Dusting off the debate over Bible translations

Several writers at First Things are having an entertaining back and forth about the old Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible, the much preferred translation of the magazine's late founder Richard John Neuhaus. In Protestant circles, this translation has been pretty much out of circulation for about twenty years. The Catholic edition, however, is apparently still in wide use, much to the consternation of Michael Brendan Dougherty, whose article in The American Conservative sparked the First Things conversation. Dougherty finds the old RSV "unmemorable and unexciting." Leroy Huizenga disagrees, calling it "accurate and readable and dignified."

David T. Koyzis offers the most detailed critique, pointing out the RSV's stylistic inconsistencies and Christological deficiencies.

Having grown up with the King James Version of the Bible, I have no sentimental attachment to the Revised Standard Version, although I do read from it in the context of daily prayers. Still I cannot manage to summon up Fr. Neuhaus’s enthusiasm for this translation, which has a number of literary flaws, stemming mostly from the translators’ misguided retention of some Jacobean English features in an otherwise modern translation. The problems are especially obvious in their inconsistent use of the old second-person-singular pronouns (thou, thee, thy, thine). In general, these are used in addressing God, as in this example from Psalm 25:

To thee, O LORD, I lift up my soul. O my God, in thee I trust, let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies exult over me.

However, these pronouns are never used in addressing Jesus, which might be seen to suggest a deficient christology on the part of the translators. Moreover, there are some passages where the second-person-singular pronouns are used to address a personified entity, such as a country or city:

He it was who smote the first-born of Egypt, both of man and of beast; who in thy midst, O Egypt, sent signs and wonders against Pharaoh and all his servants. . . . (Psalm 135:9)

and:

The LORD will reign for ever,
thy God, O Zion, to all generations.
Praise the LORD! (Psalm 146:10)

and:

. . . and the sound of harpers and minstrels, of flute players and trumpeters, shall be heard in thee no more; and a craftsman of any craft shall be found in thee no more; and the sound of the millstone shall be heard in thee no more; and the light of a lamp shall shine in thee no more; and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall be heard in thee no more; for thy merchants were the great men of the earth, and all nations were deceived by thy sorcery (Revelation 18:22-23).

In conclusion, Koyzis says the old RSV was crying out for revision or replacement after forty years as the mainline standard. He leaves it up to the reader whether the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) or English Standard Version (ESV) is best, but he commends both for their dispensing with the last remnants of "Jacobean English."

I am fully on board with Alan Jacobs that the ESV ought to get the nod. I have no use whatsoever for the NRSV, and not primarily for the reason one might think. It is easy enough to dismiss it for its condescending use of "gender neutral" language. However, my chief problem with the NRSV is similar to Jacbs' problem with the New Living Translation (NLT).

Before considering the excellence of the ESV, we must take some time to understand a little more about the range of translations that enrich, or afflict, our world today. Let’s begin with the Living Bible. The Living Bible—a paraphrase, not a translation—was produced by a single man, Kenneth N. Taylor, and was published by Tyndale House in 1971; it sought to provide access to Scripture for those who found all translations too formidable. Its enormous success led the people at Tyndale to suspect that a genuine translation based on similar principles might also be successful, and in 1996 the New Living Translation (NLT) appeared. We may begin to approach the problems facing a translation that would seek to be universal, or something close to it, by looking at the very first page of the introduction to the NLT. The translators, as one might expect, attempt to distinguish their work from the other available versions, and they do so by claiming that they have produced a “thought-for-thought” (or what is usually called a “dynamic equivalence”) translation and then explaining what this means:

The value of a thought-for-thought translation can be illustrated by comparing 1 Kings 2:10 in the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation. “So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the City of David” (KJV). “Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David” (NIV). “Then David died and was buried in the City of David” (NLT). Only the New Living Translation clearly translates the real meaning of the Hebrew idiom “slept with his fathers” into contemporary English.

I remember clearly the first time I read these words; I smiled sadly and put the book away, knowing that I would not use it.

