), and the New Translation by John Darby.

No translation can be "perfect" in the sense of exactly capturing all the nuances of an original language word or phrase, since no words from any two languages exactly correspond to each other in meaning. And there is a literary problem: the closer the translator stays to the original text, the more difficult it is to produce a smoothly flowing translation in English. So, accuracy in translation is a double-edged sword - it means being accurate not only to the original language, but also to the receptor language.

Translating the Bible is a serious task. Faithfulness in translation is one aspect of faithfulness to God Himself: "‘Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has My Word speak My Word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat?’ declares the LORD" (Jeremiah 23:28 ESV). An honest translator will attempt to duplicate all that is in the original text as closely as possible, and intrude as little as possible. In analyzing a translation, we should look to see how closely the translator stayed to the original word-for-word progression of the ancient texts.

An honest translator will allow God’s interests, as the Author, to supersede the reader’s preferences. As Martin Luther put it: "I have been very careful to see that where everything turns on a single passage, I have kept to the original quite literally and have not lightly departed from it. I preferred to do violence to the German language rather than to depart from the Word." It is notable that the translators of the KJV and a few other versions showed their regard for the sanctity of the original text by employing italic script: They used italics to distinguish words that they had to insert for good English sense from words that actually corresponded to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words.

Regrettably, a new approach to Bible translation, "Dynamic Equivalence," arose some 50 years ago. Other names for this method include Functional, Idiomatic, Thought, and Impact Translation. These strategies translate "thought-for-thought" rather than "word-for-word." The preface to the United Bible Society’s Contemporary English Version (CEV) states, "The CEV is . . . an idea-by-idea translation, arranging the Bible’s text in ways understandable to today’s readers."

Examples of Dynamic Equivalence Bibles include the New International Version (NIV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), the Good News Bible (GNB), God’s Word (GW), Today’s English Version (TEV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Living Bible (LB), and The Message.

Dynamic Equivalence (DE) is no different from what was once called "paraphrase." By departing from verbal correspondence, the Dynamic Equivalent method allows far too much translator intrusion, and each new version pushes this textual relativism to greater limits in order to satisfy the publishing house. When translators are given free rein to interject their viewpoints into the text, the original meaning is corrupted. Some may object that I have grouped the relatively conservative NIV with the looser NLT and with the reckless Message. However, extremely loose "translations" like The Message are simply the logical result of the license that was unloosed when the Dynamic Equivalent method was uncritically accepted a generation ago. Dynamic Equivalent has removed all definite controls on translation, and its sad legacy today is a relativized and completely destabilized English Bible text.

Part 4 - Deficiencies of Dynamic Equivalence - DE Disregards the Words of Scripture

The following ten items show the deficiencies and outright dangers of adopting DE (Dynamic Equivalence) translations. Some examples cited are admittedly egregious cases and not typical of the more conservative Dynamic Equivalent versions. However, once we step on to the slippery slope of textual relativism, we will inevitably slide down, and the excesses of newer Dynamic Equivalent versions suggest that the pit into which we will slide is virtually bottomless.

1. DE Disregards the Words of Scripture.

The whole "thought-for-thought" concept is a fallacy. Inspiration applies to specific words (1 Corinthians 2:13; John 6:63), not merely to vague concepts and ideas, and thus the Bible sternly warns those who want to tamper with itswords: "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV). This warning is repeated elsewhere, e.g. Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32.

Words are the basic units of thought—the meanings of phrases rely on the meanings of their individual words. Thus you cannot translate "meaning" without regard for the words of the original text.

Part 5 - Deficiencies of Dynamic Equivalence - DE Confuses Translation with Interpretation.

Dynamic Equivalent is a ruse forinterpretation rather than translation. The only legitimate role of the translator is to convert the words of Scripture into a receptor language as accurately as possible. It is then up to the preacher and teacher to proclaim these words, explain their meaning, and apply them—in the power of the Holy Spirit—to meet present needs. In the following example from Luke 10:42, the Dynamic Equivalent translators alter the Greek wordagathos ("good") into comparative or even superlative forms in order to bolster their interpretation of the passage:

• KJV: Mary hath chosen that good part.

• NIV: Mary has chosen what is better.

• NLT: There is only one thing worth being concerned about.

• CEV: Mary has chosen what is best.

The NIV, NLT, and CEV all have the Lord pitting one of His servants against another—something He never did. This interpretation seems to miss the point. Martha’s error was not in preparing the meal, but in blaming Mary for not helping her. There is no contest here. Christ told Martha that what Mary chose—being occupied with Him and hearing His words—was good, and that it would not be taken away from her. Even if we accept that there is an implied comparison between the sisters, it is still noteworthy that the Lord Jesus said "good"—not "better" or "best."