Biased Translations of the Bible?

Question

Many people have claimed that the King James Version of the Bible was edited specifically to suit the needs of the Church of England, and is thus unreliable.

Are there any other versions of the Bible written for specific religious denominations in order to fit their own interpretation of God's Word? If so, which one(s)? Be specific.

Answer 1

1>"Many people have claimed that the KJV....is unreliable" well, who said so...
i think KJV is the most beautiful & accurate version of the bible.

2> New Jerusalem Bible ->for catholic only
New American Bible -> for catholic only
Douay Bible -> for catholic only
Darby -> for catholic only

3> New World Translation -> for Jehovah Witnesses

May God bless you...

Answer 2

From what I know the original Bible was written by scribes for people in the bible in the old testament, and and in the new testament some apostles wrote some and some had scribes write it for them. All this went to the Roman Catholic Church and to this day I am sure there are books we know nothing about. Anyway around the 13 th century the "Popes" started to change things and add books that had been written centuries after Christ died. The original bible books were all written before 75AD. So that is one reason why Luther separated from the Roman Catholic church and that is when all the other christian denominations came from. So the original bible written in Latin was but together by Roman Catholics with books added. When Luther had it translated from Latin into English and German, then people could read it and eyes started to open up. If you look at the Roman Catholic version and the King James Version that Luther is responsible for you will see no differences accept for the books that were left out that had been added centuries later.
From there you have the New International Version which for some reason, leaves out some scripture so that is not a good one and of course you have the Jehovah's Witnesses that have there own addition to the bible like the Muslims and the Jews do. Note though that the Jews, Muslims and Christians all accept the first five books of the bible and then split from there. The New King James Version is good in that it is easier to read without all the thees and thous in it.

The only two that are reliable is the Roman Catholic Bible not counting the Apocrypha books, and the King James Version or New King James Version.

Answer 3

First, if someone tells you that the KJV was "edited specifically to suit the needs of the Church of England, and is thus unreliable" they are fools and know nothing of translation or textual criticism.

Working with the manuscripts that they had access to, the translators of the KJV did a fine job. If you were to read the translation notes that were originally included in the margin, you would see that they noted very carefully where they saw issues that they did not understand and why certain words were rendered as they were.

Sure the TR is not the best manuscript but the KJV is still well beyond 95% true to the consensus of manuscripts that we possess. There are better translations today but the issues are mostly (close to 99%) spelling issues and nothing else.

Now the NWT is most definitely edited for the JWs (Russellites) and it has been changed repeatedly support the "new light" that they receive.

If you wish to know more about translations there is a fairly long but very good series from one of the foremost authorities in the world Daniel B. Wallace at the following link:
http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=117

Answer 4

The Christian church has never sanctioned an English or Latin version of the Bible. Only the Greek, but in Church we use them.

Also the Books of the Bible vary quite a bit. Many Protestants reject the Apocrypha (Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics accept most of it)

The Western Christians (Roman Catholic, Protestant----Inc.JW and LDS) do not include Psalm 151.

Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac and Ethioian Churches,Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox and Eastern Catholic all have minor differences in their bibles.

Add to this the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Apocrypha of the New Testament, The Book Of Mormon and Gnostic texts plus the amount of Religious Literature written from before Christ to the present day.

One very important thing about translations. Reading the worst one is still better than not reading the Bible.

Answer 5

I'm sure some are edited so that they aren't going against church teachings. Remember that the King James Version was the king's way of "sticking it" to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church banned bibles amongst their citizens. The only possible way that people could hear the bible in their own language was to hear it from a priest. The king of England made this version in English to defy the Catholic empire.

Answer 6

Anyone who translate is going to be biased no matter what. A lot of the times there are idiomatique expressions that are hard to translate in another language. Take for example this Quebecois French saying, "je m'en calice." A literal translation into English would be, "I myself some chalice." Since it is an idiomatic expression in French one would use an expression so that people can understand. Anglophones would understand the expression to mean, "I don' t give a ****." Biases will still exist because of translation alone.

Answer 7

New World Translation - Jehovah Witnesses

The KJV is one of the first complete English translations, largely the results of the work by Tyndale, Wycliffe and others. It was not written specifically for the Church of England. King James was King of Scotland.

I prefer the NASB, written with current English usage and adhering a closely as possible with the original languages.

Answer 8

Every translation is designed to fit the editor's interpretation of god's word. If previous translations said exactly what the current editors wanted, they wouldn't bother to change it.

Answer 9

As mentioned, *all* translators have bias, and at least some of that bias is bound to creep in to the translation of even the most conscientious translators. When there is ambiguity (and there is, in translation), a translator has to choose from a number of uncertain choices. A translator literally has to "favor" one translation above another. There is no way around this.

Therefore, the only honest separation we can make is: are there translations which *display* sectarian bias *in the translation*, as opposed to those that do not appear to contain sectarian bias?

The New World Translation and the Amplified Bible both display sectarian bias. (My reviews: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/ )

The New Jerusalem Bible displays sectarian bias in a *few* of the study notes. This bias takes the form of *relating* the passages to Roman Catholic (RC) references (for example, references to the RC liturgy or to other concepts with which a RC will easily identify). This bias does *not* seem to enter the translation, and it also is *very* sparse within the (excellent) study notes.

One indication of sectarian bias is the books selected for inclusion in a bible. On this point, the NRSV and RSV, Expanded Edition are superior to all other modern versions (they include the most books). Older translations and Roman Catholic Bibles, in general, are next in order of inclusiveness. (The 1611 KJV includes 2 books not normally included in RC bibles, as do nearly all earlier English bibles. Modern KJV bibles are almost always abridged to a so-called "Protestant canon")

Here is my recommendation for least sectarian bias study bibles (I prefer the NJB translation over the other 2 because #1 is too aggressively gender-inclusive and #2 is too old)
1) http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAnnotated-Apocrypha-Augmented-Revised-Standard%2Fdp%2F0195288815%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044490%26sr%3D8-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
2) http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAnnotated-Apocrypha-Standard-Expanded-Hardcover%2Fdp%2F0195283481%2F&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
3) http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNew-Jerusalem-Bible-Henry-Wansbrough%2Fdp%2F0385142641%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1197743029%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325

Jim, not RC, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 10

NIV. Is that specific?

Luther also translated the Bible into German for his heretical Church, at the time only Latin versions were sanctioned by the Church.