For my next response I will examine John Wolf’s claims that he has reportedly “discovered” in his “research” regarding the, according to John, “most common Bible translations”. Here is what John reports --
“New American Standard Version- Is the closest translation the original Greek and Hebrew languages. The NASB is an almost identical word for word translation to the original Greek and Hebrew grammatical structure. Although this translation is not always the easiest to read, nor do the sentences always sound so clear in the English. If I have a question on the meaning of a particular passage, I will usually consult this translation partnered with my Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, and my Interlinear Bible, which uses the New American Standard Bible Translation. The NASB is almost identical to the Greek and is the best word for word English translation we have today.”
Here we find John employing the oft repeated phrase “the original Greek and Hebrew”. One has to wonder if John realizes that no such thing as “the original Greek and Hebrew” exists anywhere in the world. One also has to wonder if John even knows the difference between a Greek manuscript and a Greek text. One also has to wonder if John is aware that there are over 5,400 Greek manuscripts and none of these are considered to be “the original Greek”. One also has to wonder if John knows even knows that there are many Greek texts and none of these are considered to be “the original Greek”.
John, would you be so kind as to tell us where we might be able to find this “original Greek and Hebrew”? Have you ever seen it? Do you know ANYONE that has? Does John MacAurther have a copy of it? Charles Stanley?
John says that the NASV is “the closest translation to the original Greek and Hebrew”. John, would you please tell us if the following verses are in “the original Greek and Hebrew”?
Matt. 6:13? Is this verse in “the original Greek” John? The original ASV couldn’t find the last half of the verse in their “original Greek”. The ASV reads, “And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil [one.]” The NASV reads, “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]” Although the NASV includes the last phrase they place it in brackets indicating that they are not sure it is in “the original Greek”. What do you say, John, which is correct – the ASV or the NASV? Which one is “closest” to “the original Greek”?
Matt. 17:21? The NASV places this verse in brackets indicating that they are not sure if it is in “the original Greek”. What do you say, John, is it in “the original Greek”?
John 5:4? Is this verse in “the original Greek” John? The NASV that you said was “the closest translation to the original Greek and Hebrew” places this verse in brackets indicating that they were not sure of its authenticity. What do you say, John, is it in “the original Greek”?
Speaking of “the original…Hebrew”, I wonder if John will answer the following questions.
In Exodus 3:19 is the phrase “except under compulsion.” in “the original Hebrew”? The NASV doesn’t think so yet they used it anyway. They readily admit that “the original Hebrew” reads, “by a strong hand” (see NASV footnote), however, they chose to follow the Latin Vulgate (and they even omitted two words of that). John, why does the NASV reject “the original Hebrew” in this verse?
In Deut. 11:14 & 15 does “the original Hebrew” read “He” or “I”? How does it read John? Is the NASV “the closest translation to the original Hebrew” in these verses? John might think so (see his comments above) but the translators admit that they followed something other than “the original Hebrew”. The NASV footnote reads, “So some ancient versions; M.T. reads I” Here the NASV clearly states that they followed “some ancient versions” and not the “M.T.” What are these “ancient versions” they have followed John? Do you know? Since I know you don’t I will go ahead and tell you. The NASV has followed the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and the Vulgate.
I could literally expand these examples by hundreds (even thousands!) but I will let John answer for these verses before I bring up other examples.
John, if you do nothing else with my comments please tell me where this “original Greek” is and where this “original Hebrew” is. You must know where it is because you claim to have compared it with the NASV (and other translations) and have found the NASV to be “the closest translation the (sic) original Greek and Hebrew languages”.
John writes, “New King James Version- This is basically a KJV, but with more modern words and phrases. Also much of the archaic language and words in the KJV (such as Unicorn, Gay Clothes, Corn) have been replaced with modern words that a contemporary audience would understand.”
“Basically” must be a very large word in John’s vocabulary because if John would’ve actually “researched” the NKJV he would know that the NKJV departs from our AV in hundreds of places. The NKJV routinely rejects the Hebrew OT in favor of the LXX and other translations. It has also altered many passages in the NT to bring their text more in line with other modern translations. I will be happy to list hundreds of examples if John would like me to. My point here is that John has obviously NOT “researched” the NKJV or he never have made the statement that “this is basically a KJV, but with more modern words and phrases.” This is very far from the truth!
Regarding the NIV John states, “New International Version- The most powerful and conservative of the Dynamic equalivence translations. This translation is my personnel favorite for devotional and leisure Bible reading. It’s the translation that I was raised on, and one of the easiest to read. Since my reading comprehension level is not always at 12th grade level. I found the NIV tons easier to understand in my native language over the King James, or the New American Standard Version.”
Time does not permit me to adequately deal with each of John’s ridiculous statements regarding the NIV. This translation has been exposed many times in this club and on the internet. I will only present some basic information and move on.
John claims that the NIV is his “personnel (sic) favorite” while at the same time declaring that the NASV is “the closest to the original Greek and Hebrew”. Perhaps John would be willing to explain to us why he prefers “easiest to read” over “closest to the original”. I’m sure he will deny this so I will demonstrate by examples.
NIV- After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.
NASV- Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.
According to John “the original Greek” reads “seventy” but he is willing to ignore what was ‘originally’ written in favor of something that is ‘easy’ to read. The NIV clearly contradicts John’s NASV by stating Jesus sent out “seventy-two”. Is it acceptable for a translation to ignore the “original Greek” as long as it is ‘easy to read’?
NIV- We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.
NASV- we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
Here we see that the NIV affirms it is possible to make or have “an idol” while the NASV clearly denies “that there is no such thing as an idol in the world”. Perhaps John will be willing to inform us which one is correct. Or, maybe he will tell us why he promotes 2 ‘Bibles’ as God’s word when they contradict one another in hundreds of places. Inquiring minds want to know John!
I will bring my second response to John’s “article” to a close at this point. I have no hope that anything I write will change John’s mind in any way. What I do hope is that others will see just how little John actually knows about this subject and to prove that John has not actually done any “research” of his own. What he has done is copy others false information and because he doesn’t know any better himself he has repeated their errors. The sad thing is he is seeking to pass this erroneous information off on other unsuspecting saints that most likely won’t know the difference either. It is my goal in these rebuttals to inform the unsuspecting saint and expose John’s “article” for what it really is.