February 26, 2012

Answering A Few Questions

I have been asked to address the following questions. The New Testament teaches us to be prepared to respond to those who ask why we believe what we believe, and we should do so in a way that is respectful and bold. (Col. 4:6; 1 Pet. 3:15) People ask religious questions because they want to know what the Bible teaches.
First, I have been asked if it is more effective to study the Bible itself, or to use workbooks requiring the “fill in the blank” method of study? The answer depends on what a person desires to accomplish. If an individual wants to learn the scriptures, then pick up the Bible and study it.

If you want to do it the easy way, without acquiring a lasting knowledge of God’s word, then the “fill in the blank” method remains unexcelled.

I believe picking up the Bible and turning its pages and diligently studying it remains the most effective way of study. Jesus told the Jews, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life.” (John 5:39, NIV-2011) Luke said,

“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)

It is not necessarily wrong to use class books, and other such “aids” to Bible study, but it seems to me that just putting the Bible in hand and studying the text as it stands enables a person to learn the Bible.
Second, I was asked to address the technique that is most useful in understanding the meaning of God’s word. The first thing that the student must decide is which translations to use. Yes, I used the plural word “translations.” If at all possible, always study from more than one version of the Bible. When you only use one, generally speaking, you lock yourself into the possible weaknesses of that version.

Your “main” Bible should be one of the more modified-literal texts (ESV, ASV, NASB are examples of such).

They will tend to reflect the form of the Hebrew and Greek texts.
These kinds of translations are sometimes difficult to read, but they are good study Bibles.

The second type of version should be what is called an idiomatic rendering of the text. This will be in current English form and understandable. (NIV, HCSB, and NIV-2011) are examples of idiomatic translations.

I know of preachers and elders who frown upon the use of such versions, but in my judgment, they are denying brothers and sisters great opportunities to learn the scriptures.

The third type of translation that is useful for studying the scriptures is what I call a “mediating” text. This means it fits somewhere between the more literal ones and the more idiomatic texts. (NRSV, and even the ESV and HCSB are examples of such).

It is also important to have a concordance, up to date accurate
dictionaries to define the words of Scripture, and even a good set of biblical encyclopedias. A person can learn a lot of scripture if they will diligently use the references I have mentioned. A person who has a shelf full of study tools he never uses is like a person who calls himself a painter, yet never picks up a can of paint or a brush! The right kind of commentaries are also useful if they are used with caution.
Ron Daly

Remember our two radio programs: WBRI (1500 AM) on
Sunday evenings at 4:15 PM and Worldwide Radio WINB
at WINB.Com on Monday evenings at 5:30 PM. According
to the amount of feedback received, both radio programs
are blessed to accomplish a lot of good for the Cause. To
God be the glory!

Bible Translations and Young Preachers

Friday, February 18, 2011

Bible Translations and Young Preachers

I am frequently asked by young preachers, “Which translation do you recommend that I use in my preaching?” This is a great question and it comes from young men who are conscientious about their work as servants of the most high God. It indicates that they want to use the best texts available in their study, teaching, and life application.

First, we must lay some groundwork.

No translation of the sacred scriptures is without flaws. All of them were translated by human beings, and they reflect the background, training, and deficiencies of the hands that made them. Therefore, do not go on the hunt for the perfect translation. It’s not out there.

I strongly believe preachers should use more than one translation for study. The “backbone” translation should be one of the modified-literal texts. Why? The modified-literal translations will stay close to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. They will give you some idea of what is going on in the original text. Simply put, if you do not have any background in Hebrew and Greek, modified-literal versions will get you as close as possible to those languages short of studying the original languages of scripture.

Another reason for using versions of this kind is the fact that those of us who believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture, put emphasis on the very words of the text (1 Cor. 2:13) Most modified-literal versions try to bring as much from the original languages into English as possible.

The reigning “king” of the modified-literal versions is the ASV-1901. In my judgment, it edges out the NASB most of the time. The NASB is based on a slightly better text, and uses a more modern vocabulary, but many times the best translation in the NASB is found in the footnotes! I have found this to be true quite often. The NASB’s strength is in the fact that it attempts to show “verbal action,” but that is not all there is to accuracy in translation. Many times this becomes artificial and is often inconsistently executed. Nevertheless, if a person cannot find a usable copy of the ASV, the NASB is probably a good alternative.

There are translations that stand between the very literal ASV and the so-called dynamic equivalent versions. This middle ground is occupied by the RSV, ESV, NRSV, and the HCSB. On the whole the ESV is probably the best though the NRSV is not too far behind. The main flaw of the NRSV is its attempt to be “gender inclusive” which sometimes causes it to butcher English and change the text. The RSV is not as bad as is often alleged.

There are also versions that are “dynamic equivalent” or more idiomatic in their approach to translating God’s word. There is a place for such translations. They often complement the more literal versions. They are usually easy to read and can open the door to good exegesis and understanding. The New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), and Today’s New International Version (TNIV) fall into this category.

Young preachers would do well to have copies of the ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, and TNIV in their library. They should diligently study and compare them. By doing so, they will have the benefits of broad based scholarship. Learn to note the differences among them and ask “Why do they differ?” Do your research in order to determine the reasons for the disparity in their renderings. If you will use several translations in your study, they will serve to “balance and counter balance” each other. The best all-around version is probably the ESV. It is basically the RSV updated and sometimes corrected by conservative scholars.
RD

Emerson Ave Church of Christ

Matthew 28:19, 20 (Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…..)