My complaint can be easily stated: the author of this introduction does not know the difference between an idiom and a metaphor. It is a distinction both simple and vital. It is highly unlikely that a Jew of David’s time, or at any time in Israel’s history, would have found a family member’s dead body and run to tell everyone that grandpa was now sleeping with his fathers. Hebrew has words to express quite directly that someone has died; the chronicler of Kings chooses here to eschew them in favor of a particularly hieratic and formal way of describing the death of David. When (in 2 Samuel 1) a man comes from the camp of Israel’s army to report to David, he says simply that Saul (along with his son Jonathan) has died. The deaths of Saul and Jonathan are given no cultural or political meaning, because by the time this history was written the people of Israel no longer identified Saul as having special importance for their national identity. David, by contrast, is for the Israelites their first true King, the head of a proper dynastic line; therefore he does not merely die, he “sleeps with his fathers” in Jerusalem, the “city of David.” The phrase is not an idiom—a common phrase lacking an evident literal meaning—instead, it is a carefully chosen image of David’s place in the culture of Israel. The meaning of the phrase may not be immediately evident to the average reader; but the scholar who on those grounds removes it does not translate but interprets. (It is true, of course, that every translation is in some sense an interpretation; but translators are not thereby liberated from the need to strive for fidelity; and only a strange sense of fidelity would lead a translation committee to erase distinctions the original text strove to preserve.)

What is really being revealed here is not clarity or forcefulness of translation, but the modern biblical scholar’s mistrust of figurative language. Some years ago Gerald Hammond noted that many recent translations of the Bible “eschew anything which smacks of imagery or metaphor—based on the curious assumption, I guess, that modern English is an image-free language.” One could find no better illustration of Hammond’s point than the sentence “Then David died and was buried in the City of David.”

The NRSV makes a similar mistake which has, arguably, much deeper theological implications.

While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he died. (Acts 7:59-60 NRSV)

Compare the above rendering with the same passage from the ESV. The difference is subtle, but significant.

And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
(Acts 7:59-60 ESV)

In light of Jesus's resurrection, the New Testament writers, even moreso than the Old Testament chroniclers, had good reason to use the temporal term, "fell asleep," as opposed to the seemingly permanent term, "died." The NRSV carelessly throws around the latter term throughout the New Testament, leaving the departed saints in a seemingly permanent state of separation from the living.

Equally egregiously, the NRSV runs roughshod over the theologically significant metaphors so carefully chosen by the New Testament writers. One example will suffice.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24 NRSV)

Again, the variance with the ESV is subtle, but significant.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
(1 Peter 2:24 ESV)

Of course, the "tree" is a reference to the cross, but Peter is being quite deliberate in making the connection between the cross, which sets us free from sin, and the original "tree" which brought about our downfall through the sin of Adam and Eve in garden (Genesis 3). The NRSV translators demonstrate considerable theological shallowness in missing this point. Then again, it is only one of a myriad of points--theological, Christological, and (of course) anthropological--they miss throughout what is a thoroughly vapid and vacuous translation.

A grievous example of translational hari-kari

I must confess that my intention for the Anglican Daily Prayer blog was to offer, as often as possible, original meditations on the lessons of the day. However, I have found this particularly challenging given the limited amount of time I have to get each day's meditation posted in a timely manner. Consequently, I have found myself, more often than not, falling back on classic and contemporary devotional readings or reflections from the Church Fathers. This is a task made considerably easier during Lent when I can usually find a reading appropriate for the season which doesn't have to be directly connected with the day's lessons.

Today, I selected an excerpt from Christus Veritas by William Temple published in the anthology, A Time to Turn: Anglican Readings for Lent and Easter, compiled by Christopher L. Webber. Temple, a prolific writer and theologian, served as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1942 until his untimely death in 1944. Christus Veritas, a 285-page essay, was written in 1924 when Temple was merely the Bishop of Manchester. Considering those historical circumstances, it would be safe to assume then-Bishop Temple used the Authorized (King James) Version or some similar translation for his Scriptural citations. I can't see him using some watered down "modern English" translation or paraphrase, as such novelties did not exist at the time. I was quite taken aback, then, when a familiar quote from Psalm 8 (vv. 3, 4) was rendered, "When I look at your heavens, the work of our fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?" 

Temple's original text did indeed use the King James translation, "When I consider Thy heavens, even the works of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars that Thou hast ordained—what is man, that Thou art mindful of him?" The modernized text in the Webber anthology is from the New Revised Standard Version and is one of its most grievous examples of translational hari-kari in the name of "inclusiveness." The writer of Hebrews cites this very passage in relation to the Incarnation.

