Many Christians grab the newest modern Bible version on the bookstore shelf or the one that appears the easiest to read without giving a thought to the people that created that version of the Bible, namely, the translators. Is that wise? No, it is not. Why? We will briefly review the reasons here. Then we will go on to show you that there are even problems with the most popular modern English Bible translations on the market today, even those created by conservative scholarship.

The Old Standard, The King James Bible

The only English Bible version that the Apostolic Christian Church recommends is the King James Version. The respect for this venerable translation is well-deserved, yet many have chosen to use the New International Version, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Version or even the other less reliable modern translations and paraphrases of the Bible. Why? Because they are easier to read; many of the words used in the King James Version have fallen into disuse or have changed meaning since this translation was made almost 400 years ago, making it difficult to read and understand in some passages. Yet, while the King James translation is not perfect, it is clear that the translators of that era had much more respect and reverence for the Word of God than the modern translators; they would have found the translation principles of some of the modern translators (such as the so-called "dynamic equivalence") appalling.

Two Ways, O' Man, Are There For Thee

There are two types of Bible versions on the market. The first is the literal, word-for-word translation. The most popular word-for-word English translations in America include the old KJV, NASB and NKJV. These translations are the most faithful to the original Old and New Testament manuscripts. However, because they are literal translations, they may be slightly more difficult to read; this is always the case when one tries to accurately translate from one language to another. That's because the way thoughts flow in one language is never exactly the same in another language. When one does an accurate word-for-word translation, he is inevitably preserving some of the character of the way the thoughts flowed in the original language. But this is not all bad, generally if one reads a difficult passage a few times he will come away with a more accurate understanding of what the original author meant than if someone tried to completely rearrange the way the thoughts are organized, or made deletions or additions to the text in order to make the translation sound comfortable and familiar to our ears.

A word-for-word translation does not guarantee 100% accuracy, however. There have been instances where translators have mistranslated certain words in an effort to distort the Word of God, such as in many of the Roman Catholic translations of the Bible (for instance, many Catholic translations have insisted on translating "repentance" in the Bible as "doing penance"--penance is, of course, the Roman Catholic practice of doing religious deeds such as saying "Hail Mary" prayers on rosary beads in order to "earn grace"). And the highly unpopular Revised Standard Version (1952) earned widespread disgust with word choices like "young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:24 in an apparent attempt to deny the virgin birth of Christ. And the New Revised Standard Version started the trend of "gender inclusive" language; this meant that the translators arbitrarily changed the Greek and Hebrew equivalents of "he" and "him" and "his" to "you" or even plurals like "they" and "them" and "their" and so on so that feminists could not claim that their Bible was "sexist."

The second type of Bible version available on the market is not a true translation, but a paraphrase. A paraphrase occurs when a the person putting the Bible together looks at an entire phrase, sentence or even entire paragraph of the Bible and then writes down in his own words what he thinks the original author meant by that passage. There is no attempt to remain faithful to the meaning of the individual original Greek and Hebrew words in that phrase, sentence or paragraph. Those authoring paraphrase versions of the Bible argue that this freedom allows them to make the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew more clear because they are not tied down by the original words of the text. They can put their "translation" into the kinds of words and phrases English readers are more familiar with. However, one can see that this opens a huge door for translator hanky-panky; the author of a paraphrase version of the Bible can easily put his own thoughts down (not those of the Bible) and pass them off as the Word of God! And there are numerous and clear examples of translator bias in practically every single paraphrase version of the Bible.

History Of The Paraphrase Bible

In the early days, when the King James Version of the Bible was translated, nobody would dare think of attempting a paraphrase version of the Bible, such a thing would be considered sacrilegious, even blasphemous! The first paraphrase version of the Bible did not appear until 1756 when Philip Doddridge put together his "Family Expositor" which was really a parallel Bible with the King James in one column and his in a column right next to it. And it was not even a true paraphrase Bible in the modern sense of the word, but a combination of word-for-word and paraphrase. Doddridge put into paraphrase those passages where he thought a more literal rendering might be confusing to the reader. In the preface to this Bible, Doddridge urged the reader to always read the King James Version before reading his paraphrase version of the Bible.¹ He did not see his paraphrase as a replacement of a word-for-word translation, but more as a Bible study tool. And unlike most modern paraphrase Bibles, he clearly identified sections that were paraphrase by putting them into italics. Nobody attempted another paraphrase version of the Bible until the 20th century.

