Introduction: The “Mistranslations” In Modern Bible Versions
The claim is often made (usually in the context of refuting the KJV only theory) that modern translations like the NASB and the NIV are examples of faithful translations from the original Hebrew and Greek. However, this is not entirely true. Every popular Bible version in use today has translated certain key texts according to preconceived ideas and biases. In other words, it is not unknown for them to translate certain verses in accordance with what they considered the truth
The tragedy is that most people rely on these inaccurate translations, never once stopping to do Hebrew and Greek word studies for themselves (which is entirely possible). Thus they will never know what the Scriptures really say, nor how unbiblical some of the foundational doctrines of the church are. And you don’t need to take my word for it. Anyone with a computer and a Bible with Strong’s references can look up the words for themselves. Note: I do not necessarily always trust Strong’s definitions. I may be wrong but l often get the feeling that their definitions are based on how various translators render the word. Having said that, it is quite amazing how much one can learn by using a Greek or Hebrew lexicon and an interlinear Bible to learn how particular Hebrew or Greek words are used in other verses and how they have been translated. Like me you will find that certain words and have been rendered according to pre-bias - this is what we believe to be true, so this is what the word must mean.
Let me give you a couple of simple examples...
The Church: The New Testament Greek word ekklesia was translated into the English 'church' virtually ever time it occurred. However, not by any stretch of the imagination, is 'church' an acceptable translation of ekklesia. This particular Greek word was used for a select civil body that was summoned or convened for a particular purpose, or a regularly convened assembly such as the ancient Greek political assemblies. Does it matter. Yes, it matters very much especially if you consider how and why the English "church", was used instead of 'assembly' or 'congregation' which would have been far more accurate. I strongly suggest you read The Church... Then and Now. Chapters I and IV are especially relevant.
The Trinity: Also, because the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'He' or "Him" in quite a few places in The New Testament, many people assume that the Holy Spirit is a divine person just like the Father and the Son. In fact, the grammar is often used by many evangelicals as the first line of defense against any challenges to the doctrine. The problem is that the grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the idea that the Holy Spirit is the male third Person of the Trinity. Note this is only the fourth of a six page article. DETAILS.
A “Guarantee” of Salvation: The translators of the NIV (along with the New King James, the Contemporary English Version and the Amplified Version) have not only mistranslated words, but have gone on to add others that were not in the original Greek, thus leading countless numbers of people astray. See A “Deposit” “Guaranteeing” Our Inheritance?
Hell: Much of the confusion about hell has arisen from the fact that several separate and distinctive words (Sheol in Hebrew, and Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus in Greek), were usually translated into the single English word 'hell' commonly believed to be the place of the damned. However, what is particularly disturbing is that all four original words are proper nouns and should have been left untranslated. See What and Where is Hell?
However, most of the articles below are still relevant. The Apocrypha was excluded from the canon for good reason. The Living Bible, The Message and The Good News Bible are horrendous paraphrases. And considering how many ‘mistranslations’ there are in all versions, the KJV only arguments are ludicrous.
Apocrypha not in Protestant Bible?
Did the writers of the NT accept the Apocryphal books as canon?
The King James Version
Is it really the only valid English version?
When the Bible Becomes an Idol
In general KJV-Only advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion
The Textus Receptus
Should a denomination or association of churches oppose a version solely on the ground that it is not based on the ‘textus receptus’? (Includes major problems with the KJV)
Versions To be Avoided at All Cost
The Living Bible
The masses of people not conditioned by a lifetime of study to the archaisms of the KJV & ASV have a deep hunger for a translation they can easily read and understand, a hunger so urgent that they, the blind led by the blind, grasp at broken reeds like the LB.
The Good News Bible
The popularity of the Today's English Version is frightful in light of its perverted renderings of key passages dealing with Christ's deity, the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, the blood atonement, and many other doctrines
New Age Implications In ‘The Message’
an excerpt from Warren Smith’s latest book, Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church. (Includes link to ‘What kind of message is ‘The Message’?)