For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere,

“What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,

“I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”

And again,

“I will put my trust in him.”

And again,

“Behold, I and the children God has given me.”

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

(Hebrews 2:5-18 ESV)

The emasculation of the text, rendering the singular "man" as "human beings" and "son of man" as "mortals," has serious theological and Christological implications. Clearly the writer of Hebrews understood the Psalmist to be foreseeing the coming of the Messiah. "Man" and "son of man" referred to a specific Person, not "human beings" and "mortals" in general.

Ironically, the selection from Temple's work is all about embracing the holiness and majesty of a God who is both transcendent and immanent. It is precisely these attributes of God which are de-emphasized or lost entirely when the fleeting sensitivities of "human beings" and "mortals" are allowed to become the primary concern of modern translators.

N.T. Wright's Kingdom New Testament: Reading through the Gospels during Lent

N.T. Wright's latest offering is The Kingdom New Testament, a contemporary translation that is certain to challenge and edify readers. It is not too early to start thinking about what disciplines you will be following to enhance your spiritual life during the Lenten season. Getting re-acquainted with the Scriptures through a fresh translation is a discipline worth considering. Click here for a reading plan which will cover the four Gospels from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday. As the year progresses, I will post additional reading plans to cover the remainder of the New Testament.

I would suggest this reading plan be used not merely as a daily devotional (we have the Daily Office for that), but as an opportunity to do some serious, in-depth study of the Scriptures. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. You might even want to start a small group to meet regularly and discuss what God is saying to you through his Word.

Nothing new about the "new" NIV: They goofed again!

Last year, leaders of the organization formerly known as the International Bible Society and Send the Light, now operating under the name Biblica, admitted that the dreadful 2002 revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible was a mistake. However, the extent of their repentance, reflected in a forthcoming further revision, is not sufficient according to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptists recently announced their rejection of the new NIV Bible at their annual convention in Phoenix, Ariz., saying they could not commend the translation and its use of gender-neutral language.

The resolution introduced by author Tim Overton of Muncie, Ind., passed by at least a 2-to-1 margin, and only received a handful of opposing votes, Baptist Press reported.

“Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture,” the resolution states. “This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language.”

Expressing “profound disappointment” with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House, who printed 1.9 million copies of the updated Bible in the first run, the SBC “respectfully [requested]” that Lifeway Bookstores not sell the new version in their stores and encouraged pastors to let their congregations know of the translation errors.

“We cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or to the larger Christian community,” the resolution concluded.

Criticism over the update has been high ever since its inception, with opponents like the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – which support a complementarian view of manhood and womanhood – finding over 3,600 gender-related problems in the new version.

Gender neutral or "inclusive" language is something I find particularly loathsome and ugly. The emasculation of a sacred text, be it Scripture itself or a liturgy derived from it, is an egregious offense against Almighty God. In the case of the NIV, however, revisions involving gender neutrality constitute a relatively minor issue. From its inception, the NIV has been riddled with translation errors and forced (mis)interpretations which skew the literal meaning of the text by using a dubious methodology known as "dynamic equivalence." Richard Bacon, relying heavily on the work of Robert Martin, catalogued some of the more egregious examples in an article first published in 1995. One example will suffice as an illustration of the NIV's theological and hermeneutical tendentiousness.

Let us compare Matthew 24:30 . . .

NIV: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will
appear in the sky."

AV: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
Man in heaven."

What interpretations are possible for the NIV statement? Only one: some kind of sign will appear in the sky. The ONLY way one can understand the NIV is as a prediction of some kind of visible apparition in the atmospheric or stellar heavens.

Now, contrast the more accurate AV translation. There are three possible interpretations that are immediately obvious. The first is the same one the NIV forces upon us, namely some kind of sign will appear in the visible heavens (sky). The second is that some kind of sign will appear in the highest heavens. The third (and the one with the most historic Reformed expositors -- and I believe the correct one) is that a sign will appear, the meaning of which is that the Son of Man has ascended to take his throne in heaven.