The modern paraphrase Bible craze started with Kenneth Taylor's "Living Bible" which he wrote so that his children could better understand the Bible. This "Bible" was notorious for adding entire phrases and sentences which had no counterpart in the actual Bible, as well as biased renditions to favor the author's views on the end times and other Christian doctrines. Also, Taylor saw fit to use vulgar language in some passages. This Bible started a trend of so-called "thought-for-thought" translation (in other words, paraphrasing) and "dumbing down" the Bible so that it could be used as a tool for child evangelism (some modern paraphrase Bibles are written at the 3rd grade reading level). As one might imagine, much of the meaning of the Bible can be lost if it modified in order to be comprehensible by young children. Some typical examples are calling Passover "the feast of thin bread" and changing the word "grace" to "God is kind to you" in the CEV.

The LB was followed by other notorious paraphrases, such as the Good News Bible, the New Testament In Today's English and Good News For Modern Man, the Contemporary English Version, the New Living Translation, the International Child's Bible, the Everyday Bible, the New Century Version, the New Life Version, the New English Bible and more recently and probably worst of all, is the popular The Message which turns the Bible into a self-centered book of New Age philosophy.

A Third Choice?

If you are familiar with modern Bible versions, you probably noticed that we haven't mentioned the popular New International Version yet. The translators of this Bible invented a name for their translation technique which they called "dynamic equivalence." This means that they looked at a passage of Scripture in its original language and then put down, in modern English, what they thought that passage meant. Sound rather familiar?  Dynamic equivalence is a euphemism for a paraphrase, a word that the NIV translators desperately wanted to avoid because of the notorious reputation of the paraphrase versions of the Bible.

However, in some passages, it appears that the translators did some word-for-word translation because their translation is nearly identical in the wording to many word-for-word translations. Perhaps this happened because the meaning of the passage was so clear and obvious they did not think any modification was necessary to make the passage understandable to the modern reader.

As paraphrase versions of the Bible go, it is one of the best. However, there are some major problems with this version. As with all authors of paraphrase versions of the Bible, they took more liberties than many would have preferred. For instance, there many instances where words, complete phrases and even entire sentences have been omitted when the authors thought that they were redundant or unnecessary--and this was done without any indication to the reader that an omission has been made! Also, in many verses, words or phrases having absolutely no counterpart in the original have been added; again, without any kind of notification to the reader to show that the Word of God has been added to!² Compare this to true word-for-word translations where no word goes untranslated and where one can readily see where words have been added because they are put into italics!

There have been other problems pointed out regarding the NIV as well such as uneven translation of words (the same Greek or Hebrew is word is often translated different ways in different verses).² This, incidentally, has been one of the criticisms of the old King James Version. However, critics have pointed out that in some cases this is done deliberately because of the bias of the translators, such as the Greek word thlipsis which is only translated as "tribulation" where doing so would support their premillennialist end times view (the word "tribulation" has been highly associated with the "tribulation period" in this view of the end times in the 20th and 21st century). The bottom line is this: if you are serious about understanding exactly what the Word of God says, do not purchase an NIV Bible.

Also, we must note that in 2002 the publishers of the NIV came out with a revised version of the NIV which they called Today's New International Version (TNIV). This new version has followed the path of the most extreme liberal Bible versions and introduced so-called "gender-nuetral" language to please the feminists, as well as adding words to the New Testament to make it appear that the Jews were not at fault for the execution of Jesus (directly contrary to what the Bible says) in order to please the Jews. And there were other highly controversial changes as well, which we don't have the time or space to discuss in this article. Devoted NIV readers were shocked to see what their publisher had done to their favorite Bible; this caused an uproar so great that few Christian bookstores dare to stock this Bible. Needless to say, if you see one on the shelf, avoid it like the plague!

Which Version?

At this point you may be wondering, considering some of the errors seen in some word-for-word translations and the numerous problems with the paraphrase versions, if any version is better than another. However, without question, a word-for-word translation is better and more accurate; most paraphrase versions of the Bible make the worst of the word-for-word translations look very good in comparison!

