Author Topic: Bible Translations  (Read 109226 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

M.A. Crawford

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1666
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2001, 01:02:00 PM »
"I personally believe that the primary cause of sin was Eve's...."

Please share with us the reason(s) why you believe the above.

M.A.

M.A.

jherbertthompson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 157
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2001, 08:25:00 PM »
Brother's and Sister's. I believe that because I mis-stated my question in the beginning; and, because I personally have preference to the Revised Standard; I really don't wish to make an issue of this at this time...It seems that the response herein is quite different from the trian-of-thought being discussed between myself and others.

Is it possible to simply "bow-out" on a thread?  :)

Sincerely your brother in Christ.


Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2001, 09:33:00 AM »
We appreciate your comments and look forward to you keeping us "honest" in our obejections to many of the modern translations, Brother Herbert.  :)  Keep reading and let us know when you have a concern.

Richard

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

Allan F

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 189
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2002, 11:59:00 AM »
Hello, I just want to make a short comment to this topic. The debate concerning King James version versus other bible translations, is as you may know a debate going on particularly in english speaking countries.

In my country we are blessed with an translation of the english king James version. But many places KJ is unknown to people. I don't beleive that this is a hinder for people to get to know the truth. The psalmist says that the SUM of Gods word is truth. It is very difficult to go astray if one take all the Bible into account when making up ones beliefs.

25 years ago there came out a new translation of the Bible here in Norway. It is still regarded as a very good and solid translation. But many conservative christians became worried because the translation clearly revealed the true nature of man. As a (indirect) result of this, a new Bible translation came out some years ago, which make use of words that would make a superficial reader to suppose that the Bible teaches an eternal burning hell. But even if some words are changed it is still possible to see the clear truth about the nature of man.

I beleive that the "fixed" translations is primarly dangerous for the superficial readers.
Secondarly I see a danger with these fixed translations which is dangerous for all Bible readers. By fixing some words and verses, the Bible loses its coherence, which is one of its strongest arguments for being what it claims to be. It becomes contradictory because some verses reveal opposite meaning.

Allan F


Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2002, 11:32:00 AM »
Interesting points, Brother Allan.  I changed to the KJV because I saw I was being led away from the truth with my NIV. The Bible does not contradict itself. We want to find the very best translation we can get. Yes, we can get truth out of all "bibles", but the devil is at work with some and he takes a lot of truth and mingles in a little error that cannot be discerned by many and he has led the mind astray. It is an important subject and with the ease of printing we shall see more and more of Satan's effort to get us to believe a lie.

Richard

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

Domingo

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 13
    • http://www.geocities.com/ddvteach/
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2002, 01:00:00 PM »
After reading the entire thread in one sitting (whew!), I have some thoughts to share:
I grew up a catholic in a spanish speaking country, and as such had no knowledge of the KJV controversy until sometime after I came to the USA (which was several years after becoming an adventist).  I mention this because very often this issue is centered around a specific version (KJV) in a specific language (english), which was developed in a heavily calvinistic protestant enviroment.  As Mrs White often says, the time, place, and circumstances must be considered when trying to interpret something.  Many people from other countries do not view this issue in quite the same light.

The opossing view must be considered.  I now prefer the KJV (when reading in english), but it took me several years of careful study to come to this preference, and even then I constantly refer to Strongs definitions and Interlinear greek & hebrew concordances.  I have found from personal experience that one cannot bring the arguments used in this thread to most any adventist minister trained in our seminaries, and be given the time of day, so to speak.

I feel most of the arguments used when discussing this issue are bound to produce more heat than light, not because of their lack of merit, but because of not taking into careful consideration the church enviroment most of us find ourselves nowadays.  So, as one who agrees with much of what has been said, I would like to propose basic points on which we can reach and persuade people more easily, specially when the people do not share any special love for the KJV:

1-The easiest issue on which to find agreement is the translation issue.  I have found it much less troublesome to get a sympatetic hearing when talking about translation, specially when speaking with people who speak several languages, such as myself (spanish, english & some french).   Referencing with a good interlinear Bible or extreme literal translation (such as the Green version) is the easiest way to demostrate some of the issues involved.  This reduces the choices to only a few versions out of the miriads available.
For example, I point out that having a passage translated unambiguously (NIV) as opposed to being ambiguous (KJV, NAS) is not necesarily a good thing.  For this I give examples from modern languages which I know, to demostrate that even if the unambiguous is used in translation, the original ambiguos intent can be lost (in other words, both meanings can be intended).  Plus, the original context often makes clear why the passage is best left ambiguous.   In addition, if a passage is ambiguous, it is the job of the interpreter, not the translator, to determine what a passage means.

