Author Topic: Bible Translations  (Read 114066 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38887
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #80 on: August 06, 2005, 07:13:00 PM »
Sorry to have missed your post, Brother Jim.

I am not sure that I can answer your question. But, there is a difference between 1885 and 2005. Those who sit on such committees today have to reject much light to in order to do so. Can I speak of each man? No, but of most. The light is shining brightly and the results of the rejection is clearly seen in the new translations.

In looking for more information on translations, I will post some links that will help our study. There is much written, so all may do their own research.

Here is a list of translations based upon the work or Erasmus. There was a break from the Roman lies perpetrated in the Vulgate. His work was the beginning of the end of the Roman "dark ages".

Translations from Erasmus:

  1. John Tyndale (1)
  2. Martin Luther used Erasmus' second edition. (2)
  3. All English Bibles of the 16th and 17th century were based on Erasmus; text. (3)
  4. French versions of Lefevre and Olivetan 1534 and 1535
  5. Dutch version by Biestkens 1558
  6. Swedish Uppsala Bible by Laurentius 1541
  7. Spanish Bible by Cassiodoro de Reyna in 1569
  8. Danish Bible by Christian III in 1550
  9. Czech version of 1602
 10. Italian version by Diodati in 1607 (4)
 11. Welsh New Testament of 1563 (5)

In Defense of Erasmus--Dr. John Cereghin

This is of importance to those who have choices in other languages besides English.

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

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38887
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #81 on: August 06, 2005, 07:31:00 PM »
Sinaiticus, it is old, but is it the best? "A manuscript containing the oldest known Biblical New Testament in the world is set to enter the digital age and become accessible online." BBC

Sinaiticus is not the manuscript that was used for the translation of the KJV. It was not the Bible of the Waldensees.

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

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38887
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #82 on: August 06, 2005, 09:54:00 PM »
"In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his
countrymen."  GC 1888
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38887
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #83 on: October 05, 2005, 02:32:00 PM »
The following posts were moved from a duplicate topic.
****************************************

Laurie Mosher
Moderator    posted 09-30-2005 07:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laurie Mosher   Click Here to Email Laurie Mosher     Edit/Delete Message This could be "a sticky topic". I've examined and re-examined most of the "newer versions". Often times "other" versions can be used for a better Bible explanation, but one needs to be very careful that the original translation is not substituted or replaced. For instance in the KJV, Revelation 22:14 says Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Nearly all of the other versions have replaced "that do his commandments", with the phrase, "B;essed are they that wash their robes". The argument here is that, "WHAT does washing ones robes have to do with keeping God's commandments?"

Well, I've studied this topic for a bit, and believe that the Bible gives us the answer. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Obviously these two (2) verses are talking about commandment-breakers.

NOW examine verse 11

And such were some of you:
The word, "were" is past tense.

Continuing verse 11:
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.

"But you are washed- that is washed in the blood of the Lamb".

John 8:31 Jesus says," Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; "

AND John 14:15, we read these words, If ye love me, keep my commandments.

So whether the verse reads "doing His commandments OR washing one's robes, the verse means exactly the same.

A further study of Revelation 22:15 in any version obviously refers to the obnedience of the commandments from the previous verse. In whichever version- Outside the city are who?
"Commandment breakers"!

Rev 22:15

(American Standard V) Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

(Bible Basic English) Outside are the dogs, and those who make use of evil powers, those who make themselves unclean, and the takers of life, and those who give worship to images, and everyone whose delight is in what is false.

(Contemporary English Version) But outside the city will be dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idol worshipers, and everyone who loves to tell lies and do wrong.


(Douay-Rheims Bible - Roman Catholic Version) Without are dogs and sorcerers and unchaste and murderers and servers of idols and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

(Good News Bible) But outside the city are the perverts and those who practice magic, the immoral and the murderers, those who worship idols and those who are liars both in words and deeds.

(God's Word) Outside are dogs, sorcerers, sexual sinners, murderers, idolaters, and all who lie in what they say and what they do.


(KJV) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

(LITV) But outside are the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving a lie, and making it.

(World English Bible) Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

(Weymouth NT) The unclean are shut out, and so are all who practise magic, all fornicators, all murderers, and those who worship idols, and every one who loves falsehood and tells lies.

(Young's Literal Translation) and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

IP: Logged
Randy S
Member    posted 09-30-2005 07:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy S   Click Here to Email Randy S     Edit/Delete Message While some translations are no doubt superior to others, we need to keep in mind that none of them are perfect: not even the KJV. Ellen White counseled that we should learn to see the Bible as a whole, and I think that is the key. The proof text method is not the best method for gaining a complete understanding of God's Word.