The point of this (and we could multiply examples) is that dynamic equivalence tremendously increases the role of the translator in mediating the meaning of the text! A "formal" translation gives us in English the text of the Greek, but does not force us to one interpretation or another. Dynamic equivalence has somebody's interpretation built in! It is an unavoidable consequence of the theory.

Dumbing down a multi-dimensional term such as "heaven" to mean nothing more than "sky" is par for the course with the NIV. Another example of reducing a Greek term to its least common English denominator is the pathetically weak rendering of Jesus' statement in John 15.4.

Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

Far more accurate is this rendering from the English Standard Version (ESV).

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

One does not need a degree in theology and hermeneutics to know there is a mountain of difference between "remaining" and "abiding."

The graceless Luther

No, this is not the long-awaited but still unwritten post on the possibility of dementia as an explanation for Martin Luther's zaniness in his later years. Nor is it a screed against Lutheranism or the whole Protestant enterprise. In fact, Luther is only mentioned because it was in a modern language edition of some of his devotional writings that I discovered yet another example of the theological bankruptcy of the modern translation business. Remember the train wreck known as Today's New International Version of the Bible? Well, several years earlier, there was the Contemporary English Version (CEV), a translation best remembered for its novel rendering of the Greek charis (traditionally translated "grace") as "kindness." I was a mere student at Asbury Theological Seminary when this particular translation came out. David McKenna, then president of the school, referred to it as "the graceless Bible."

But the CEV was not alone in its "gracelessness." Another "contemporary" translation, God's Word for the Nations, also saw fit to replace "grace" with "kindness" and it would appear that this latter "graceless Bible" has now morphed into a considerable publishing enterprise. Not only the Bible, but the saints, doctors, and reformers of old are being repackaged by World Publishing for a new generation that apparently cannot grasp the depth of a marvelous term like "grace." Consider this selection from By Faith Alone, a collection of devotional writings by the aforementioned Martin Luther.

When I was a monk, I didn't accomplish anything through fasting and prayer. This is because neither I, nor any of the other monks, acknowledged our sin and lack of reverence for God. We didn't understand original sin, and we didn't realize that unbelief was also sin. We believed and taught that no matter what a person did, he could never be certain of God's kindness and mercy. As a result, the more I ran after and looked for Christ, the more he eluded me.

When I realized that it was only through God's undeserved kindness that I would be enlightened and receive eternal life, I worked diligently to understand what Paul said in Romans 1:17 -- the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. I searched for a long time and tried to understand it again and again. But the Latin words for "the righteousness of God" were in my way. God's righteousness was usually defined as the characteristic by which he was sinless and condemns the sinner. All the teachers except Augustine interpreted God's righteousness as God's anger. So every time I read it, I wished that God had never revealed the gospel. Who could love a God who is angry and who judges and condemns us?

Finally, with the help of the Holy Spirit, I took a closer look at what the prophet Habakkuk said, "The righteous person will live because of his faithfulness" (Habakkuk 2:4). From this I concluded that life must come from faith. I, therefore, took the abstract to the concrete level, as we say in school. I related the concept of righteousness to a person becoming righteous. In other words, a person receives God's approval by faith. That opened the whole Bible -- even heaven itself -- to me!

Ironically, what the translators have done is reinstate the obstacle which so confounded Luther, only they have put it in reverse. Whereas the inadequate Latin translations of Luther's day reduced God's righteousness to God's anger, so the woefully inadequate Contemporary English translations of today reduce God's grace to God's kindness. Somehow, "kindness and mercy" just doesn't have the same ring (or theological import) as "grace and mercy." Substituting "kindness" not only diminishes "grace," but also takes the edge off of "mercy." If grace is merely God's kindness, then mercy is little more than God's niceness. One wonders why the translators didn't just go all the way. "God's kindness and niceness" would be the perfect rallying cry for the soft-pedaled "gospel" of the Emergent movement, don't you think?

Bible Translators: We Goofed

The makers and marketers of the magnificently unnecessary Today's New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible now admit they made a mistake.

In announcing a major revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society and Send The Light, or IBS-STL) CEO Keith Danby said the 2002 revision of the translation, Today's New International Version (TNIV) was a mistake.

