Can we trust the Bible translations?

Theology is life. A daily dose of Biblical teaching and reflection from Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller of St Paul and Jesus Deaf Lutheran Churches in Austin, TX.

Today's question is from Bennie, who asks:

Hello, I love your YouTube videos and have a question. Which translation of the bible do you use and why? After research and study, I have come to the conclusion that the received text is the preserved word of God. I know the history of the critical text and find it questionable at best. There is no providence to it, it just mysteriously shows up in the form of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Whereas the Textus Receptus has a preserved history. Besides, that is what Luther translated from. Thank you and I value your opinion.

******

[paulmcwhorter]

Very well said, and can be a very divisive issue. By leaning towards the authority of the Textus Receptus, it is very easy to inflame those around us, and be slapped with a label of 'King James Only', like we are some sort of backward cult members. I love the grand literary style of the KJV and much of that grand style is preserved in the NKJV. I am grieved to my core by the cavalier attitude in many of the modern so called translations. Particularly, I am grieved when I see pastors teach or preach from the 'Message', which seems to be a version turning God into some sort of cool dude who would hang out with you in the coffee shop. I am a missionary serving in East Africa, and not Lutheran, but am greatly blessed by your teachings, and never miss any of your videos. I am greatly blessed by each one of them. Thanks!

[ajplathwisconsin]

For years I have grown to like and admire the New American Standard Bible for its wording. But, especially since I bought a Kindle download of the Lutheran Study Bible, I have grown comfortable with the ESV.

[laurenclark]

Fascinating. I know as LCMS we are supposed to read ESV but I’ve been using NASB for over 40 years. Long before I became Lutheran. I use it as my every day go-to.

[sdlorah]

After many years in the modern versions, I memorized some verses in the KJV. Over time, I inevitably compared verses in the modern versions to the KJV. The differences that I noticed prompted me to study the issue of Bible versions which before I had not even known was 'a thing.' I had assumed that all versions carried the same meaning, but just used different words to communicate that meaning; I found that there were important words and phrases that were not in the modern versions as compared to the KJV. Sometimes, whole verses are missing.

Dr. Jack Moorman asserts in his book Missing in Modern Bibles that the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter is missing in the Critical Text that underlies modern versions vs. the text that underlies the KJV and other Reformation-Era Bibles.

In the end, I became a KJVer. It is easier to memorize and retain and gives a full, consistent witness.

[HighWideandHandsome]

I, too, am a Textus Receptus enjoyer.

[oddlycreatetiff]

I love the comparison of your often-used Bible and seldom-used Bible! What a fascinating idea!

[alphonseblackwood]

Pastor Wolfmueller! God Bless you and the family! Have a good day!

[danbratten]

Pastor your comment about your NKJV being worn out, is the exact reason why the TR based Bibles are the ones I lean towards. Because "oldest is the best" is false. The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts are supposedly newer is because they are copies of the ones that were used and worn out.

Blessings to you in Christ.🙏🏻

[lc-mschristian]

Thank you. God's peace be with you.

[tedward]

Saying there are more variants than words, makes it sound like every word is suspect, and we cannot recreate the text. That is nonsense:
The quick brown foxx jumped over the lazy dogs.
The swift brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
The quick brown fox leaped over the lazy dogs.
The quick red fox jumped over the lazy hounds.
The fast redd fox jumped above the lazy dogs.
A quick brown fox jumped over the sleeping dogs.
The quick fox jumped over the lazy dogs.
The quick brown fox jamped over the lazy dogs.
The fox jumped over the lazy dogs.
The quick brown and red fox jumped over the lazy dogs.
The quick brown fox jumped across the lazy dogs.
The quick brwn fx jumped over the lazy dogs.
9 -11 words 12 variants. Yet the original can be easily discerned.

[federicus]

Just today I bought the Nestle-Aland NTG. Very much hoping that in college there won’t be attacks on the word of God. God help me in my upcoming theology studies.

[andrewl]

Good overview. And this is why I like looking at multiple translations when studying, understanding the fundamental differences and the biases or decisions involved in each.

[judithtaylor]

There you go. All laid out and explained to perfection. Thank you.

[cdunphy]

loved this I am a true you tube theologian in that my finding the LORD or more correctly I think he found me was from watching videos like this doing there best to explain things that the new christian hasn't ben n learned enough to be sure of them selves with questions like this and its funny but I feel like the Holy Spirit leads me to what I need know and your videos have been at the top of them I love it when you use cards to explain differences and you tell good stories so thank you

[EXMUTRKS]

I love the like and as comparisons you make, Pastor. I miss St Paul... hope you're doing well in Austin Texas and everyone else.

Signed B Schielke

[nathanielnelson]

Thanks pastor. I needed that reassurance. 👍😎

[Bible_Loving_Lutheran]

I'm becoming Lutheran. I wish we could go back to the KJV. it's poetic and the Our Father sounds like the one we recite at St Paul's

[janejude]

The copy of the Fragment of John..over here at the university of Manchester in England!

[Samy-sxkn]

Text criticism has nothing to do with critical or liberal theology.

[daric_]

I'm a new Lutheran, and I've been reconsidering my original preference for the ESV and NASB which are based on the critical/eclectic text. The textual basis that the church used for centuries was based on the Byzantine tradition. If it was good then, why is it wrong now?

Or, another way to look at it, should we be using textual critical methods with similar presuppositions that we would assume when examining other texts? The Bible was certainly treated far differently from other ancient texts, right?