Author Topic: Bible Translations  (Read 109227 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Kelly Youngberg

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 164
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2001, 02:32:00 PM »
David, I think you missed my point. How do you know if the KJV translates a text better than the NIV? Do you assume that the KJV translates it better? It's fine to feel safe in your assumption if you're certain that in each instance, the KJV is always better. I repeat...different could be wrong, but it could be right. You don't know until you've researched it. I believe that it's dangerous for us to make the Bible say what we want it to say, instead of what the writers originally intended.

I would put no final trust in any single English translation of the Bible, modern or otherwise. Do I stick to one version for my daily devotions? Yes. But for serious Bible study, I do not.


Wendy

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1834
    • http://www.megspace.com/religion/cainan/
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2001, 04:05:00 PM »
Hi Kelly,

I don't think he's assuming that the KJV is ALWAYS better but most of us have seen that the KJV is better MOST of the time.  :)

------------------
WendyL ~ Maranatha!:)

WendyL ~ Maranatha!:)

DHThiele

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 398
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2001, 07:44:00 PM »
Kelly,

I don't assume that the KJV is always better. There certainly are some human mistakes in it. But what is so amazing is that the modern versions retained most of those mistakes.

When you stop to think about, none of the Bible writers were perfect. They were human just as we are. One Gospel writer even was wrong in a source for prophecy he quoted (again, my materials are packed for our impending move, and I cannot give the precise example I would like to give -- but it is there).

However, there are some interesting points that should be pondered. The committee formed to do the Authorized Version (AV or KJV because it was King James who authorized the translation) was very open in the process of translation. They were very knowledgable of Greek. The preface in my NKJV states, in regard to the work done by that 1611 committee, "The precision of translation for which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled that monumental version of the Word of God to becaome the mainspring of the religion, language, and legal foundations of our civilization....The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the otehr hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted. In 1786, Catholic scholar Alexander Geddes said of the King James Bible, 'If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent.'"

Unfortunately, the committee that was formed in 1851 to revise the KJV did not meet with the same openess as the 1611 committee. Westcott and Hort formed that committee in 1851, and sought to obtain the same royal authorization as the KJV, without success. They met in secret. Dissenters were either forcibly removed, or were so disgusted by the process that they voluntarily left it. Certain rules for translation were changed. In 1881, they published and sold the first copies of their work -- the Revised English version. And when compared to the Jesuit sponsered Rheims translation of the New Testament, the wording and phrasing was almost identical. Westcott and Hort, though officially members of the Anglican Church, were very sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. One even wrote of praying to a Pieta, and wishing the experience obtained by that act could continue forever. One even wrote of seeking out and associating with anyone who desired to see a one world government.

What makes this history so amazing is this simple fact: From 1611 to 1881, the British Empire was growing (with the exception of the loss of one of her colonies -- the United States of America), and with that amazing growth in global influence the Gospel of the KJV went to all the world. Since 1881, the British Empire entered into stagnation and decay -- from which it has never fully recovered.

Never lose sight of the big picture: there are two main lines of Bibles -- the true Protestant Bible, and the Ecumenical one. If the Gospel of your Bible is leading you to accept the Pope as your final authority on Doctrine -- with all its changes to support papal beliefs of mariology, immortality of the human soul, and makes the Creation Sabbath a mere disposable Sabbath -- then it is leading you to accept and approve an Ecumenical Kingdom which is not the Kingdom of God.


M.A. Crawford

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1666
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2001, 07:42:00 AM »
"When you stop to think about it, none of the Bible writers were perfect. They were human just as we are."

That is quite true, on both accounts. But when we read the Word of God, our focus (or concern) should not be upon the imperfection of Its writers. The Bible tells us: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). Where the certainty of the Scriptures is concerned, our focus should be upon the fact that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible writers were indeed human, just as you and I, but what they wrote was given unto them BY GOD HIMSELF. This is why it is the Holy Bible. THEY WERE ONLY INSTRUMENTS through whom God chose to carry out His Purposes of presenting to mankind the Great Principles of Salvation. When we focus on any other fact, I am convinced we give the devil an opportunity to gain entrance to our minds with thoughts that are detrimental to our spiritual health. This is why we are to demonstrate COMPLETE FAITH in the Word of God in spite of the minor discrepencies in translation that are contained therein.  We are admonished to GUARD VERY CAREFULLY the avenues to our minds and not give the enemy of souls an opportunity to gain entrance and PLANT THE SEEDS OF DOUBT. He only needs the smallest of openings to wedge his way in with his objective being for all of us to lose our souls ANY WAY HE CAN GET US TO DO SO.

