How 55 Verses Were Removed From the Bible and More, by Aaron Shryock.
This is an interesting article about the odd and controversial ways some translations have handled Numbers 7:12-83, determining it to be too long and repetitious and needed to be reduced for readers.
“In 1995, the American Bible Society published the Contemporary English Version. This version took the previous approaches to Numbers 7:12-83 one step further. The translators rendered this historical narrative as two lists.”
See how Numbers 7:12-83 looks in the King James Bible for a regular translation: Click HERE.
See how Numbers 7:12-83 looks in the Good News Translation: Click HERE.
See how Numbers 7:12-83 looks in the Contemporary English Version: Click HERE.
2 comments:
I found this very interesting – and troubling. No shame, it seems, some have in "editing" (adulterating) God's words when they translate them into target languages. Shame on them!
The "elephant in the room" of Bible translation that nearly everyone (well, nearly everyone in the Critical Text camp) is ignoring is THE TEXT. They can't even get that right! How can they possibly have an accurate translation that has to change with the whims of those who edit (!) the source texts?! It was precisely the doctrine that God's words do not change that led me – a missionary trained in CT circles – to realize that I absolutely had to translate from a settled text. (However, I do not see anything in the Bible to indicate that it is an offense to God to change target language texts as those languages change. An example is the MODERN Hebrew and Greek Bibles issued by the Trinitarian Bible Society. And I could trigger some folks by saying that, technically, updating even the KJV is not inherently and necessarily a sin (whether it is necessary, prudent, or feasible are other issues). I saw some interesting things in this blog article: https://davemallinak.com/2025/05/14/not-all-kjvos-are-created-equal/.
Anyway, I appreciate your posting links to the article by Aaron Shryock. I think he is / was associated with John MacArthur's ministries, so he is hardly a KJVO person. However, he writes clearly about SOME of the dangers in modern Bible translation practices. I often find his articles thought-provoking.
E. T. Chapman
Brother, thanks so much for your always good and welcome comments, and for the link to Brother Mallinak’s comments. He always offers a well-though and interesting perspective.
I am not really very familiar with Aaron Shyrock, but happened across that writing for some reason or another. That he is connected with MacArthur suggests he is probably a strong CT proponent (e.g., MacArthur thinks we shouldn’t preach Mark 16:9-16). So it is good that he notices and shares with us some of these modern translation issues.
I agree that even updating the KJV is not inherently a sin. I do not think it would be wrong or deception, for example, if we had “precede” substituted for “prevent” or “broom” substituted for “besom.” But, as you say, whether it is necessary, prudent, or feasible are “whole ‘nother” questions. Much of what keeps coming out as KJV updates are done by people who do not really support the KJV strongly anyway. Each single update has the potential of sloughing off into a new category some supporter or former supporter. Until there is widespread support of and need for an update by folks who are genuine lovers of the King James Bible, we are not ready to (and should not) do anything.
Many people claim they “love” the King James Bible, but to me much of that professed love seems like the professed love for Grandma while we see how fast we can get her in the nursing home and out of our hair!
Post a Comment