2-When dealing with manuscripts, I find there is a valid Biblical principle often ignored: at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established (Deut19:15).  That is, more witnesses, rather than fewer, should establish the issue.  Realizing that helped me sort out the huge jumble of scholarly arguments out there.

3-I find that this issue is pretty much like the evolution issue: Biblical scholars know the deficiencies and faults of Wescott and Hort and their theories (just as scientists know about Darwin's shortcomings), but they remain very much attached to the principles which originated the modern versions.  This (spiritual?) blindness is a good part of why it is not a simple matter to settle, and why it is important not to use unpersuasive arguments.  The KJV is better, but not because is it quasy-inspired.  Some people criticize the reformation-based spanish versions, because they are not identical to the KJV, which I think is ridiculous.

4-Personally, I try not to dwell too much on the missing verses issue, because I find it can overwhelm the average believer, specially the new believer.  This is because most people don't understand the nature of inspiration, and most new believers join the church with the impression of literal, verbal inspiration of every word and syllable in the Bible, as opposed to the writers themselves being inspired).  This can shake their faith to the very foundation.
I think this an advanced believers issue, right up there with the Sanctuary, state of the dead, etc., and not nearly as important as those.  In other words, I may impress a new believer with the importance of using a more literal translation, and suggest the KJV, or some other if they don't like that one.  But the manuscripts and missing verses I would save for much, much later.
The problems with the NIV I feel have much less to do with the missing verses and much more to do with the manner of translation (paraphrase heavily slanted with calvinistic theology, plus an apparent desire to be more ecumenical, at the expense of inspiration).

In short, to me it is not a clear cut right versus wrong issue, but rather right principles versus wrong principles.  As all know, principles do not make all things clear cut at every level of the issue, but leave some gray areas.

$0.02

Domingo

[This message has been edited by Domingo (edited 11-16-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Domingo (edited 11-16-2002).]


Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2002, 06:05:00 PM »
Brother Domingo, I appreciate your comments and think there is much good advice in them. The Holy Spirit showed me something in my NIV as a relatively new Christian and I closed it and got my KJV. I never really discussed the matter because I was not in a position to comment on other versions, not having studied the matter. Over a period of time I have become more familiar with some of the new versions and believe they do indeed slant their translations. I then consider who did the translations and am not surprised.

The reason for having started this topic here is the push for the NIV in the church. Your comments about other than English Bibles is very good. It would be foolish to condemn any translation without having personal knowledge of it.

The reason why I went to the KJV was because of the age. I wanted something not produced by Babylonian churches. I have been very happy with the KJV even with the archaic language problem. Which is interesting because I hated Shakespere in school.

After using it for many years I have grown accustomed to it and enjoy it now. Yes, I would prefer a modern translation that was accurate, but I am content. I trust the version.

Thanks for your input. I enjoy your posts.

Richard

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

Sister Glass

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 7555
  • May God's Light Shine On Us All
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2002, 10:41:00 PM »
Some reasons I do not use the NIV is do to the fact that many of the times the leave out "endearments" so to speak. Words that point to Christ lovingly as our Saviour. In many cases it is left such that one could read it and believe it meant anyone they wanted it too. Thus the idea of being a people friendly Bible. Anyone can read it and think it is talking about whom ever they want it to be. In many verses it can be taken that way. Where in the KJV it tells you just who it is talking about and in loving ways.
Also there are some texts that are left out all together.

They may have reasons for this as they claim they do, however, I am feeling much closer to the Lord and knowing Him better through the King James Version. I am comfortable with it and believe in it. I don't see anything wrong with checking out different translations as it does help sometimes. but I lean on the basic ways of the KJV.  

------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Glass

With Christian Love,
Marie

Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2002, 01:56:00 PM »
Ditto to Domingo's post. I just finished reading this topic (all 4 pages).
 SOme time ago Brother Curt sent me some info on the different Bible translations. I checked them all out and put together a sermon called Search "Which" Scriptures. Here are some of the things I discovered.
Matthew 18:11. KJV says this :
 "For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost."

 What does the RSV and NIV  say?  
(BBE)  (OMITTED TEXT)

(CEV)  (SEE 18:10)

(GNB)  OMITTED TEXT

(GW)  (OMITTED TEXT)

(Weymouth NT)  OMITTED TEXT

YES -the text is MISSING!
Surely this is an important doctrine, isn't it?

 After discovering that missing text, I wondered how many others  were missing or changed  also!

Here is what I discovered!

Acts 8:37

(BBE)  (OMITTED TEXT)

(CEV)  (SEE 8:36)

(Darby)  (OMITTED TEXT)

(GNB)  OMITTED TEXT

(GW)  (OMITTED TEXT)

(World English Bible)  (OMITTED TEXT)

(WNT)  OMITTED TEXT

(KJV)  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Is this an important teaching acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God?   I believe so!

