A Defense of Multiple Bible Versions Based on the Harmony of the Gospels

Title: Unity in Diversity: A Defense of Multiple Bible Versions Based on the Harmony of the Gospels

 

Abstract

This thesis examines the legitimacy and theological soundness of using multiple Bible versions beyond the King James Version (KJV), particularly in light of the variations found within the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. While some Christian traditions insist on the exclusive use of the KJV due to its historical and literary value, this study argues that the existence of four Gospel accounts—with their varied yet harmonious presentations of the life and ministry of Jesus—provides a biblical precedent for embracing diverse translations. The core message of Scripture remains intact across faithful versions, despite differences in wording. Scriptural examples and linguistic analysis demonstrate that variations in expression do not equate to contradictions in meaning.

Introduction

The Christian Bible has been translated into numerous languages and versions throughout history. Among English translations, the King James Version (KJV) holds a place of reverence due to its literary beauty and historical influence. However, questions have been raised about whether it is acceptable or even advisable to use other Bible versions, such as the New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), New King James Version (NKJV), and others. A common concern is whether different wording may distort doctrinal truths.

This thesis posits that the variations in word choice across Bible translations reflect a phenomenon already present in Scripture itself, particularly in the four Gospels, which provide differing yet complementary accounts of the same events in the life of Jesus. If the Holy Spirit inspired multiple perspectives in the original text, then multiple faithful translations are likewise a legitimate and helpful tool for understanding God's Word.

I. The Testimony of the Four Gospels

The New Testament opens with four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—that narrate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Though united in purpose and truth, they differ in vocabulary, structure, and perspective.

The Gospels demonstrate that the Holy Spirit inspired truth rather than rigid uniformity of expression. For example:

A. Parallel Passages with Varied Wording

1. The Baptism of Jesus

Variations in KJV itself:

Matthew 3:17

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mark 1:11

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22

...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

KJV Compared with ESV and NIV

o   Matthew 3:17 (KJV): “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

o   Mark 1:11 (ESV): “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

o   Luke 3:22 (NIV): “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Though each Gospel uses slightly different phrasing, the essential message is unchanged: God affirms Jesus as His beloved Son. The substance of the divine proclamation remains consistent across the accounts.

2. The Feeding of the Five Thousand

o   All four Gospels recount this miracle (Matthew 14:13–21; Mark 6:30–44; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–14), yet details vary in wording and focus.

o   For example, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ compassion (Matt. 14:14), while John highlights the testing of Philip’s faith (John 6:5–6).

o    Each Gospel highlights Jesus’ compassion and divine power but varies in specifics. Matthew notes the crowd sat “on the grass,” while Mark adds the grass was “green” (Mark 6:39). John uniquely emphasizes the boy’s “five barley loaves and two fish” (John 6:9). Despite differences, all affirm Jesus’ miraculous provision.

3. The Resurrection Narratives:

o   Matthew includes an earthquake and angelic appearance (28:2-7), Mark mentions a “young man” in the tomb (16:5), Luke describes “two men in dazzling apparel” (24:4), and John focuses on Mary Magdalene’s encounter (20:11-18). These variations reflect eyewitness perspectives but unite in proclaiming the resurrection’s reality.

o   Such diversity underscores that divine truth transcends rigid verbal repetition. As Augustine observed, the Gospels’ differences harmonize like “multiple streams flowing from one fountain.”

These variations enrich the narrative rather than contradict it, offering a fuller understanding of the event.

B. Divine Intention in Multiplicity

The presence of four Gospels suggests that God, in His wisdom, chose to reveal the truth of Christ’s life from multiple perspectives. If the original revelation of Scripture accommodates diversity in expression without compromising truth, modern translations that maintain fidelity to the text can likewise coexist without division.

II. Translation Philosophy and Linguistic Nuance

Translators face the challenge of rendering ancient texts into modern languages. There are two primary philosophies:

• Formal Equivalence (word-for-word): exemplified by the KJV, NASB.
• Dynamic Equivalence (thought-for-thought): exemplified by the NIV, NLT.

Despite different approaches, both seek to communicate the original message accurately.

Example: John 3:16

• KJV: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…”
• ESV: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son…”
• NIV: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…”

Though terms like “only begotten,” “only,” and “one and only” differ, all point to the same theological truth: Jesus is uniquely God’s Son, given for the salvation of the world.

III. Theological Integrity of Modern Versions

The KJV (1611) relies on the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament compiled from medieval manuscripts. Modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV) incorporate older manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), offering earlier and often more reliable readings.

Many contemporary translations are the product of rigorous scholarship, drawing from ancient manuscripts (including earlier texts than those used for the KJV). Versions such as the ESV, NIV, and NKJV are developed by committees of reputable scholars who prioritize doctrinal fidelity and linguistic clarity.

No major evangelical Bible translation denies core Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the resurrection, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith.

IV. Pastoral and Practical Considerations

For many modern readers, the archaic language of the KJV can obscure meaning and hinder comprehension. Newer versions often clarify idioms and vocabulary without compromising truth.

Example: Romans 12:1

• KJV: “...present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
• NIV: “...offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”

Both convey the same exhortation, but the NIV renders “reasonable service” as “true and proper worship,” a clearer phrase in modern English. This helps readers grasp the intent of the passage more directly.

 

V. Scriptural Affirmation of Translation Diversity

The Bible itself acknowledges the validity of rephrasing inspired truths:

• The Septuagint (LXX):
  The Old Testament was translated into Greek centuries before Christ, yet New Testament authors freely quoted the LXX (e.g., Matt. 1:23 cites Isa. 7:14 from LXX’s parthenos [“virgin”] rather than the Hebrew almah [“young woman”]). This demonstrates inspired truths transcend specific wording.
• 2 Timothy 3:16:
  “All Scripture is God-breathed” (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos)—a term emphasizing divine origin, not rigid verbal dictation. The message is inspired, not the lexical minutiae of any translation.
• 2 Peter 1:20-21:
  “Prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The Spirit’s guidance ensures the message’s preservation, even amid linguistic diversity.

VI. Embracing Translational Diversity

The Gospels’ varied perspectives enrich our understanding of Christ, just as multiple translations deepen engagement with Scripture. Paul’s instruction to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV) invites diligent study across reliable versions. Modern translations, grounded in superior manuscripts and clear language, are not only valid but invaluable for discerning the Bible’s unified message.

“There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work” (1 Cor. 12:6, NIV). Just as the Spirit empowers diverse spiritual gifts, He ensures the Gospel’s unity amid linguistic diversity.

Conclusion

The Legitimacy of Multiple Bible Versions in Light of the Gospels’ Harmonious Diversity

The New Testament’s four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—offer distinct yet complementary portraits of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection. While their accounts of the same events often vary in wording, detail, or emphasis, they consistently affirm the same theological truths. This diversity mirrors the richness of divine revelation and supports the use of multiple Bible translations, including those beyond the King James Version (KJV), provided they faithfully convey the inspired message.

The diversity of Bible translations mirrors the inspired diversity found within Scripture itself, especially in the four Gospels. Just as the Holy Spirit used different human authors to convey the unified message of Christ, He continues to use different faithful translations to reach hearts across languages and cultures.

While the King James Version remains a treasure of the English-speaking church, other versions—when responsibly translated—are not only acceptable but beneficial for deepening biblical understanding. The central truths of the Christian faith are preserved across translations: the love of God, the lordship of Christ, the power of the cross, and the hope of resurrection.

In the words of Isaiah 40:8:

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”