"Quite frankly, some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made," Danby said. "We failed to make the case for revisions and we made some important errors in the way we brought the translation to publication. We also underestimated the scale of the public affection for the NIV and failed to communicate the rationale for change in a manner that reflected that affection."

Danby said it was also a mistake to stop revisions on the NIV after the TNIV came out. "We shackled the NIV to the language and scholarship of a quarter century ago, thus limiting its value as a tool for ongoing outreach throughout the world," he said.

"Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community," said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. "So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV."

"We are correcting the mistakes in the past," Girkins said. "Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board was made in the last 10 days." She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies evangelicalism."

Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that roiled critics of the TNIV.

"We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction," Moo said. "All that is back on the table. This has been a time of transition in the in the way the English language has handled gender, and it is in flux and in process as things are changing quickly."

The Evangelical Christian Publishers Association reports the NIV is still the best-selling Bible translation overall, though specific Bibles in other translations are outselling NIV Bibles. Last month, for example, the English Standard Version's Outreach New Testament and the New King James Version's Text Bible outsold the NIV's Adventure Bible. The TNIV is not among the top ten best-selling translations and no TNIV edition is among the best-selling Bibles. One bright spot for the TNIV, however, has been in sales to the Amazon Kindle e-reader, where the TNIV is the third-most popular translation (behind the NIV and King James translation).

John Stek, who served as chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation during the creation of the TNIV and the ensuring debate over the translation, died June 6.

Developing...

The late Richard John Neuhaus noted the problems with the TNIV when it first appeared back in 2002. Those who view the "gender neutral" debate as adiaphora should take note.

The best-selling Bible translation in the English-speaking world is the New International Version (NIV). It is the overwhelming favorite among evangelical Protestants. In 1997 there was a very big fuss when it was reported that the International Bible Society, which holds the copyright, and Zondervan, the exclusive publisher, contemplated a “gender inclusive” version of the NIV. As a result of the ruckus, they agreed to cease and desist. But now, lo and behold, Today’s New International Version. Many evangelical leaders are furious. Here is a statement of protest noting that “evangelical Christians confess the plenary, verbal inspirationof Scripture. Plenary means ‘every,’ verbal means ‘word.’ Thus God inspired each of the words of the original text of the Bible, not simply the concepts behind those words.” Never mind that plenary actually means full, or that many evangelicals and most other Christians do not subscribe to a “dictation theory” of divine inspiration. TNIV, like some other contemporary translations, does have big problems. For instance, Hebrews 2:6, echoing Psalm 8 and other Old Testament passages, has it, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” TNIV has this: “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” Apart from the clumsy language, there is a theological distortion in that “son of man” has been understood, from the apostolic era to the present, to be a messianic reference to Christ. Revelation 3:20: “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” TNIV: “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.” The latter is simply grammatically wrong. And what’s the point? Does anyone seriously fear that people will think that Jesus does not eat with women? There are numerous other such examples. One need not get worked up to a high dudgeon over theories of biblical inspiration to find repugnant this incessant meddling with texts, aimed at pandering to people who are too sensitive for decent company. And, of course, aimed at selling “new, improved” Bibles that nobody needs.

Another Great Bible Scholar for Obama

The "gay rights" movement is a lie that is built upon a lie that is rooted in a lie. But when that lie is assigned credibility and permitted to be expressed as a legitimate point of view, the end result is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum which would be laughable were it not for the fact that our morally vacuous society demands that we take it seriously. Consider this report from WorldNetDaily.

A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.

He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its King James Bible, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9.

He told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to "compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability."

Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible.

"These are opinions based on the publishers," Fowler said. "And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life."

'Astounding research'

Fowler's blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website features a post titled "Unleashing America from Injustice," in which he says he "was completely distraught after discovering the term-homosexual-was added to the bible, in 1976, and then removed, in 2001 and 2006, without any consideration to the many victims who committed suicide or were murdered because of their sexual preference of homosexuality."

The Obama campaign notes the opinions expressed in its community blog section "in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign."

On a separate personal blogsite, Fowler features his related book, written under the name "Bradley-Almighty," which, he boasts, contains "astounding research from within the pages of the bible, that will change the face of religion across the globe."

