We also have to remember that the message not only has to survive the test of time in translation, but also the fact that it is being translated into hundreds of languages and the message remains the same.

I didn’t end up writing about it, but one of the original thoughts that sparked this post was how all of the debate on one translation being right or wrong is very English-centric. I mean, we’re arguing about which English translation of the Bible is better than another English translation while at the same time there are languages that only have (and will only ever have) one translation available to them. Is it worth worrying about whether other cultures have a “correct” translation? Or is it even possible, because the connotations gained and lost in English are completely independent of those gain or lost in Swahili, for example.

As I said in the post, it’s worth talking about, but it shouldn’t be as big of a deal as we’ve made it out to be. It shouldn’t be causing rifts among God’s people. Nothing should.

I do think that we should glean from several versions, while exercising caution. We need to recognize and remember that translators, to produce a readable version, can’t transalte word-for-word and must make decisions about how to represent the text in a target language. Those decisions are basically interpretations - additions that can greatly help or hinder our reading and understanding of the Bible. There are minds between us and the original message. Sometimes the version is the product of a committee of translators who have studied and debated the translation issues (NIV), while others are the paraphrae or translation of a single person (LB and Message). I’d say that we must use several versions to compare and lead us to an understanding of the text.

And we need to be careful that we are not using a specific version just to support whatever idea we are trying to promote at the time. I heard a sermon several months ago that made a deep impression on me. I kept the notes and they are in my Bible today. The preacher used 12 Bible references from 6 different versions. And 6 of the references were either flat wrong or grossly taken out of context. I am familiar with the sermon preparation technique on which the preacher has something he wants to say, then searches for just the right verse to prove his point. Going even further and selecting just the right version to make one’s points is even worse. It should be obvious that this is mis-use of the versions we have.

To your question about the texts: basically all manuscripts (MSS) can be divided in groups or families, largely based on the variations (variants) in the text, and the assumed family tree of how each variant occurred. One of the largest controversies in the area of textual criticism (analyzing the text to determine what the original said) has been between one group, called the Majority MSS because it was composed of the majority of MSS, and what is called the Critical Text, not because it was criticizing the Bible but because it was generated by considering MSS “critically” and putting together a proposed Bible text based on an eclectic approach from various MSS groups rather than just taking the Majority MSS text, thus the “liberals.”

When I was in seminary the controversy was manifested in arguments about the KJV, based on the Majority MSS, being the only correct version. In my thesis I tried to cut through all the controversy by assuming that the Bible was given to show us how to live - to give us theological doctrine. So I analyzed the book of Romans, doctrinally robust, and compared the text of the Majority MSS to the eclectic text that was current then. I forget the exact number and I’m not home to check right now, but I think it was around 125 variants between the two. Of that 125 there were only 2 or 3 that warranted further doctrinal analysis. Many variants were like substituting “in” for “into” or spelling proper nouns differently. Who cares whether Genessaret has one or two s’s? And of the 3 that had potential doctrinal impact none mattered at all.

I have to believe that the Creator who stooped to communicate with us through written word wanted that message to survive the abuse of time. So He has not allowed MSS variants, which are not obvious changes to the original, that affect the message.

One corollary thought: Why did God allow variants in the first place? Perhaps they are part of his plan? If we actually had the intact original text do you think we might end up worshipping the book rather than the Author?

I think in some ways the Roman Catholic Church has it right with regard to Tradition. What I mean to say is that they attempt to unify the church through Tradition. In other words, all those little things that truly do not matter in the grand scope of things are decided upon, and the whole church agrees as a whole as to what the ‘official’ doctrine is. While this does supply the unity that I think we sometimes need as Protestants, I think they err on the point of making Tradition equal with Scripture (and really *above* it).
</end controversy>

I really like the Creeds… they give a good synopsis of the essentials of the Christian faith.