For example, the KJV rendering of Genesis 1:28 has God commanding Adam to "replenish the earth". "Replenish" what? Replenish gives the idea that something was there before, and was depleted. But that was not the case. There is reportedly an evangelist who uses this KJV text to teach that there was a prior creation to the Genesis account, which God destroyed.

Where did the KJV translators get this idea? The prior English translation had the word "fill", differently spelled of course, instead of replenish. In fact, I know of no other translation that carries the idea of replenish. It was even corrected in the NKJV translation.

Another point to remember is that there is inherently some paraphrasing that occurs in most translations, including the KJV. Take a look at the Greek in Romans 3:25 for example. How do you go from a noun in the original (lid of the Ark) to the word "propitiation"? The translators did not choose to tell you the God made Jesus the "lid of the Ark", but rather they chose to tell you what the lid of the Ark represented (propitiation). This is the same word that Martin Luther chose to translate into a brand new word: English translation "mercy seat". At least it stayed a noun in his translation. Best to let the reader know what the original concept actually was, and then to have the reader study and think about what the lid of the Ark of the Covenant represented, rather than to tell the reader what the committee thought it represented, don't you think?

Still, the KJV is the finest English translation I have ever read. But there are many new and prospective Christians who find it tedious reading and get discouraged with the antiquated English it contains. They find some of the newer translations easier to understand and, I believe, if they are taught to see the Bible as a whole, comparing one scripture with another, they are on safe ground with most Bible tranlsations.

We need to teach people to build a framework of truth based on the Bible as a whole, and then to paint in the detail with additional study. When you do that, each text must fit into the framework, and the ones that don't are easy to spot, easily researched with a concordance and a Strongs dictionary, even for simple lay-folk like myself. It's when we teach people to build doctrine off of individual texts where specific translations become critical, and I think that method is fraught with danger, as the couple of quick examples I have given may indicate.

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

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38887
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #84 on: October 05, 2005, 02:39:00 PM »
While the KJV is indeed difficult for new readers to bear with, it will get easier as they read. The Holy Spirit will bring to mind just what is needed day by day. It is a promise. This is not to shame anyone for reading from the new versions. Maybe there is a honest translation, but I have yet to find it.

There is a caution that needs to be repeated. First look at who translated the version and ask if they are walking in the light God has given. Next consider that we hold the Bible to be the Word of God. How will you judge the Book when it is the Book that we look to for our judgment? We are on faulty ground when we study from a bible that is not the Bible. If the translators were not led of God then there is a big problem when you trust in what you are reading.

One is not at liberty to trust a book because it is called the Bible. God expects more from us than such blind faith in a corrupt church and a corrupt generation. Babylon is fallen is fallen. Take heed lest ye be found wandering after truth that is not Truth.

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the 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 #85 on: October 07, 2005, 06:25:00 AM »
   Thanks Brother Richard, for bringing me up to par. Seems I have a great memory- it's just getting shorter as I grow older.

Brother Randy mentioned about KJV having errors also. He's right, but I gleaned the following from some research material I have.