Titled "365 Reason's to Study the Bible," he says his "debut book" takes the reader "on a journey through time, as he shifts swiftly, yet gracefully, through the pages of religious history, slowly exposing hidden secrets bible publishers have fought- feverishly to keep hidden from the general public for centuries. An avalanche of secrets that are keeping millions around the world enslaved today."

Fowler cites his interview with a newspaper called Michigan Front Page in which he said, "Lack of sincerity from bible readers has helped this conspiracy go on this long."

'Engrossed' with Scripture

On his personal blog's "About Me" page, Fowler says that while serving a sentence in the Michigan Department of Corrections, he "gained a sincere interest" in the Bible's teachings and, over a 10 year period, "became so engrossed within" the Scriptures, he couldn't do much more than eat and sleep.

In the rambling piece, he says "everything inside of me suddenly became consumed and overwhelmed by something greater than me ... that's when I found God."

Then, in an apparent reference to the complaint in his lawsuit, he says, "Discovering how much the bible has been changed through man's desicions and incorrect interpretations was hard to accept."

His discovery, he says, "proves we all have been strung along, foolishly, lost in the essence of our minds."

Fowler concludes with a description of himself as a "small business owner, part-time college student, member of the Christian Writer's Guild, freelance writer for the Michigan Front Page, and author of two new books."

Fowler, notes a post by JoAnne Thomas on RightPundits.com, explained his complaint on his blog. He writes:

In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites.

In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-

Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.

When a person's mind has been given over to depravity, that person tends to do some rather silly things which, in a society where decency and morality predominate, are quickly dismissed as frivolous and inconsequential. However, when a society itself has been given over to depravity, silliness can have dire consequences.

It is, of course, worth noting that Fowler is no more a biblical scholar and exegete than his favorite presidential candidate.

The Growing Popularity of the ESV

I have used the English Standard Version (ESV) as my primary Bible translation ever since its release in 2001. It is, as far as I'm concerned, the most accurate and readable of the "literal" translations. It preserves the poetic beauty of the KJV while avoiding the liberal theological bias of the RSV and NRSV, the fundamentalist theological bias of the NASB, and the awkwardness of the NKJV. Early on, I had concerns about the ESV's staying power in light of a major public relations push for a dreadful revision of the New International Version (NIV), known as Today's New International Version (TNIV). Lately, however, I am encouraged by the growing number of preachers, teachers, and expositors who are embracing the ESV as their primary translation. Blogger PaulWrites offers this ringing endorsement.

The English Standard Version is my Bible translation of choice. I may be the only one at my church who uses this translation, I’m certainly the first to teach and preach from it. I first heard about the ESV at a pastor’s conference a few years ago. I picked up a hardback copy at the conference bookstore but didn’t use it much. Then I heard John Piper talk about the translation and I was inspired, but still didn’t use it much. When my wife wanted to get me a new preaching Bible for our anniversary last summer I decided to go with the ESV and have been using it ever since.

I like it, even though I’m still getting used to it. My favorite translation has always been the New American Standard Bible. Unfortunately people seem to think the NASB is hard to understand. The ESV has the same commitment to the Scriptures as the NASB but is more readable.

To learn more about the ESV, visit the ESV Bible Blog. Order a copy from the Crossway web site.

Neuhaus Doesn't Like NAB

First Things head honcho Richard John Neuhaus is no fan of the New American Bible (NAB), the only translation permitted by Catholic bishops in America to be read at Mass. Some day, Fr. Neuhaus may tell us how he really feels.

The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation. Why did the bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass? Various answers are given: Because it was produced by the guild of Catholic biblical scholars and, while it may not be very good, at least it is ours. Because the bishops hold the copyright, and charges for using the NAB in Mass guides and elsewhere is a cash cow for the financially strapped bishops conference. Because the bishops really don’t care whether Catholics use a worthy and reliable translation of the Bible.

Whatever the reason, it is a continuing scandal that the bishops do not permit the use of other translations that are more reliable, readable, intelligible, and worthy of the written word of God. The best of them is the Revised Standard Version (RSV), but there are others.(For personal and group Bible study, the Catholic edition of the RSV, published by Ignatius Press, is recommended.)

Not that my Anglican opinion matters but, for my money, the more recent revision of the RSV, the English Standard Version (ESV), is best.