M.A.      

M.A.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2001, 04:41:00 PM »
Brother Thiele, thank you again for the informative post.  Could you elaborate on your statement "there are two main lines of Bibles-- the true Protestant Bible, and the Ecumenical one."  I commented on Sister Kelley's post when she spoke of the importance of the "original text". I agreed that we must start from a proper place. We (I) need to better understand the history in this respect. Please share what you know regarding the manuscripts that have been used. I have heard some, but now we must know.

Richard

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of His Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Justin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 211
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2001, 07:22:00 PM »
According to my readings of several researches done on this subject by both Adventist and Non-adventist authors, there are basically two different streams of the New Testament Manuscripts: Western (Alexandria to Rome to Roman Catholic Vulgate to Revised Version of Wescott and Hort to Modern Translations) and Eastern (Syria to Constantinople to Waldenses and Gallic Churches to Reformation to KJV),

From the Eastern tradition of very strict copying endeavors came what is genreally know the Textus Receptus (Received Text) which was used as a basis for the KJV. From the Western tradition of lax and intentional corruption of orginal texts came both what are known as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus was secreted in the Vatican Library for centuries and the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by a German textual scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf in a trash can of an ancient monastery - they were being used to light the monastery's ovens.

The obvious problems with the two Western manuscripts are that they contain many disagreements and repeated alterations. Here are some quotes from the textual scholars on this regard:

"Dean Burgon pointed out that in the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no fewer than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and pen to the extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-grade importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (from True or False, page 77 - David Otis Fuller)

"Dean Burgon went on to point out - In the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received Text in the following particulars: It omits at least 2,877 words; it adds 536 words; it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergencies. But the Sinaiticus manuscript is even worse for its total divergencies in the particulars stated above amount to nearly 9,000." (from True or False, page 78 - David Otis Fuller)

Another scholar states that these two corrupted manuscripts are found to disagree with each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone: "I have tabulated the major part of these differences between X and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities in each side. They amount to Matthew - 656+, Mark - 567+, Luke - 791+, John - 1022+ for a total of 3,036." (Codex B and Its Allies, vol 2, Herman C. Hoskier).

The above reason is why you don't find verses such as Matthew 18:11 and mark 16:9-20 in the NIV. Some of other missing verses from most modern translations are: Matthew 17;21, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7.

I have previously listed some of different translations between the KJV and other modern translations (which have significant impact on our Adventist understanding of the Gospels) in one of other threads on this forum.

Justin

[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 07-08-2001).]


Justin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 211
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2001, 08:10:00 PM »
When we consider the unsavory nature of most modern translations, we should look at how the mother of all modern translations - The Revised Version of 1881 - came about.

The revisers of 1881 originally only intended to update archaic words and some places where the KJV did not provide the best translation. But two very unsavory characters - Bishop B. F. Westcott and Professor F. Hort - subverted this original purpose by retranslating whole thing based on the corrupted Western manuscripts. They acted in very manipulative, secretive and underhanded manners to accomplish this turn-about. When someone does this to accomplish whatever goals one may have, we need ask many why's and be careful of their end-products.

Also, read the following quotes from these two "Christian Scholars" and judge for yourself who they are:

"I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues." (Letter written by Hort to John Ellerton, recorded in Life of Hort, vol 1, 78)

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be comtemporary with. . .My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period." (Letter to John Ellerton, dated April 3, 1860, Life of Hort, vol 1, 416).

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results...I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry...But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood...But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist...I believe that Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion; and I remeber shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." (Hort quoted in Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 155).

"After leaving the monastry, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill...Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a Pieta [a statue of the Virgin and the dead Christ] the size of life...Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Westcott wrote from France to his fiancee, 1847, Life of Westcott, vol 2, 50)

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." (Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson, November 17, 1865)

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890).

Here you have the true colors of these apostized pretenders. it should make your choice about the Bible versions easier. It was so for me.