Spirit of Prophecy and 'MODERN VERSIONS’ by- Elder G. Burnside (with appendix by Temcat)
This article is taken from the book by George Burnside  “The New International Version or The King James Version”  Published by Leaves of Autumn Books Inc.  520-474-3654 Ellen White's experience was "The Lord showed me." .'He told me." "It was presented before me." "Said the angel." "I asked my accompanying angel the meaning of what I heard." Thus God has provided guidance and instruction for His remnant church.  (temcat's Note) The SOP is OUR light on the Bible given us straight from the Holy Spirit!  SISTER WHITE AND THE MODERN VERSIONS.  To justify their use of modern versions of the Bible, many claim "Sister White used them." To the many, this answers all. They argue, all versions therefore must be good. I have often wished that Adventists used the modern versions as Sister White used them. If they used these versions as Sister White did, there would be no problem as we shall see.  Turn to - PROV. 30 :5 ."Every word of God is pure." (my emphasis-LM)  How much impurity needs to be added to a glass of pure water to make it impure? 5%? 1%?  A much higher percentage of error has been added to the Scriptures. The flood of at least one hundred versions in recent times has certainly corrupted truth and produced a babel.  REGARDING THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, HERE ARE A FEW FACTS -  According to the Index, there are listed 15,117 Scripture references in the 25 Volumes that are listed.  95% Of these references are from the King James Version (KJV) and 5% from all the other versions. The Revised Version came out in 1881. Since 1881 more than three quarters of Sister White's writings have been produced. Therefore several of the revised versions were available during most of Sister White's writing years.  IN TESTIMONIES Vol.8  There are 666 Quotations from KJV. 53 from American Revised Version, and 5 from the Revised Version.  She quoted often from Practical Psalms where the change was slight in the wording.  We should notice that verses that are omitted by the N.I.V. and other modern versions are quoted as the Word of God by Sister White. For instance:-  ACTS 8:37 The N.I.V. omits this passage of Holy Writ, but Sister White Quotes it as inspired.  Many other instances of omissions from the N.I.V., but quoted by Sister White could be given and God willing, will be given. It should be remembered that there are no true Scriptures in the N.I.V. that cannot be found in the King James Version. But there are many true Scriptures that are omitted from the N.I.V. as we have noticed and will notice. When the thought is plainer and without error in a modern version, true, Sister White quotes it. But she never quotes the modern version when it has error. For instance several times she quotes REV.22:l4 "do His conunandments," but she never Quotes the erroneous "wash their robes" as found in the N.I.V. and other corrupted versions.  (See G. Burnside, Rev.22:l4 and the N.I.V.)  Again in - JOB.l9:26 (A.R.V.) "Then without my flesh shall I see God." :  Or Lesser's, “Then freed from my flesh shall I behold God."  While at times Sister White uses the A.R.V. or Lesser, she never uses them where they have been corrupted as above. On the other hand several times she quotes this text but always when it is true as in the KJV. "Yet in my flesh shall I see God." See G.C. p 299 etc.  TESTIMONIES VOLUME NINE.  This was the last Volume written by Sister White. Notice she never quoted from a Revised Version once in this volume. Sister White began with the King James Version and she finished the Volume with it.  Our prophet used these modern versions less and less. It is a tragedy that too many Adventists are now using the modern Versions more and more. Inspiration used them less and less. Apostasy uses them more and more. May you follow the example of Sister White in her last volume of the Testimonies and drop out the so called revisions. .  Now let us look at Sister White's historic statements.  "THE FATEFUL FOURTH CENTURY.”  We are fortunate to have an inspired guide in history. Historians write with a bias, and as a result can be confusing. Inspiration alone presents the full facts. Notice some interesting and enlightening facts of history.  G.C. 45 “The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century. ..now the work of corruption rapidly progressed." This was in the fateful "fourth century." One of Constantine's acts was to have the Catholic bishop Eusebius make copies of fifty Bibles for use in the churches.  As Constantine aimed at unity, the pagans with apostate Christians, he naturally chose tampered manuscripts to suit his compromised Christianity. The evidence is overwhelming in favour of the fact that the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts were two of Constantine’s fifty Bibles.  Sidney Collett in his "The scripture of Truth" when writing about the Sinaitic manuscript that was found by Dr. Tischendorf stated:-  Dr. Tischeodorf believed that This and the Vatican manuscript were two of the fifty copies of the Bible which were made in Greek by command of the Emperor Constantine, about the year A.D. 331, under the supervision of Bishop Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea. 'P,28~  These manuscripts came from the Fourth century -the century of corruption. Sister White further states:- G.C. 56 “Ancient writings were forged by monks…And a church that had rejected the truth greedily accepted these deceptions."  Of the Catholic bishop who prepared these Bibles for Constantine, inspired history states:-  G.C. 574 "Eusebius a bishop who sought the favour of princes, and who was the special friend and flatterer of Constantine. "  This was the century that brought in Sunday.  This was the century that produced the Vulgate from which came the Catholic Bible. In this same “fourth century" of corruption came the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from which came the N.I.V. and its companion versions. They are companions in crime and corruption. For instance compare the Catholic "Douay, Bible" and the N.I.V. Note their striking parallel. MATT.18:11 is missing from both of them.  