It is hard to understand why one would want to read some man's interpretation of what the Bible says instead of hearing the Word of God, unadulterated. It is like the old adage, why would you want to take someone's word for what another person has said if you can get it straight from the horse's mouth? A paraphrase is like listening to the U.S. President's State of the Union address; who among us would trust the spin doctor commentators, that give their opinions after the speech,  to give you an accurate rendition of what the President has said? Wouldn't you rather get the President's message by listening to the President himself? So why would one be less cautious when dealing with the Word of God?

If you insist on using a modern translation, we recommend the NASB. Please note that the Apostolic Christian Church does not recommend any modern translations, this is only the opinion of the foundation that maintains this website. Also, you may have noticed that we have used some quotes from the NASB on this website; that is for the sake of clarity as many in the public may be unchurched and unfamiliar with the old Elizabethan English used in the KJV.

The NASB is widely known as the most literal modern English translation (i.e., most accurate) that can be used for everyday use. At the time of this writing, there are two different versions of the NASB available. The first is the older version of the NASB which uses Thee and Thou, etc. when addressing God, this may be a good choice for those familiar with the KJV, but reluctant to make the leap to address God as "you," etc. However, one needs to understand that there is no counterpart for Thee and Thou, etc. in the original Greek and Hebrew, the Thee and Thou was an English invention, not something that came from the original Old and New Testament manuscripts. Also, if one looks carefully at the KJV, he will see that the Elizabethan English pronouns Thee and Thou are not reserved just for addressing God, but used when addressing all parties. The second, updated version of the NASB drops the Thee and Thou. However, both versions show special reverence when addressing God by capitalizing pronouns that refer to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Some bookstores may only stock the updated version, but they should be able to order the older version.

A second choice would be the NKJV. This version retained more of the original wording of the KJV than the NASB, but is regarded by scholars as not as literal or as accurate as the NASB. We noticed when the NKVJ was first published that some of the translation was very sloppy; it appeared that the translators simply chose what they thought to be more modern English equivalents of the words in the original KJV without referring back to the original Greek and Hebrew, resulting in some very inaccurate word choices. However, the NKJV has gone through at least one revision since and this problem may have been fixed. Thee's and Thou's are not present in this translation.

When one is choosing a modern translation, he would be advised to read the notes in the preface of the Bible, most translators are honest about what they are attempting to accomplish with their translations and some include a statement of faith of the translators; both the NASB and NKJV make note of their conservative approach to translation. However, when one reads some of the other modern versions available, you are bound to see words like "dynamic equivalence" or "gender inclusive" or "gender nuetral" or "contemporary idioms" or "diversity" and so on--if you do, drop the book and run! 

Even The Best Modern Translations Are Not Faultless

Just because you have chosen one of the best word-for-word literal translations available today does not mean that the biases of the translators have not crept into the translation. Below we will illustrate one of the most blatant attempts to change the Word of God in the two best modern translations, the NKJV and the NASB. This is the only major problem we have encountered with the NASB. However can not conclude that there are no additional problems in the NKJV as we have not had the time to examine the NKJV as closely as the NASB.

One good thing about the best word-for-word translations is that words that have been added to smooth out the translation (i.e., words not found in the original Greek and Hebrew of the New and Old Testament manuscripts) are clearly noted because the translators have placed them in italics. This is not found in paraphrases and it is not found in the NIV; in these versions you have no idea where the authors have added words to the Word of God, or for that matter, where they have deleted them! And we have noticed that some of the more liberal translations that claim to be "literal" do not show words they have added in italics; this should be a red flag: either they don't want you to know where they have tampered with the Word of God or they are hiding the fact that their "literal" translation contains more paraphrase than word-for-word translation.

In our example below, you will see that when the translators attempted to change the Word of God in one of the better word-for-word translations, they did so by adding words to the translation not found in the original text, so these attempts are easy to spot. We recommend that even in the best word-for-word translations you first try reading a verse without the italicized words (if there are any), you may find that many of them are totally unnecessary.