Justin

[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 07-08-2001).]


Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2001, 09:53:00 PM »
Thank you, Brother Justin, this may help our Sister Kelly as she understands the importance of the "original" text. 
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of His Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

DHThiele

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 398
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2001, 04:19:00 PM »
To respond to your question, Richard, would be somewhat redundant since Justin has provided ample facts based on the differences in the Greek manuscripts.

My studies have led me to much of the same reading as Justin quoted. But my deepest study has been in the comparison of the English translations from the time of Wyclif to the present.

Again, I would invite any who have in interest in seeing those comparisons to request the MSWord document I have prepared. In this document you will see why the only Protestant Reformer to translate into the English language the New Testament the same words and phrasing as the RC Vulgate is Wyclif, who was not a Greek scholar, since the study of Greek was forbidden in RC controlled Western Europe at that time.

The Rheims translation into English was done by Jesuits during the Counter-Reformation period. The work was to intended to counter the versions that Luther and Tyndale had provided to their people in their respective tongues.


jherbertthompson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 157
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2001, 04:35:00 PM »
Brother's and Sister's.  I just had to put my two cents in that I personally read the Revised Standard when studying...However, for a all-round study of the Bible, I prefer the KJV.  :)

I am particularly interested in the comparing of scripture in a number of versions...It is possible (IMO) to sometimes get a much larger picture or concept regarding a particular study using multiple versions verses using the original Hebrew or Greek.

Do you think it really matters to the honest and dedicated *truth seeker* which Bible one uses...Isn't God big enough to use what ever version we pick-up to clearly and simply reveal Himself to that person...We must all be brought to the final decission as to whether or not we wish to do it God's way, or do it our own way...

Your brother in Christ.


Justin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 211
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2001, 08:37:00 PM »
Brother Herbert,

I would like to have a non-Adventist reply to your post:

"Can someone (truth seeker) get saved if one is using a bible other than the KJV? Yes! Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture. It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and 2 Timothy 3:16. It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See 1 Peter 2:2. It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture. It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing." (Samuel C. Gipp, The Answer Book, p 101)

If I've determined that most modern translations were defective and based on the perverted originals, I do not see any point in wasting my limited time in referencing them along with the KJV. It would be a poor management of the time resources given to us by our God.

Justin


DHThiele

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 398
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2001, 04:05:00 AM »
Can a seeker of truth be saved by that truth gleaned from the modern versions? Can one be lost because of the subtle falsehoods promoted by them? This is what the apostle Paul had to say about the Devil's efforts to prevent us from Salvation.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2Cor.11.3-5

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2Cor.11.13-16

So if anyone thinks that it is safe to cherish the modern versions above the KJV, then let them take heed that Paul wrote of Satan using "any means" by which he may deceive the very elect. It is not merely by the oral verbage that deceivers teach falsehood. Especially those deceivers who base their final authority on the traditional theology taught by "church fathers" and wish to support that tradition in Bibles which are designed to bring Protestants back to the Roman Catholic fold.

It is a fascinating deception, because the Reformation has its roots in the the famous cry, "Sola scriptura!" Meanwhile, the counter-reformers are laughing all the way to the bank.


M.A. Crawford

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1666
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2001, 10:58:00 AM »
"...the Bible is a weapon in the hand of a Christian...."

Yes, it is a weapon because it is described as a two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). But it is first a WEAPON FOR SELF-CORRECTION, then one for GENTLY pointing others to It in a Christlike manner as a Guide for everyday living . It IS NOT for the purpose of "beating one another over the head" with what is written therein as is done in too many instances today by those who profess to be "Christians(?)"

M.A.  

M.A.

jherbertthompson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 157
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2001, 05:36:00 PM »
Kind Sir's and Brethren.  How I would like to take you through a study in translation and interpretation.  :)  There are so many variations which may or not be used; considerations of the time and conditions in which these things have been written...Are there really any of us who have this much expertise?  :)

Additionally, I have flinched at the term of the *Bible being our Sword* in-as-much as the
greater majority of those who use this phrase are simply using their Bible's as clubs...

More tomarrow.  That is if I'm not pinged for my directness?  :(


M.A. Crawford

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1666
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2001, 08:15:00 AM »
With reference to Bible translations, what I have learned over the years is it is not so much a particular translation that is the problem. The problem lies in spending wholesale amounts of time focusing upon minor discrepencies that can be found in just about any Bible translation--including the King James Version.