REV. 22: 14 has the corruption "wash their robes" in each.  LUKE 4 : 4 "But by every word of God' is omitted from both the N.I.V. and the Douay. Many more parallels will be given in a later leaflet -God willing.  "TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY ."  Hold fast to our Lord's gift to His remnant people. May you ever be in the company of God's "saints" that "have the Testimony of Jesus." Rev.12:17  REV.19:1O "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." That inspired voice further declares:-  G.C. 65 "The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures~. Hundreds of years before the Reformation they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution they stood unflinchingly for God's word and His honor."  The Waldenses, like the saints on Scotland's isle of Iona had the true Scriptures. "They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them special objects of hatred and persecutions." G.C. 65.  Note it was because these saints held the Scriptures -" "truth unadulterated" that Rome hated and persecuted them. Rome has always hated the Bible.  Rome held the Vulgate, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for centuries. But inspiration further states:-  "Theirs was not a faith newly received. Their religious belief was their inheritance from their fathers. They contended for the faith of the apostolic church "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. "The church in the wilderness," and not the proud hierarchy—enthroned in the world's great capital, was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth Which God has committed to His people to be given to the world." G.C.64.  God preserved His Word. He preserved it through His saints, the Waldenses and in Scotland's Iona. We are clearly told that it was "the church in the wilderness" and "not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital" -Rome "that was the guardian of the treasures of truth." Rome may have had the Vulgate, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but they did not have the "Scripture of truth" -the Received Text, the "Majority. text"-- from which we have the King James Version. May we each one be willing to die for it. To sum up.-  Rome upholds the Vulgate, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but hated the King James Version. Why? The sure word of prophecy answers: “Rome 'cast down the truth to the ground."' Dan.8: 12. It "shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.” Dan.8:24.  "He shall also stand up against the Prince of prince but he shall be broken without hand." Dan.8:25.  Such is the work and doom of Rome.  Remember! "But the Word of the Lord endureth 1 Peter 1:25  1 JOHN 2:17 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  (temcat)- Here is another bit of evidence from the SOP Mrs. White did not condone the use of other versions of the Bible from the pulpit. She said it would bring confusion. Has this not occurred ? I do not have a reference on this but Do we not have confusion when you teach a SS class and the class has several different versions- you give them a text and half can't find it as it has been left out of their particular version. In children’s classes confusion reigns- no longer can the class stand up and repeat memory verses in unison- some are using different versions. Please see my own testimony below. "The faith which for centuries was held and taught by the Waldensian Christians was in marked contrast to the false doctrines put forth from Rome. Their religious belief was founded upon the written word of God, the true system of Christianity. But those humble peasants, in their obscure retreats, shut away from the world, and bound to daily toil among their flocks and their vineyards, had not by themselves arrived at the truth in opposition to the dogmas and heresies of the apostate church. Theirs was not a faith newly received. Their religious belief was their inheritance from their fathers. They contended for the faith of the apostolic church,--"the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. "The church in the wilderness," and not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital, was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth which God has committed to His people to be given to the world." -Great Controversy pg 64  Friends- the Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts were both in the keeping of that ‘Proud Hierarchy’- They were not the guardians of God’s Truths! The ‘Received Text’ (Textus Receptus) from which our Authorized Version descended, was the scripture of the ‘Church in the Wilderness.’ After the time of the Apostles, the Holy Scriptures where carried rapidly throughout the world from the center of Antioch. Before the time of Jesus there existed a false school in Alexandria under a Jew named Philo who sought to combine Judaism with Greek philosophy. It was there that the corrupt Old Testament manuscript, the Septuagint, was produced which confused many so they did not recognize the Messiah when He appeared. From this school also arose false teachers such as Clement and Origen who produced corrupt New Testament manuscripts combining Greek philosophy and their own personal views. These men followed Plato. They did not believe in the inspiration of the scriptures and felt they were free to change whatever they wished according to their own scholarship! From hence came the corrupt MS. from which Jerome’s Catholic Latin Vulgate later was drawn- The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus .
E.G.White states this version had "many errors". GC 245 "While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it; and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen." GC 245 From the center at Antioch, the Word of God, selected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, streamed out into the world. This pure text was translated early into many languages and became known as the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text. The Waldenses had it and other primitive Christians. Where ever it went light and truth and hope sprang up in the hearts of believers.