How Translators Have Attempted To Change The Doctrine On Christian Appearance

In our research article "Does Appearance Matter?" we discussed how most denominations have chosen to ignore the Scriptures about a Christian's appearance. Even many denominations with an Anabaptist heritage have chosen to ignore or rationalize away these Scriptures that were once part of the Anabaptist Christian identity because of pressures to conform to the world around them! So one can safely assume that although the translators of the NASB and NKJV are relatively conservative, it is most likely that they do not believe it is necessary to follow the Scriptures regarding a Christian's appearance. Considering this viewpoint, one might wonder if any of their bias has crept in when they translated verses discussing a Christian's appearance. The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes!"

Compare the KJV to the NASB and NKJV below in their translation of 1 Peter 3:3-4. In this case, these two verses are a warning about wearing jewelry, elaborate hairstyles and expensive clothing. Most denominations would rather that these verses not exist, because they have no intention of giving up their jewelry or expensive clothing or trendy hairdo's. See if you can tell where the translators tinkered in an attempt to change the meaning of this passage:

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. (KJV)

And let not your adornment be merely external-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. (NASB)

Do not let your adornment be merely outward-- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel--rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. (NKJV)

Did you notice anything? If not, here's a hint, go back and look at the words in italics. We did not italicize these words, they were italicized in the translation. Okay, you probably noticed that the NASB and the NKJV translators added the word "merely" to verse three. We must note here that when the NKJV first came out in 1982, the "merely" was not present in their translation. However, for some reason the translators decided to add it in all later revisions of their translation, so you if you have one of the first printings of the NKJV, you will not see the verse as presented above.

When comparing the NASB and NKJV to the KJV (which was more faithful to the original manuscript here) you can see that the addition of the word "merely" completely changes the meaning of the verse! Instead of saying that we should not be adorn ourselves with gold, braided hair and expensive clothing, but with a meek and quiet spirit instead, the NASB and NKJV has changed it to say that in addition to adorning ourselves with gold, braided hair and clothing, we should be adorning ourselves with a gentle and quiet spirit! In other words, apparently every Christian woman should adorn herself with gold, braided hair and clothing! This reading makes little sense considering that the majority of the early Christians were poor and many were slaves (which is why instructions to slaves appear more than once in the New Testament epistles). Also, women had to depend on their husbands for support. Where were these poor people without means supposed to find money for gold jewelry and expensive clothing?

The Justification For Adding "Merely"

Many lay people assume that we should blindly trust the judgment of the translators, after all, we are not Greek and Hebrew scholars; who are we to question them! However, we should not place blind trust in anyone but God. If we see something that looks suspicious, we should investigate! That is exactly what we have done here.

First, let us say that the insertion of the word "merely" in recent translations did not arise because of some new revelation from Greek language scholarship. Instead, it would appear that when translating this passage, the translators referred to Bible commentaries written by liberal scholars. We have noticed that many Bible commentaries (even some that claim they are conservative) try to rationalize away the true meaning of this passage. Without a doubt, when a translator changes a passage in Scripture based on the opinions of some Bible commentator (instead of letting the Word of God speak for itself), this is a grievous breach of conduct, especially for one claiming to produce a literal and accurate translation of the Bible!

So what is their justification for adding this word to Scripture? It goes like this. Because the original text (see below) says that a woman's adorning should not consist of the braiding of the hair, wearing of gold or the putting on of apparel, this means that the woman should not wear any clothing at all, in other words, she must be naked! Now for almost 400 years men and women have read these verses and I doubt that few of them understood this passage to mean that Christian women should walk around in public naked! Instead most have understood this to mean that we should not be spending a lot of time and money adorning our body with fancy hairdo's, jewelry or fancy or expensive clothing.

However, the liberal commentators went on to say that because they don't believe Peter intended for this passage to mean women must be naked, it must really mean that women should braid their hair, should wear gold and should wear apparel! Now at first glance, this might seem reasonable. But what these commentators usually neglect to talk about is the verse that follows:

For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. (1 Peter 3:5-6) (NASB)

You can see that Peter gives a little more explanation of what he meant in the previous two verses. He says that the holy women in earlier times adorned themselves by being submissive to their husbands. This illustrates the meek and quiet spirit he referred to earlier. However, he does not say that they should also adorned themselves with gold, braided hair or apparel (or any other form of outward adornment, for that matter) which one would expect to see if the liberal commentators were correct!