  For me it is difficult to understand why the various versions agree to omit the testimony of one of the Apostles!
1 John 5:7

RSV And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

(BBE)  And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.

(CEV)  In fact, there are three who tell about it.

(GNB)  There are three witnesses:

(KJV)  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 
   Another doctrine which identifies Jesus as God,
" the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end".
  HOWEVER, when we read Rev 1:11 in the "NEWER  versions", this teaching is missing TOO!
 Thus a well-known attribute of Jesus is taken away.

   When we compare the various verses, we discover that KEY DOCTRINES are MISSING-doctrines like " The Seventh-Day Sabbath" , "The Sanctuary",  "Christ's Second Coming" ,  "SOP", "The Mission and Divinity of Jesus" , "Judgment" and " Salvation"!- All the pillars of faith which our pioneers adhered to and the early Reformers -ALL have been changed by these "new versions" to accommodate the Global Community.

 MY conclusion is this as recorded in Amos 8:10-11
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only [son], and the end thereof as a bitter day.
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:"

We are there. The "other"versions are inaccurate and not to be relied on for teaching doctrine.

 I majored in Theology at La Sierra University (Riverside, Cal) , and the prime textbook Bible was RSV.  Quite frankly, I was shocked when I disovered that important verses were missing which pertain to our Historic Adventist doctrines.

It wasn't until years later that I discovered the huge difference between them.
Laurie

Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

JimB

  • Servant
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7070
  • Pro 12:28 in the pathway thereof there is no death
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2002, 11:46:00 AM »
I have not read all the posts. But from my study and expierence we do need to be careful about which version we choose.

However, as a pastor once told me, we need to be careful not to make a particular bible version our "god". I have met some people who seem to have gone in that direction.

If one is worried that a particular version is "tainted" then a study needs to be done to find out which original mauscript is more reliable. Textus Receptus, The Majority Text, or the Critical Text. There are a few mistakes in ALL versions. One needs to be sure about a few things before digging in their heels on this issue.

By communion with God in nature, the mind is uplifted, and the heart finds rest.  {DA 291.1}

Sister Glass

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 7555
  • May God's Light Shine On Us All
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2002, 02:19:00 PM »
We are not talking tainged here, we are talking deleting and changing meaning. When a Bible deletes or changes any meaning in a text then the Bible cannot be trusted is the way I look at it.

------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Glass

With Christian Love,
Marie

Randy S

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 134
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2002, 07:28:00 AM »
Amen, Jim.  I remember hearing about a famous evangelist that taught that the world had been populated prior to creation week.  He used as his evidence Genesis 1:28 from the King James Version: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...".

He pointed out that if the command was to "replenish", then there must have been a prior population that had been destroyed and needed to be replenished.

In fact, the Hebrew word translated "replenish" in the KJV simply means "fill".  It is translated correctly in every version I've ever seen other than the KJV, and it was corrected in the NKJV as well.  It always pays to check the original language, and not to consider any one translation "infallible".


Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2002, 01:40:00 PM »
Let us examine DANIEL 3:25
(RSV-Revised Standard Version) "He answered, But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth, is like a son of the gods."

(NIV) "He (Nebuchadnezzar) said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

(ASV-American standard Version) " He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods."

(CEV)  "But I see four men walking around in the fire," the king replied. "None of them is tied up or harmed, and the fourth one looks like a god."

(GNB)  "Then why do I see four men walking around in the fire?" he asked. "They are not tied up, and they show no sign of being hurt---and the fourth one looks like an angel."

(KJV)  "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."


Are all Bible versions the same?
Are all churches the same?

What does Ellen G. White say about this topic?

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean  to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed." EWp220-221

 I rest my case!
Laurie

[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 11-21-2002).]

Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Randy S

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 134
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2002, 08:36:00 PM »
That's very interesting, Laurie.  But EGW is talking about the Bible in general.  Not a specific version.  Read the quotation you posted.  It does not say the King James Version.

There seems to be an assumption that EGW used only the KJV.  But if you look at her use of Bible quotations, you will see that she also used other versions herself.  She also quoted from the Apocrapha on occasion.  What does that mean?

In Daniel 3:25, the Hebrew word could be translated either way: "God" or "god".  What difference does it make?  It isn't a doctorinal statement.  It is an accurate utterance of a pagan king.  It is left to the reader to understand the true identity of the fourth person.  Clearly, it is Christ.  But did the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar KNOW it was Christ?  Would it shake my faith if his exclamation showed that he did not know the exact identity of the fourth person, that he merely knew that it was not a mortal man?