As I have stated before, no Bible translation is perfect. There are questions concerning the accuracy of certain words, phrases, and some dates in practically all translations. Some reasons for these discrepencies lie in the fact that translations are made from existing copies of the original Greek and other manuscripts, and there is often disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of some words, phrases, and dates and their contextual relationship with other Scripture. Another reason is because these translations are made BY HUMAN BEINGS who often make mistakes in their understanding of these documents. But the bottom line is THERE IS NO MISTAKE in the principles of salvation that lead to eternal life that are contained in Scripture. Consequently, some scholars, theologians, and laymen end up wasting precious time by spending most, if not all of it, focusing upon those points of contention that have little if any relevance at all to being saved.

M.A.  

M.A.

Liane H

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 2365
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2001, 05:44:00 PM »
The history of the Bible is a paradox. Yet when you review that history you can see a common thread throughout the history of mankind. The history of the Bible goes from being in hands and eyes of only a few men, who had and do have this great opportunity to serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Throughout history the flock were to trust that the color and texture of what the Bible words say were placed in the hands of a very few. What these few men said of the Bible rested the very souls of mankind. Yet Christianity prevailed and the message of Jesus has gone around the world.

Again, in the hands of a few men, we now have translations of the Bible which are being presented to the public as the true word of God and again the flock are to trust the color and texture of the words present in which they are placing their very souls in these men hands. And yes our Jesus as our Lord and Saviour prevails on.

No matter what Satan and men may do, God can do that which will preserve the truth in all its fullness. No matter from what part of the world you live, Jesus is getting out the good news, that there is a better way and He is the way, the truth and the life for all mankind.

Liane    

Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19   For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

M.A. Crawford

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1666
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2001, 06:59:00 AM »
Whenever I stand before congregations, or for personal Bible study, I use the King James Version of the Bible. I have on occasion used The Living Bible from the desk but discontinued that practice because the standard translation most people have in their possession and bring to church is the KJV.

M.A.  

M.A.

jherbertthompson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 157
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2001, 12:42:00 PM »
Brethren. For the past week or so, while working on a paper, it suddenly occured to me that perhaps [since King James was Catholic] there is too strong a connection to the Catholic view of "righteousness by works"?

Discussing this possibility with other's, it has been mentioned that one almost need not even be able to read Hebrew or Greek now-a-days; as, there are enough translations that if one were to read a passage, in context, from all or as many as possible; one could with prayer, weighing the evidence, and using some reason, quite likely make a pretty good assessment over all.

My point is this.  Believing as I do regarding the Catholic slant in the KJV, is it also possible that many of our more forensic views regarding such subjects as the "keeping of the law"; our "duty in terms of our neighbor"; and even regarding our personal relationships with God?

I personaly believe that the primary cause of sin was Eve's, and subsequently Adam's dis-trust in their creator. Had He hidden something from them?  To take this one step further, if we refer to contemporary views of a love/trust model, then a view of perhaps more healing could be seen.  We are all walking wounded...

Your brother in Christ.  


Liane H

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 2365
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2001, 04:17:00 PM »
Hi Herbert:

This is my understanding of the manuscripts and their history. I will go further later.

Waldensians to Old Latin, to Syriac, to pure text, to the KJV.

The Code B Vaticanus to Eusebius, to Jerome to the tainted test to code A sinsiticus, which is known as the Latin Vulgate became the Catholic Bible.

I will outline this with more detail and come back and post.

Liane

Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19   For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2001, 07:15:00 PM »
Brother Herbert, I agree that we are all "walking wounded", but Christ can make us whole. Amen? Amen!  The law is the "school master" that leads us to Christ. This is not "Catholic", it is the truth by my testimony and that of the disciples and prophets. The later versions being published today tend to remove the need to keep the law. The "evangelical gospel" has been introduced in the new "bibles".

Do not let some who do not know Christ as Saviour bring reproach upon the KJV. Yes, there are "legalists" beating many over the head with it, but this does not mean that the Bible is to blame. Consider what is being said by those who are posting in this topic.

Have a good Sabbath!    :)

Richard

[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 11-18-2001).]

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of His Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.