A Short Method of Evaluating the Modern Bible Versions

by Glenn Conjurske

The short method is, consider the source. There is one fact which many of the advocates of one or another of the modern Bible versions seem always to overlook. That fact is this: the modern Bible versions, all of them, are the productions of modern Evangelicalism—-or of something worse than Evangelicalism. Another fact is that the church of God has probably never before seen a generation so shallow, worldly, lukewarm, intellectual, and unspiritual as the present one. A third fact is, the stream does not rise above its source.

Now in the light of these things it has always been an enigma to me to see conservative Fundamentalists and Mennonites and Plymouth Brethren devoted to one or another of these modern Bible versions. We expect this of Neo-Evangelicals. We expect it of that large class who call themselves Fundamentalists, but who are in reality Neo-Evangelicals in heart and spirit and ways. But when we see conservative Mennonites and Plymouth Brethren following in the same path, we think something is out of place.

The fact is, these conservatives will have little or nothing to do with the ways of those who have produced the modern Bible versions. They will not watch the television which these new Bible translators watch. They will have nothing to do with the major league ball teams which the new translators idolize. They will not adopt the sort of music which they use in their churches, and listen to on their radios. They will not approve—- probably will not even read—-the books which these translators write. Yet they will take their Bible from their hands. This is strange. Do they really suppose that the stream rises above its source?

Liberalism and intellectualism pervade the new Bible versions. This can hardly be otherwise, while the modern church which produced them is what it is. These worldly intellectuals scarcely understand the reason for the existence of the Bible. They seem to suppose that the God who hides his truth from the wise and learned, and reveals it to babes, has written a book for the purpose of maintaining nice distinctions for the sake of college and seminary professors, or professional theologians. And as they think, so they translate. We must therefore learn to distinguish between thieves and robbers. Devils must give place to demons, pounds to minas, and the penny to the denarius. We all know what a penny is, but who ever heard of a denarius? Thus the common people are set aside—-or turned into proud intellectuals.

But I mean to be short—-to speak in general, and not in particular. It is a mystery to me that the conservative and the spiritual can find these new translations acceptable, while I know very well that they do not find the ways or the doctrines of the new translators acceptable.

Liberalism and irreverence appear in the very names of many of the new Bible versions. This, of course, cannot be said of the New American Standard Version, nor of the New King James Version. Their names are conservative enough, except for the tell-tale word “New.” Yet whatever the title may be, there is liberalism enough—-and intellectualism to spare—-between the covers. I have written before of the liberalism of the most conservative of the new versions, the New King James Version. That version was produced under the general editorship of Arthur Farstad, who was for years a teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary. If anyone entertains any doubts concerning the prevailing liberalism of Dallas Theological Seminary, let him read the books which come from its president and its faculty. Indeed, let him but visit the place. I spent a few hours there in 1981, and was shocked at what I saw. I did not find old-fashioned Christianity, but women (office workers) painted like Jezebels, and men (students) with long hair hanging down their backs.

But let it be understood that I use the term “liberalism” in its proper sense. I do not refer to modernism, which is the advanced fruit of liberalism, but to a departure from conservative ways and standards, a restless dissatisfaction with old paths and ancient landmarks, and a shallow love of change. This liberalism is written on the very face of every modern Bible which I have seen. It is in fact the reason for their existence. A conservative revision, cautious and sparing of change, I have never seen.

Now it so happens that liberals are often as dissatisfied with their own work as they are with the work of their fathers. When once the love of change takes possession of a man, there is little stopping him. He always wants further change, and it is worth noticing that this is the case with some of the producers of the modern Bibles. The New American Standard Version has been revised so many times that it is futile to keep count. The general editor of the New King James Version (Arthur Farstad) subsequently went to work to produce another new version, called Logos 21. Let conservatives consider this well. What business has a man who will name a Bible Logos 21 to be translating the Bible at all?

Another new Bible is called KJ21, or The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible. I have not seen it. The advertising was enough to deter me from any desire to see it. The book comes recommended by a bevy of Charismatics and Neo-Evangelicals and worse, including Theodore Letis, who repudiates Fundamentalists, admires liberals, and sets aside the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Yet conservatives admire this version, and recommend it. They are in bad company. The material which was sent to me by the publishers of this version contains also an advertisement for a 78-minute tape recording of extracts from the new version, “recorded by professional performing artists” (!), and selling for $11.95. This can only disgust the spiritual. We really do not see how a spiritual version of the Bible could come from such a source.

This KJ21 is more conservative in actual alteration of the text than many modern versions, but in other respects it is more liberal. The text is printed in four different styles of type, the words of Christ being in italics, “Old Testament passages which are less familiar, less frequently quoted or memorized, and less appropriate for inclusion in lectionaries” being in sans serif type, while “familiar passages,” “key passages,” “many passages which relate to God’s joy over His people and His people’s rejoicing over their God,” and “many passages which relate to human suffering and God’s comfort” are printed in bold type. All this is as arbitrary as it is uncalled for, and it is certainly an expression of liberalism. Christians ought to resent the taking of such liberties with the word of God.

I am quite well aware that many of the conservatives who admire these modern Bibles lack the learning to be able to judge them on their merits. They know no Greek or Hebrew. Many of them also lack the spiritual discernment to understand what the issues are. They know little of solid doctrine or spiritual principle. They are conservative only because their fathers were. This is honorable, so far as it goes, and I do not write to condemn them for this, nor to slight them either. Far from that. I write to help them. I write to give them a short method to accomplish what they may lack the abilities to attain by a more laborious route. I only tell them, the stream is not likely to rise above its source. They will not take their theology, their standards, their ways, or their spirit from these modern Evangelicals. Why then do they accept their Bibles? Their confidence is misplaced.

I do not expect my short method to have any weight with Neo-Evangelicals, or with any of the unspiritual intellectuals who are enamored with modern scholarship. The new versions will no doubt just suit them, and they will regard me as hopelessly outdated, or something worse. But frankly, I would expect conservatives to adopt this method instinctively. Let a word to the wise be sufficient.

Glenn Conjurske