The reason the many liberal and even some "conservative" Biblical scholars have offered this convoluted reasoning is because they are desperate for a loophole in the Scriptures so that they do not have to give up their jewelry, fancy and clothes and trendy hairdo's. And with this novel interpretation, they thought they found it.

What Does "Adorning" Mean?

Now we admit that the KJV translation about not adorning with apparel can appear rather confusing. However, we can clear up the confusion by first looking at what is meant by the word "adorning." The Greek word behind adorning is kosmos, the word from which we get our modern word "cosmetics." Strong's Concordance defines the word as "an orderly arrangement" or "decoration." Young's Analytical Concordance defines the word as "adorning" or "ornament."

We can see how the New Testament writers used the word by viewing the verses below. You will see that the translators did not always translate this word the same way.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous. (Matthew 23:29)

And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said. (Luke 21:5)

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:2)

And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald. (Revelation 21:19)

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,  not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. (Titus 2:9-10) (NASB)

Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. (Matthew 12:44, see also parallel passage, Luke 11:25)

Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. (Matthew 25:7)

In the first examples above, you will see that adornment clearly means decoration of some sort. We know that the tombs were whitewashed (Matthew 23:27) and that the temple was decorated clad in gold and precious stones and that the typical ancient bride was adorned with jewels for her wedding.

However it is a little difficult to believe that the same word is used in the last three verses, because from the context, the meaning appears to be something quite different. In the verse from Titus, neither "decoration" or "ornament" or "an orderly arrangement" seems to make sense as a definition. The use of the word in the verse from Matthew 12 (and Luke 11) does seem to agree with Strong's "orderly arrangement" definition. But the last verse from Matthew 25 about trimming lamps seems to make no sense at all!

However, it is not as confusing as it may seem. As with English, a word can acquire additional, more narrow meanings because of how the word is applied in everyday use. It appears that the original and more broad definition of the Greek word was "to make ready to see." If you insert this definition in Matthew 25:7, you will find it makes sense: Then all the virgins arose and "made ready to see" their lamps. In other words, they were getting their lamps ready so that they could see, that is trimming and lighting their lamps so that they would illuminate their path so they could see where they were going.

This definition also makes sense when placed in Titus 2:9-10: Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, that they may "make ready to see [for their masters]" the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. In other words, the slaves should not be argumentative or steal, etc as is common among most servants, but should lead a godly life so that their master can readily see the work of God in their lives.

However, it appears that this word had acquired an even more narrow meaning, that is, making something ready for others to see by decorating or adorning it (or the person). Hence, the more narrow meaning of the word as decoration or ornament. So when applied to 1 Peter, these verses would read: Whose decoration let it not be that outward braiding of the hair, wearing of gold jewelry or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the decoration of a meek and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. We've combined KJV with the NASB for a clearer reading.

Now considering that adorning means decoration, one can understand that some apparel is highly decorative, while other apparel is purely functional, without little or no decoration. Could it be that Peter was instructing the women to wear plainer clothing instead of more trendy, expensive, elaborate, eye-catching clothing? Surely this was the meaning Peter that was trying to get across.

What Does "Apparel" Mean?

When studying the two verses from Peter, it is important to understand what is meant by the word "apparel" (KJV & NKJV) or "dresses" (NASB). The Greek word behind "apparel" and "dresses" in these translations is "himation." Strong's concordance defines this as a "garment of any sort" or "the upper garment." Young's defines it merely as a "garment." We need to keep in mind that both Young's and Strong's were published more than 100 years ago and that there have been advances made in the understanding of Greek and Hebrew words and phrases since that time.

The fact is that we now know that himation refers to a specific article of clothing, namely the outer garment or more accurately, the pallium (for men) or palla (for women).³ Palla and pallium are the Latin word equivalents of the Greek word himation. Strong was close with his definition of an "upper garment." The himation was a decorative article of clothing, not all men or women wore a himation (although it was more common for women than men because they wore it over their heads to provide their traditional headcovering).

In the picture on the right, a Roman woman is wearing her green palla (or himation) over her peach-colored tunica. The tunica was the main article of clothing for both men and women, the tunica would be equivalent to a modern man's shirt and pants or a woman's dress. The tunica was not an undergarment or a form of underwear.