Once the leaders had the Received Text, the reformation became unstoppable! Where ever the corrupt Alexandrian text went there followed confusion .God is not the author of confusion. "The Jesuits’ task was to entice Protestant scholarship back to Rome. They knew that they could not wean the leaders of Protestantism back to Rome as long as the stubborn "heretics" clung to the pure text of the Reformers. This Bible would have to be replaced with one which contained the pro-Roman Catholic readings of Jerome’s Vulgate and the Jesuit translation of 1582.It would be necessary to "educate" the Protestant scholars to believe that their Reformation Text was un reliable and that their Authorized Version was "not scholarly". Once thus programmed, the egotistical scholars would spontaneously attack their own Bible and believe that they were helping God!!!" pg. 98-99 Understandable History of the Bible-S.C.Gipp  ‘Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth for ever’ Ps. 119:160  God protected His Word! Look at the fruits- where ever the Received Text went came light and power- The common man heard it gladly and it changed his life and set him free in Jesus. Where ever the Alexandrian text went it brought confusion and enslavement to the Papacy! The foundation of our faith was laid on the firm foundation of the Majority Text- confirmed by the blood of martyrs!  My personal testimony- There was a time when I did not realize the dangers of these corrupt modern translations. I had been not very closely connected with the church due to living in a remote area. I thank Go for this because I escaped much of the brainwashing that has taken place in our denomination. I well may have slept to my eternal doom had I been exposed to it like so many I know. Anyway, I came to where I could be closely connected again with the church. I went and bought a very expensive copy of the NIV with reference chains and all the bells and whistles. It was my determined desire to really study and give my all to God. I began to read the NIV. I came across various strange renderings of many foundation scriptures that my faith as an SDA were built upon. It shook me up. I began to reject my former simple faith in God's Word. The thing that really corked it was finding whole sections left out or with notes in the footnotes saying these sections did not exist in the 'oldest and most reliable MSS'. What did this do?? DOUBT came in. Did God say this or did He not?? If we could not be sure how can we be sure about anything in our faith? It became very easy to believe our pioneers were uneducated and ignorant. That they, though well meaning, just didn't know what they were talking about. Also confidence in the SOP went out the window. Every time I read the NIV I came away with more doubt and discouragement and less faith. Finally The expensive new Bible went onto the shelf to gather dust. I started a search in the New Age. I found more to anchor faith and hope there then in a Bible that broadcasts doubt like a squid squirts ink. I joined a New Age order as a postulant. I'd probably be still there is it wasn't for something that turned me back to pick up my faithful Holy Bible instead of the fancy NIV hole y Bible. I began reading and found again the POWER of the SPIRIT. Later I studied into the differences between the modern perversions and the received text. I now also have the Tyndale NT and it is interesting as well. I have Wycliffe's, Geneva, 1611 KJV and others. I have studied all angles on this subject and would gladly by God's grace die rather than again sacrifice my faith on the altar of modern 'Higher Criticism". I know whereof I speak, and lest you would say - oh well, that was just your experience- I have also found others who have shared the same testimony and only barely were rescued from damnation because of having their faith destroyed by "Some MSS don't have this part". Brother Hoppe, the Siniaticus and Vaticanus differ with each other in over 2000 places!!! Those 2 MSS were the survivors of 50 Bibles Constantine had made to boost his lovely meld of sun worship with the now apostatized Christian church. There are only 4 Alexandrian MSS and two, I understand are only fragments. Even the two they stake their souls on are fragmented and especially the Siniaticus have been corrected and annotated until it is worthless as a accurate document. There are hundreds of MSS and other evidence for the majority text. This is not a matter of preference brother, it is a matter of eternal life or death. Can't you see that the vaults and monasteries of Rome were never meant to be the depository of God's truth? If the Modern translations are correct, then you have to take the stand that God allowed His true Word to be bottled up by Rome for hundreds of years and we only just got it back in the late 1800s???? It would put the lie to the reformation, the work of Wesley and others- AND the GREAT ADVENT AWAKENING!! Can't you see that these modern versions lead to spiritualism and the mysticism of Rome?? May God in His mercy send you eyesalve! “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” Rev. 22:19  We can see how serious God is about this when we look at the genealogy in Matthew 1, it says, “Josias begat Jechonias” (vs.11). Jehoiakim actually begat Jechonias; Josias was his grandfather. Why does it say that? God took Jehoiakim’s name out of the book of life, acting as if he had never existed. Why? Jeremiah 36 tells us; Jehoiakim took a penknife to the word of God. It says he was not afraid, and when they warned him, he would not hear them. So God took his name out of the book of life.  “And he shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” Jeremiah 22:19  -There are 64,000 missing words in the NIV! SEE_ Jesuits Tampered with OUR BIBLES!

