Reviewing The Today's English Version (II.)
Continuing our review of the Today's English Version, we wish to point out that this translation, due to its low price, is already spreading rapidly. It will no doubt be one with which we will have to deal with later, and since it is so full of liberties taken in the word of God and mistranslations, such a fraud needs to be exposed so people will not be taken in. All comparisons are being made with the New American Standard Bible, one of the very best on the market today. All emphasis in passages will be my own.
Turning to John 1:1-2, we find the following in the TEV: "Before the world was created, the Word already existed, he was with God, and he was the same as God. From the very beginning, the Word was with God." The ASB correctly renders this passage "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." To say the very least, this passage and its bad translation will be of much help to the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny that Christ was in reality divine, but merely a created being that God created before he began the world. "The same as God" implies he is not divine, but merely something LIKE God. In fairness to the TEV, I would like to point out that they have attempted to use the word God to refer to the Father exclusively in this book, but this is not a correct usage of it, as it refers to both Father and Son (God, basically meaning deity), and this passage is a good example of what happens when they attempt to separate them. "Same as God," with the proper understanding, could be correctly understood, but not with the understanding most people would have on reading this passage, and certainly not with the help the Jehovah Witnesses would like to cast upon it.
Right along with this study of John 1:1-3 is another passage they have distorted to the discredit of Christ. This is to be found in Phil. 2:6 which the ASB translates, concerning Christ, "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men." I regret that it does not clarify much over the ASV, RSV, or the KJV as to the meaning of the passage, but is certainly substantially better than the TEV. The word grasped can be understood in two senses: (1) to grab and (2) to hang on to. Actually either could be used to define the Greek word arpagmos. In view of the context, though, and the fact Christ already had the equality, the former is not in harmony. Vine in his Expository Dict. of N.T. Words favors the understanding given by Grifford as "accurate and more free from ambiguity" when he rendered it in the passive sense as "Who though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof" (p. 216). Thayer's Greek Lexicon, in commenting on the word morphae (p. 418) has this to say about this passage:
This whole passage...is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was logos asarkos) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp. to morph doulou), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see arpagmos, 2) but emptied himself of it (see kenow) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men...
Now, in the view of this evidence, and the efforts to put this new translation in the "standard, or common form" of English, we would expect a literal translation to bear the idea of declining to give up this equality or hanging on to it. However, now let us look at the TEV and see how accurately they do translate it: "He always had the very nature of God, But he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Not only is it completely out of harmony with the context, they have selected the alternative which gives the impression Christ had to wait and work to obtain equality with God. There can be no excuse for this deliberate and detailed use of the wrong meaning, unless it would be to further appeal to those who would deny the deity of Christ and his former equality with God as one of the deity or godhead.
We might next take up a few comparative readings of a general nature, such as found in John 11:44 where the ASB says "He who had died came forth." The TEV says, "The dead man came out." Was he still dead when he came out?
Acts 1:12 says "Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." The TEV has taken the liberty to completely ignore the original language and an accurate translation, and substituted as they saw fit by rendering it: "Then the apostles went back to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, which is about half a mile away from the city." How can one feel any confidence in a translation which feels free to substitute at will regardless of the original?
In Acts 2:1 we find the apostles under consideration (see verse 4,7 and 14), as the ASB translates it: "And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place." The TEV again ignores the context and substitutes at will, saying "all the believers were gathered together in one place" — referring back to the 120 who had previously assembled on another occasion in Acts 1:15.
In I Cor. 4:6, Paul in showing how to deal with our fellowman, says he applied his lessons figuratively to himself and Apollos, "that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other" (ASB). The KJV keeps this same idea in saying "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written." Appealing to the word of God as a judge, though, sounds too legalistic to these freedom-loving translators, so they merely took the liberty to change it as follows: "I have used us as an example, that you may learn what the saying means, `Observe the proper rules." Makes quite a difference in the meaning and the authority that is appealed to.
Then too, turning to II Pet. 3:10 we can see further mellowing of the word of God as we read in the ASB, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. The TEV modifies it by merely affirming, concerning the latter part, "and the earth with everything in it will vanish." Poof! Here today and gone tomorrow! Nice and pleasant, just vanish like a magical act. Not according to the word of God!
Or maybe we could turn to II Pet. 1:7, where Peter is talking of the various graces he wishes us to add to our lives: "and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, Christian love." In putting this into the "Common" English, the TEV makes a nice muddy mess of it as follows: "to your godliness add brotherly love; and to your brotherly love add love." Did you know there was a difference between "brotherly love" and "love?"
In Revelation, perhaps because of the words of 22:18-19, they were afraid to take any liberty, and stayed VERY close to the wording of the KJV. However, turning to 17:3, John says, "And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness." This can be understood in two ways: (1) the Spirit picked him up and bodily carried him off, or (2) and more likely, the Spirit — in a trance or spiritual state took him via a vision to a place in the wilderness. The TEV says, "The Spirit took control of me, and the angel carried me to a desert." This clearly implies there was no vision involved, but John was bodily transported. What does this do to 1:10 and others that imply much of this may have been via a vision from God? Or maybe we could add Revelation 20:4 where it speaks of the triumph of those who had remained faithful to the cause of Christ during the persecution, and says "and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." (ASB). This is another place where the TEV has added to try and glorify it a bit more: "They lived and ruled as kings with Christ for a thousand years."
Still further, we might turn to Heb. 4:9, where the ASB has this to say, "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God." This word "Sabbath" is not in the KJV, and comes from the Greek word Sabbatismos, not Sabbaton, from which the Sabbath day rest is translated. The TEV is good in this passage to show it is not the Sabbath day under consideration, but again have added to the passage what suits them: "As it is, however, there still remains for God's people a rest like God's resting on the seventh day."
In I Thess. 2:19, Paul commends the brethren as follows: "For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?" The TEV decided to glorify them a little more or perhaps to discredit Paul, as we shall see some of in the next article — rendering it thusly: "After all, it is you — you and no one else! who are our hope, our joy, and our reason for boasting of our victory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes."
In Col. 2:14, Paul points to the cross of Christ as the end of the law and the beginning of a new life in Christ, "having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us: and Ile has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." From reading in the TEV, however, one would never even know the law "consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us" was even under consideration. Instead they have this to say: "he cancelled the unfavorable record of our debts, with its binding rules, and did away with it completely by nailing it to the cross." Was it against us? Could we keep up with it? One would never find out from the TEV.
(To be concluded next article) —