On the picture on the left, the young man on the right is wearing the a male version of the himation. The himation was roughly equivalent to the modern formal suitcoat, or even a sweater or vest that goes over one's shirt or blouse and mainly serves a decorative function in modern clothing. Because the palla served as an outer piece of clothing, it was often much more decorative and costlier than the tunica that it covered. You may want to read our research article "Does Appearance Matter?" for more information about Roman clothing styles.

This means that if a Roman woman took off her palla, she would not be naked or even immodestly dressed, for that matter. Not all Roman women regularly wore a palla (and not all Roman men wore a pallium). So this means that the assumptions behind the logic of the liberal commentators were based on a lie (that is, that not wearing a himation means one would be naked). Knowing this, let's modify the translation of 1 Peter to reflect this: Whose decoration let it not be that outward braiding of the hair, wearing of gold jewelry or of putting on of expensive and decorative outer garments; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the decoration of a meek and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

How Himation Is Used In The Bible

The New Testament writers used the word himation more than 60 times in the Bible. Do they ever use it in a context that makes it clear that they were referring to an outer garment? When we review the verses where himation appears, we see that there are instances where it is not possible to know if it refers to only an outer garment, or possibly any type of garment (which would agree with one of Strong's definitions for the word). There are one or two verses where it is clear that the word himation does not refer to an outer garment, but garments in general (such as in Revelation 16:15), so it may be possible that this word acquired a secondary, more broad meaning over time. However, there are many verses where it is clear that himation could only refer to an outer garment. Here's a sampling (the English equivalents of the original Greek word himation are in blue):

And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. (Matthew 21:8-9, see also Mark 11:8-9 & Luke 19:36)

Are we to believe that all the people watching Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem stripped naked? Of course not, they were removing their outer garments.

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. (Matthew 24:18, see also Mark 13:16)

In this prophecy of the end times, are we to believe that those in the field were working naked? Of course not, they had removed their outer garments.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. (Matthew 26:65)

This is one of many incidents mentioned in the New Testament where people ripped their clothes into pieces. Are we to believe that the high priest ripped off his clothing in front of everyone? Of course not!

So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? (John 13:12)

Are we to believe that Jesus stripped naked while washing the feet of the disciples? Of course not! Clearly he was removing his outer garment so that it would not get wet or dirty.

And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. (Acts 7:58)

And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. (Acts 22:20)

Are we to believe that everyone stripped naked when they stoned Stephen? Of course not. Removing one's outer garment when condemning someone appears to be a Jewish custom (see below). And it probably made it easier for them to throw their stones at Stephen.

And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. (Acts 12:8)

This verse shows that there were at least two articles of clothing; first the one that was girded (hiked up under a belt) and an outer garment (himation) that was put over it.

And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air (Acts 22:22-23)

Here the Jews are again casting off their clothes! This time in response to Paul's sermon. Were they stripping naked? Of course not! It appears that stripping off their outer garments, along with kicking dust into the air was a Jewish custom to show one's disgust.

And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee. And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus. (Matthew 10:49-50)

Did the blind man strip naked before Jesus? Of course not! He was removing his outer garment.

And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. (Luke 19:35, see also Matthew 21:7 & Mark 11:7)

Did the disciples strip naked and throw their clothes onto the colt? Of course not! They removed their outer garments to be used as a makeshift saddle. We could go on, but by now you can probably see that there is a clear precedent for the use of the word himation in the New Testament to refer to an outer garment.

What Other Translators Thought

We are not alone in this understanding of 1 Peter 3:3-4. For instance, look at how other translators translated these verses. We start with the KJV for comparison purposes:

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. (KJV)

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. (NIV)

Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight. (NRSV)

Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. (ASV)

Whose adorning let it not be that outward one of tressing of hair, and wearing gold, or putting on apparel; but the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price. (Darby Translation)

Other than the NIV, we have not listed the paraphrase versions of the Bible here. When it comes to paraphrase Bibles, we have noticed that some of them remained true to the meaning of the original text, while others did not and completely distorted it, some even more than the NASB and NKJV (which is not surprising consider the many pitfalls of the paraphrase Bible). However, when it comes to popular word-for-word translations, the NASB and NKJV are alone when it comes to their insertion of "merely" in 1 Peter 3:3; even the liberal NRSV translates it correctly!