 Well, that's quite an epistle, isn't it?

Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #86 on: October 07, 2005, 06:34:00 AM »
I was , also just reading the story of the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus in John 9. Verse 35 has some interesting text interpretations from "other" versions. So I'm including some of them here:

(Analytical-Literal Translation)  Jesus heard that they cast him outside. And having found him, He said to him, "Do _you_ believe [or, trust] in the Son of God?"

(American Standard Version)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

(Bible Basic English)  It came to the ears of Jesus that they had put him out, and meeting him he said, Have you faith in the Son of man?

(Bishops)  Iesus hearde that they had excommunicate hym, & when he had founde hym, he sayde vnto hym: Doest thou beleue on the sonne of God?

(Contemporary English Version)  When Jesus heard what had happened, he went and found the man. Then Jesus asked, "Do you have faith in the Son of Man?"

(Darby)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him, he said to him, Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?

(1899 Douay-Rheims Bible)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?

(English Majority Text Version)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and having found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?"

(English Standard Version)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

(Geneva)  Iesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he sayd vnto him, Doest thou beleeue in the Sonne of God?

(Good News Bible)  When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

(God’s Word)  Jesus heard that the Jews had thrown the man out of the synagogue. So when Jesus found the man, he asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

(International Standard Version)  Jesus heard that they had thrown him out. So when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

(King James Version)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

(LITV- Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)  Jesus heard that they threw him outside, and finding him, He said to him, Do you believe into the Son of God?

(MSG- Message)  Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and went and found him. He asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

(Murdock)  And Jesus heard that they had expelled him; and he found him, and said to him: Believest thou on the Son of God?

((1898 Young’s Literal Translation)  Jesus heard that they cast him forth without, and having found him, he said to him, `Dost thou believe in the Son of God?'

Is thre a difference between being called the Son of man (Man), and the Son of God?

I believe there is!


Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Cop

  • Guest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #87 on: October 09, 2005, 08:53:00 PM »
There are only two versions of the Bible. Those translations based on the Greek 'Received Text' (English: KJV) and those based on the Roman Catholic Vulgate (English: NIV, RSV, etc.).

THE WESTCOTT & HORT CONSPIRACY: THE TRUE STORY OF OUR MODERN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
[translators of the texts upon which ALL modern versions are based] http://www.nccg.org/101Art-Westcott.html

The best book about this subject was written by an SDA scholar and dean of our seminary, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. He knew and worked with EGW and was well known and respected for his knowledge...until he defended the KJV against the new versions. It is strange that this book is now published by many other churches, but not by Adventists. It is: 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated'.


camgears

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 19
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #88 on: October 13, 2005, 02:06:00 PM »
Hi,

I did not follow all the posts in this thread. I'll just give some of my own findings.

I too started reading the bible with NIV. But I then found many manipulations in NIV, one of the shocking ones is in Isa 14, when Lucifer was referred as the morning star while Jesus himself is the bright and morning star. Whereas in KJV in Isa 14, Lucifer is called the son of morning.

I ditched the NIV for KJV. And I found KJV easier to memorize and to recite because it's different from our every day language. I remember reading somewhere Shakespeare has about 500 words that no longer have meanings. KJV on the other hand has only a handful.

The NT translations are of two sources. The Greek majority text--KJV, Tyndale... and the Greek (less than 1%) minority text: NIV, NKJV, RSV...

NKJV is NOT KJV with modernized words.

KJV has proven, for me, to be more superior than any other versions. For example, in Acts 12:4, KJV translates Easter while all other versions (including NKJV) translate Passover. The context reveals the holiday that comes after the Days of Unleaven Bread is Easter. Passover was before. KJV is correct and indicates that Easter was already a (pagan) holiday disproving claims that Easter was later instituted (probably 325AD) for the resurrection of Jesus.

Furthermore, KJV does not use the guess name for the name of the Lord unlike many other versions. Jehova, Yahwen...are guess pronouciations of YHWH. A question for those who have read more of EGW's writings, did she ever use those names?

There's the third source that claims superiority emerging recently in the Hebrew Roots Movement that's becoming popular in christian churches. That's the Syriac Pershitta or the Aramaic New Testament. Is Babylonian Aramaic more sacred than Greek? Not really. Not at all. Greek has the same alphabets as the paleo-Hebrew. Probably has similar pronounciations. And earliest text found are still the Greek text.

About the OT, what seems certain is alittle more confusing to me.

Was the OT written in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek LXX (Septuagint)?

Did Jesus and his diciple quote from Septuagint? In Matt 5:18, Jesus seemed to be talking about the Hebrew text when He said about the jot and tittle. They are parts of Hebrew characters not Greek, unless He was talking the law only not the scripture. Also, Hebrew text divides the bible into law, prophet and psalms. Greek makes no such distinction.

And about the so-called preserved Hebrew text... Is this the paleo-Hebrew that children of Israel spoke when they came out of Egypt? By all indication, Egyptian/Pheonician phonics that Moses spoke is lost. No one knows how to pronounce it. The jews spoke Babylonian Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity.

