Reading Rambles...

" 'At the beginning God expressed himself' is the way J. B. Phillips translates John 1:1a."

This is the first sentence of the assigned reading for my communications class. I'm not sure who J.B. Phillips is, and I don't know where Charles H. Kraft, the author of my reading, found this so-called "translation." The verse Phillips is translating is also found in these different articulations:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (entirety of verse 1, NIV).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (again, the entirety of verse 1, KJV. And yes, this is actually what is found there, the fact that the two versions are identical is not a typographical error).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (ESV).

Hmm... noticing a pattern? Three versions/translations of the Bible that are fairly well known (particularly in Reformed circles) all have the exact same thing when written in English. My first thought was immediately, "Who does this guy think he is, that he can rewrite the Bible?!" Then I looked him up, and was brought to this link, where I decided to look up exactly what was written. He doesn't seem to translate verse by verse, but in sections of verse. Here's what he thinks the Bible says:

"[John] 1:1-5 - At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out."

Just for comparison purposes, here's the NIV, which is what I typically use:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

A closer look at the differences disturbs me. Phillips's version almost seems to downplay the power, authority, and even the basic role of God and Jesus Christ. In the NIV/KJV/ESV selections, "Word" is capitalized. Christians generally understand that "Word" as Christ. But a lower-cased "word," particularly after the statement, "God expressed himself," in the Phillips version means nearly nothing. Also, there's the difference of "In the beginning was the Word," and "At the beginning, God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word...". The NIV indicates an eternal element of the Word, whereas the Phillips version seems to imply that this word was simply an expression of God, perhaps something created. Did Phillips disagree with the Nicene Creed, which speaks of Christ as "begotten, not made"? Also, this word as an expression of God "at the beginning" seems to constrict Christ within time. This is reinforced when he says that the word is "with God from the beginning," rather than being "with God in the beginning." The "from" marks the beginning of time, like using "since." "In" is different. God, and the Word, existed when time began.

Perhaps I'm just nitpicking. You might think that. However, I disagree with you. There's a lot more I could talk about (for example the difference between the NIV's "the darkness has not understood it" and Phillips's "the darkness has never put it out")! And J. B. Phillips isn't the only one twisting Scripture! Eugene Peterson did this with his translation: the Message (apparently now there's "The Message: Remix"?!). This version was extremely popular when I was in high school. Then they came out with Bible Magazines for teens, and before you knew it, there was a Bible for every person and every occasion! I went into a Christian outlet store when I was shopping, and I spotted a Bible "For the woman of color." Will someone please explain to me why black and white women can't read the same Bible?! Or even why men and women can't read the same Bible?

I hear people, it seems particularly those who belong to non-Denominational churches, complain about the vast numbers of various Denominations. Why aren't as many people saying anything about these Bibles? I think this epidemic is more harmful to Christian unity!! I kind of understand the difference between versions such as King James, New International, English standard, etc. But when you have someone's name on the front cover of a Bible, I believe that's treading dangerous ground.

"But there's reasons for having these "up-to-date" translations!!" The public might cry out. Biblegateway.com contains version information about the Message, where it states that Peterson decided to translate first the New Testament from the original Greek (phew... kudos to Peterson, though that should be demanded of a Bible reader, rather than celebrated) because adults in his Sunday school class were essentially bored with the Bible.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!! Christians are bored with the Bible. That's what it comes down to. But is the solution really to come out with new translations directed at various demographics? That's a marketing scheme, and it commodifies the Bible. Its blasphemous, irreverent, sacrilegious. This is God's word!!!! Why isn't that enough for Christians?

This is not to say that I don't believe in study aids for the Bible. I own a copy of a Daily Bible, set up as a devotional that puts the Bible in chronological order. The difference is this: its an NIV translation, so its not trying to assert that its a better or alternative way to understand Scripture. Its a new point of view. Perhaps that was also the intent of the Bible "for women of color." But I still don't like that idea. Also, I should note, I'm not taking issue that its directed at that particular group of individuals. It is the fact that it is directed at any group of individuals. Is there hypocrisy in my owning a daily devotional Bible? Its not directed at a group of individuals. And here's the clincher for me: my "primary Bible," that I use as a reference, is a regular, old-fashioned NIV Bible that I've had since I made the move from sixth to seventh grade.

You know what's funny? My NIV Bible is almost ten years old, worn, taped up in places, and has notes and highlighting. But its still as alive and applicable to me as the day I received it, and it will continue to be until the day I die. I won't need a Bible for the wrinkled, gray, and wheelchair-bound.