Also, this is a good place to illustrate some of the pitfalls of the NIV. The words "beauty" and "fine" have no counterparts in the original Greek New Testament text. Some could argue that the point of wearing jewelry may be beauty--but it could also be pride or a display of wealth ; the insertion of the word "beauty" takes away these possibilities, possibilities which exist in the original text. As we will discuss below, there may be a more valid reason for inserting the word "fine" in this verse, but the point is that Peter never said "fine clothes," instead he said, "outer clothing." Of course, this is just one example of the thousands of such judgment calls that the NIV translators made when putting together the NIV.

What The Strictest Literal Translators Thought

Let's look at some literal translations which serve mainly as Bible study tools; these translations sacrifice readability in order to remain faithful to the true intent of the original Greek, some even to the point of maintaining the original Greek word order.

Whose adorning--let it not be that which is outward, of plaiting of hair and putting on of garments, but--the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible thing of the meek and quiet spirit, which is, before God, of great price. (Young's Literal Translation of the Bible).

Let your adornment not be that adornment which is from without and merely external, namely, an elaborate gathering of the hair into knots and a lavish display of gold ornaments or the donning of apparel, but let that adornment be the hidden personality in the heart, imperishable in quality, the adornment of a meek and quiet disposition, which is in the sight of God very costly. (The New Testament, An Expanded Translation)

Of whom, let what is observed be: Not the outside adornment consisting of a braiding of hair and a wearing of gold things or a putting-on of garments; But the hidden person of the heart in the imperishable adorning consisting of the gentle and quiet spirit, which is very-precious in the sight of God. (New Testament Transline)

Of-whom let-it-be not the outward of-plaiting of-hairs and of-putting-on of-gold or of-clothing of-garments adorning, but the hidden of-the heart man in the incorruptible of-the meek and quiet spirit. (Alfred Marshal Interlinear Translation)

You can see that these translations, which go to great lengths to remain true to the original Greek, also translate these verses as we have interpreted them. Incidentally, Young's Literal translation was written by the same man that compiled Young's Analytical Concordance. It tries to stay close to the original word order in the original Greek and Hebrew (however, note that in Greek, word order is less important than in English). The Expanded Translation was written by Kenneth Wuest, from Moody Bible Institute, he is probably the most liberal of the four (and as all Moody scholars, a rabid once-saved, always-saved proponent). This translation is wordy in an effort to convey the complete sense of the original Greek. Incidentally, he is alone in his translation of "gathering of the hair into knots," every other literal, word-for-word translation that we know of translates this as braiding of the hair.

We recommend the New Testament Transline which can be helpful in trying to understand difficult passages; it is the only "literal" translation we have seen that uses an outline format to convey to the reader where one Greek sentence or phrase ends and begins (some of Paul's sentences can extend for a chapter or more)! The extra dashes are included in the translation to show where one Greek word has been translated into two or more English words. Incidentally, there is a note regarding the word "garments" in the New Testament Transline which says that garments (or apparel) refers specifically to outer clothing.⁴  

The Alfred Marshal translation follows the original Greek and can be found in some Interlinear Bibles where the actual Greek text is shown accompanied by his translation. (We have added the additional dashes between words to indicate where a single Greek word was translated into more than one English word, this is plain to see in the Interlinear format, but can not be easily duplicated on a web page). In case you are not familiar with them, most interlinear Bibles include one or more of the more literal translations for comparison purposes, such as the KJV or NASB. If your are serious about Bible study, you may want to pick up an interlinear Bible, along with the more readable Young's Literal translation for times when you want a second or third opinion on a difficult passage.

The Scripture That The Translators Ignored

That last thing that we will discuss is a Scripture that the liberal commentators purposely ignored while interpreting 1 Peter 3:3-4. Namely, a verse from 1 Timothy (see below). We skipped over this verse in our discussion of the meaning of "adornment" earlier because we focus on this verse here. However, to be clear, the Greek root word behind the "adorning" in 1 Peter and "adorn" in 1 Timothy is the same.

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. (1 Timothy 2:9-10) (NASB)

You will note that this verse looks very similar to the one from 1 Peter; both of them mention women's dress, specifically braided hair, jewelry and clothing. This shows that the concept of modesty in dress was not just the idea of one Apostle, but apparently a concept all of the early church leaders were familiar with. Here it is obvious that Paul is warning about costly clothing.