More on the name of the Lord... the word Lord is translated from the word YHWH first appears in Genesis and throughout the OT. And yet while on mount Sinai, the Lord said 'I AM THAT I AM' translated from 'EHYEH'. EHYEH is shortened to YEH meaning God in Hebrew. Aramaic has only 3 vowels, 'a', 'u' and 'i'. 'YHWH' is Aramaic meaning lord/master. Then how did the Aramaic word YHWH get into the scripture before the jews spoke Aramaic? Was the OT corrupted by the scribes while they were in Babylon?

Any thoughts?

[This message has been edited by camgears (edited 10-13-2005).]


Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #89 on: October 14, 2005, 06:25:00 AM »
Amen, camgears!
Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Laurie Mosher

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1948
  • There is a place of quiet rest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #90 on: October 21, 2005, 07:02:00 AM »
Well here's a translation "for the books"!

EVERYDAY PSALMS 100(James Taylor)

Two  guitars and a washtub bass, a country fiddle, an old-time caller.
Come on everyone, join the dance.
Do-si-do and allemande left, swing your partner, bow to your corner.
Clap those hands and stamp those feet.
God calls the square dance of our lives;
God swirls our varied colors like a kaleidoscope.
We dance our complex patterns to God’s grand design.
Step unto God’s dance floor with a song in your heart and a smile on your face,
for God loves a good time too. God is in the sweat and the swinging,
in the sawdust and the singing .
God is the dance of life. Whether you join the dance or sit on the sidelines, the beat goes on,
and fills the night with music!

MSG (Message Version)
Psa 100:1  A thanksgiving psalm. On your feet now--applaud GOD!
Psa 100:2  Bring a gift of laughter, sing yourselves into his presence.
Psa 100:3  Know this: GOD is God, and God, GOD. He made us; we didn't make him. We're his people, his well-tended sheep.
Psa 100:4  Enter with the password: "Thank you!" Make yourselves at home, talking praise. Thank him. Worship him.
Psa 100:5  For GOD is sheer beauty, all-generous in love, loyal always and ever.

KJV
Psa 100:1  <A Psalm of praise.> Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands.
Psa 100:2  Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Psa 100:3  Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Psa 100:4  Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
Psa 100:5  For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.


I believe the KJV is not corrupted, but I have my reservations about the "other" ones.

So what do you think? Are these other versions adding to or taking away from scripture? And what about Isaiah 8:20?

[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 10-21-2005).]

Keep "the" Faith,  Brother Laurie

Allan F

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 189
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2007, 11:27:00 AM »
Here is an interesting presentation about the different Bible versions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1356136486318407242


Thomas M

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 389
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #92 on: March 21, 2007, 09:38:00 PM »
Personally, I read the Bible in the original languages (which is not the same as reading the original text). I regard the KJV highly, despite the fact that we have a good deal more manuscript evidence for the Bible now than the KJV translators had. I don't think the new evidence makes all that much difference when you come down to it. Most of the variants are insignificant and those that are significant don't have much if any effect on the message.
For the last few years I have been making my own translation of the Bible, but when I compare it to the nonsense Bible translators are putting out today, I look like a KJV dinosaur. I really call it a paraphrase, but it's an awful lot closer to the Hebrew and Greek text that what people are publishing nowadays.
Here's an example from my New Jubilees Version of the Sacred Scriptures in Verse with Verse Commentary. By the way, I don't approve of the pronunciation Yahweh for the name of God YHWH, since it is so close to the Roman Jove. I use Yah or Huw.

From Genesis 15
5 Then He brought him outside the bars,
"Look now toward heaven, and count the stars
If you can count them all." And He
Said to him, "So shall your seed be."
6 And he believed in YHWH, and He
Accounted it to him freely
For righteousness. 7 And then He said
To him, "I'm YHWH, who when you fled
Out of Ur of the Chaldees, brought
You to this land to give to ought."
8 And he said "Lord YHWH, how shall I
Know that I shall inherit it?"
9 So He said to him, "Bring Me by
A three-year heifer that is fit,
A three-year female goat and ram,
A turtledove, and pigeon's dam."
10 Then he brought all of these to Him
And cut them each in two, and trim,
And placed each piece against the other,
But did not cut the birds or smother.
11 And when the vultures came to feed,
Abram drove them away indeed.