I believe that the KJV is the best single English translation ever compiled.  But I do not base my opinion on some of the reasons I see provided in this thread.  There is nothing wrong with using multiple translations and it is very helpful to utilize a greek/hebrew cross reference as well, in my experience.

There are many legitimate judgement calls in translating.  I remember one verse which is often cited in discussions of original sin.  Are we born already guilty or merely with a propensity towards sin that all men have subsequently chosen?  The Hebrew word is "adam".  Adam is the word for "mankind", and it is also the name of the very first man.  Now which is the correct meaning?  It is a judgement call.  

We need to get into the habit of looking at the scriptures as a whole.  Using one text to shed light on another.  I believe that you can use most translations and still come to the truth if that process is foremost.


Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2002, 01:58:00 AM »
Agreed Randy, but if you check on what version EGW used 99% of the time it was KJV. In fact, if you check on her own use of other versions, I believe she only used other versions 5-10 times during her whole  ministry,
Laurie

[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 11-22-2002).]

Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Randy S

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 134
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2002, 05:35:00 AM »
Agreed Laurie.  But it shows that she owned and used other translations besides the KJV.  Remember, how many other translations were available in her day?  Most of the ones we have access to did not even exist back then.  And consider how English usage has continued to drift in the intervening 100-160 years.  Some people even have trouble with EGW's use of english these days: hence the updates recently produced.

The fact is, many poeople who set off on their initial read-through of the Bible do not make it through the KJV.  I have seen it time and time again.  When I get them a modern english translation they are very greateful.  Later on, they come to love the KJV.  When I do Bible studies I often use Phillips New Testament.  It is wonderfuly readable, and when I have checked the meaning verses the Greek, I have found it to be accurate, though my knowledge of Greek is limited.

I have personally observed the benefits of having someone understand what God says versus struggling with the sometimes archaic language in the KJV.  Sometimes I think we lose perspective on that point.


Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2002, 01:44:00 PM »
  Brother Randy!
 I guess my point is this! Show me from the other translations what Matthew 18:11,Acts 8:37,1 John 5:7 they're missing!! Look at Isa .14;12(NIV  "fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!) and
RSV  "fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of dawn.

HOW MANY "DAY STARS" are there? 2? Lucifer and Jesus?  I think not...
Is the morning star Lucifer? Rev 22:16 suggests otherwise.   Even the RSV says "I, JESUS have sent my angel to tell you with this testimony for the churches. I AM the root and the offspring of David, the bright MORNING STAR.

  2 Peter 1:19 " We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" I don't believe this verse is applying to Lucifer, do you?

 And THIS is my whole point The scriptures don't need to be confusing, for that causes confusion. Look at Rev 22:14. For those understanding Scripture, YES, washing one's robes in the blood of the Lamb involves keeping God's 10 commandments. (c.1 Cor. 6:11-11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.)"

 It's  obvious this verse is really referring to the requirements of entering heaven...those who KEEP God's commandments...in other words commandment-keepers. Look at verse 15...who is outside heaven?
 
15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

 In other words, commandment- breakers!!

For the record, I use other translations TOO. I have at my disposal about 14 different ones, but the only consistent version for SDA doctrine is the reliable KJV.

Laurie


Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2002, 05:37:00 PM »
Brother Randy, Happy Sabbath!  :)

My concern comes from who is translating. How do you feel about fallen churches translating the Bible?  Don't you think their doctrinal beliefs effect their translations? And....can we expect that many who are in such high theological positions be effected by rejecting great light?

Richard

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

Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #58 on: November 23, 2002, 01:22:00 AM »
 Brother Richard brings up an interesting point.
 We here in Canada (Nova Scotia) have just completed an evangelistic series , VIA SATELITTE Revelation Speaks Peace by Shawn Boonstra and Henry Feyerabend (Canadian IIW).
  Over the 4 week venture, alot of people who came to the meetings were amazed at the simplicity and explanation of the Holy Scriptures. KJV was the one used.

Is there a difference between " the 2300 day prophecy" and/or the 2300 evenings and morning and evening prophecy?

 Is there a difference between "a" sabbath and "the" Sabbath?

 Is there a difference between "the end of the age" and the "end of the world"?
  Is there a difference between believing that Jesus came in "fallen versus unfallen flesh"?

 Definitely a difference to all of the above!!

 Happy Sabbath to all!
Laurie

Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38719
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2002, 03:01:00 PM »
Here is a question that enters my mind from time to time. The Bible is God's Word. Would the devil attempt to change it? How could he do it? Would he need to use men to do it? Where could he find "Christians" that he could use to change the Word of God?

Am I off base here?

Richard

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