Can we Trust Modern Bible Translations?

There are several conservative Christians who insist on the King James Version (KJV) and nothing else. They charge all other English Bibles with textual inaccuracy and "watered down" theology. Are their accusations true?

It is true that some Bible translations simply cannot be trusted while others need to be read with some caution. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation is chalk-full of inaccuracies, and it clearly reflects their heretical theology. The New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible contain just a touch of Roman Catholic dogma. Some passages of the New Revised Standard Version unnecessarily use the term “human” or “person” in place of “man” so not to offend women. However, the "King James Only" crowd just does not have all the facts straight on other modern translations. For instance, they charge the Revised Standard Version (RSV) with denying the virgin birth of Christ. They note the RSV's use of the term "young woman" in place of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. However, that is no reason for alarm because in Matthew 1:23 (the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14), the RSV uses the term "virgin." Besides, the Hebrew term alma (often translated "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14) literally means "young woman." Only the New Testament makes it clear that Isaiah was referring to an actual virgin (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:34).

The King James Only crowd also notes how Luke 2:33 is phrased in the KJV: "And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him [Jesus]." They compare that to the same passage in modern translations: "The child's father and mother marveled" (NIV); "And His father and mother were amazed" (NASB). Those translations (along with the RSV) are charged with denying the virgin birth of Christ because they (unlike the KJV) identify Joseph as Jesus' "father" (also in v. 43). By that same reasoning, we must also conclude the KJV denies the virgin birth in verse 48: "And when they saw him [Jesus], they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Italics added). If the King James Version can safely refer to Joseph as Jesus' "father" without denying the virgin birth, then why can't other translations do the same?! Furthermore, virtually all modern translations clearly and explicitly teach the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, and Luke 1:34. Besides, Joseph was still Jesus' legal father. Even today, many orphans call their foster parents "Mom" and "Dad," so what's the big deal?!

The King James Only crowd also notes that almost all modern translations do not include 1 John 5:7, which explicitly teaches the Trinity. However, many Bible historians and Greek scholars (including many evangelicals and fundamentalists) question the authenticity of 1 John 5:7. They point out that it is not included in most of the older and more reliable Greek copies of 1 John. Scholars can safely agree to disagree over which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are older and more reliable, especially because their textual differences are a mere fraction of a percent. In fact, there is absolutely no textual dispute that puts essential Christian theology at odds with the reader. Let me explain: although 1 John 5:7 teaches the Trinity, there are many other passages that teach it (or at least imply it) also (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 14:26; 15:26; 1 Pet. 1:2), all of which are included in all the modern translations. For any Bible translation to be anti-trinitarian, it must exclude several if not all passages that teach the Trinity--not just one single passage in particular! Basically only one single "proof text" is necessary to prove anything from Scripture, although it helps to have more than one for extra support.

Finally, look up Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV, then compare them with those same passages in the NIV, RSV, and NASB. If (and only if) we follow the same logic of the King James Only crowd, we would have no choice but to conclude those modern translations are more faithful to the Deity of Jesus Christ than the King James Version! Likewise, if you compare Romans 9:5 in the KJV with that same passage in the NIV, you should see what I mean.