If the translators of 1 Peter had any doubt about the meaning of 1 Peter 3:3, they could have looked at this verse 1 Timothy for clues. In fact, it appears that this is exactly what the authors of the NIV and NRSV did with 1 Peter 3:3 (see above under "What Other Translators Thought") did because they inserted the word "fine" before word "clothes" or "clothing" in their Bibles. The word "fine" is not a part of the original Greek text, but does help to clarify the meaning of the phrase somewhat (however, personally we feel that a more accurate rendition would be to simply translate himation as outer clothing).

However, in the case of 1 Timothy, a different Greek work is used for "apparel" (KJV) or "garments" (NASB); it may not specifically refer to only outer garments. The Greek, according to Strong's, means a "deposit" especially related to deposit for a "costume." The root of the word means "to put down" so in this case the word probably means clothing that you need to put down a deposit for, in other words, store-bought clothing (in a day when most women made their own clothing). So this makes sense when Paul said this type of clothing was costly; it was probably clothing that was much finer (and more expensive) than clothing that the ordinary person could make from simple homemade cloth.

Young's lists "a long robe" as the definition for this Greek word. Of course, since the palla, pallium and tunica could all resemble a long robe, this definition does little to narrow down the meaning of the word! There are no other occurrences of this Greek word in the New Testament.

Summary

At this time, there is no modern translation that we can recommend without reservation. The closest we could come would be to recommend the NASB, but then we would also recommend that you open it, go to 1 Peter 3:3 and scratch out "merely" with a black permanent marker! And while you're at it, turn to Romans 8:28 and scratch out the clause "God causes"--this is highly Calvinistic in nature and there is not any reputable support for the addition in the Greek manuscripts (no other translation we know of has inserted this clause). How this clause came to be added in a mystery because in other verses this translation appears to correct some of the Calvinistic biases of previous translations. Better yet, one could get a parallel Bible which includes the NASB and KJV side-by-side (although these may be too bulky and heavy unless you lay them down flat on a table or your bed).

However, at the same time we must note that KJV is not a translation made by God (as some seem to believe), but by men. In fact, the KJV Bible was created as a reaction against the more conservative (and very popular) Geneva Bible translation; the KJV was specifically designed to be more to the liking of the Church of England (Anglicans)!⁵ Incidentally, it was the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible that the first Pilgrims brought over to America. The Geneva Bible dioes not use modern spelling, making it very difficult to read by modern readers. Also, it included included some clear Calvinistic biases which show up in the translation, as well as the marginal notes. Unfortunately, some of these Calvinistic translations made their way into the King James Bible (probably most noticable in the book of Romans).

So where does that leave us? Probably in a position not unlike the very first Protestant reformers. They became reformers because they discovered what the Scriptures really said by reading the original Greek and Hebrew text. This is how the Lutheran Reformation, the Swiss Reformation and the Anabaptist Reformation all started. Before then, all they had was the corrupt Roman Catholic Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate).

So even today, even though we have much better translations at hand, we still need to be wary and go back to the original Greek and Hebrew to make sure we are getting the unadulterated Word of God and to make sure we truly know and understand what the Bible means in each verse we read. We don't have to be able to read Greek and Hebrew to do this, all we need is a few concordances and more than one good word-for-word Bible translation so that we can get a second opinion for difficult passages. When you read your Bible, make sure you have a depth of understanding that would allow you to explain that passage to someone else. If you don't have that kind of understanding, get out your concordances and other Bible study tools and don't stop until you completely understand the verse.

As Jesus said, we should search the Scriptures, because He can be found in them (John 5:39). Don't let anything stand between you and the true, unadulterated Word of God! 

References:

1  The Bible In Translation: Ancient And English Version, 2001, Bruce M. Metzger, pages 176-177.

2  Ibid, page 140.

3  The Ancient City: Life In Classical Athens & Rome, 1998, Peter Connolly & Hazel Dodge, pages 155-156.

4  The New Testament Transline: A Literal Translation In Outline Format, 2002, Michael Magill, page 895.

5  In The Beginning: The Story Of The King James Bible And How It Changed A Nation, A Language And A Culture, 2001, Alister McGrath.