Some birds are sweet, both in their song and meat.
Some birds appearing here appear a treat.
But not the vulture. Even Abram drives
Away the vulture. Yet the vulture thrives.
When You, Beloved, set out a table decked
With sweetmeats and sweet wine for the elect,
Do not drive out, like Abraham Your prophet,
The vulture who would choose a morsel off it.
Though I may be an ugly bird and truly
A filthy one, do not treat me unduly
With harshness. I too join the rushing throng
That hears the siren calling of Your song.
I am content, Beloved, to taste what's left
When sweeter birds have fed. Leave none bereft.


quote:
Originally posted by Allan F:
Here is an interesting presentation about the different Bible versions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1356136486318407242



Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 38887
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2007, 06:59:00 AM »
There are some problem texts in the KJV. Which ones have you seen to be especially difficult, Brother Thomas?
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Thomas M

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 389
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2007, 09:58:00 PM »
The most serious problem, in my view, with the KJV is in 1 John 5:7, which is clearly spurious.

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
There are some problem texts in the KJV. Which ones have you seen to be especially difficult, Brother Thomas?


Pete

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 240
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2007, 11:38:00 AM »
"The most serious problem, in my view, with the KJV is in 1 John 5:7, which is clearly spurious."

 
Why?

[This message has been edited by Pete (edited 04-07-2007).]


Sister Glass

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 7555
  • May God's Light Shine On Us All
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #96 on: April 07, 2007, 04:52:00 PM »
1 John 5:7 KJV

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

This is a very simple and straight forward text. No double thinking on what it means, it is very plain. It teaches that there is God, The Son ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.Jn. 1:1,2)
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:16-17 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Matthew 17:4-6 (in Context) Matthew 17 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:7
And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Mark 9:6-8 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 9:35
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:34-36 (in Context) Luke 9 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:16-18 (in Context) 2 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)
and the Holy Spirit are all in heaven.
=======================================
How could anyone say that this is false (clearly spurious)???

------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie

[This message has been edited by Sister Glass (edited 04-07-2007).]

With Christian Love,
Marie

Thomas M

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 389
    • http://
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #97 on: April 07, 2007, 10:11:00 PM »
The text may be Gospel truth. It may have been the will of God that it be included in the Bible. But it is spurious in the sense that it was added to the Bible at a late date. The only Greek ms that contains it is 635, an eleventh-century text, and even then it appears to be a marginal gloss, perhaps even added by 16th-century Roman Catholics for the purpose of convincing Erasmus to include it in the received text. In any case, it cannot be older than the eleventh century, a thousand years after John. It is definitely spurious, an added text.
But it is quoted as though it were part of the Bible by a handful of late Western Church fathers and is included in the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgata.
It the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on the basis of this text, then the doctrine has no foundation whatsoever, outside a Roman Catholic forgery. Choose your group!

quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
1 John 5:7 KJV

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

This is a very simple and straight forward text. No double thinking on what it means, it is very plain. It teaches that there is God, The Son ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.Jn. 1:1,2)
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:16-17 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Matthew 17:4-6 (in Context) Matthew 17 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:7
And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Mark 9:6-8 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 9:35
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:34-36 (in Context) Luke 9 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:16-18 (in Context) 2 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)
and the Holy Spirit are all in heaven.
=======================================
How could anyone say that this is false (clearly spurious)???



Sister Glass

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 7555
  • May God's Light Shine On Us All
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #98 on: April 07, 2007, 10:31:00 PM »
But it does not stand alone. That may be why it was excepted. When Jesus was baptized the Father Spoke, The Son was baptized, and the Holy Spirit landed upon Him. And God said there that Jesus was His Son. Then there is this text that I mentioned... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.Jn. 1:1,2)
We either believe it or we do not. But these are only a few short texts that uphold it. In the begainning God does not speak of Himself as the Creator, but says, "Let "us" make man in "our" own image. And there are many others. The whole gospel hinges on there being three, "in one".

But we do not believe in this doctrine as the C. Church does. There fore I do not say I believe in the Trinity anymore. But rather I believe in a three in one God. Not all the other man made additions to it that are kept in the C. Church.

If we do not believe the places the Bible tells us that there are three in one, it seems to me that the gospel folds up.

------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie

With Christian Love,
Marie

Cop

  • Guest
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #99 on: April 08, 2007, 09:37:00 PM »
Thomas M
You state:
quote:
It the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on the basis of this text, then the doctrine has no foundation whatsoever, outside a Roman Catholic forgery. Choose your group!

I may have misunderstood what you have posted and ask for clarification. Are you saying "the doctrine of the Trinity" is based upon what you construe to be, "a Roman Catholic forgery.", and that this doctrine [the Trinity] is false?

Is it your belief (Choose your group!) that those who believe in the Trinity are following a teaching of the Roman Church that is un-Biblical?