Bible Translations

[Cop]

[I know this quote is long, but I believe we all need to read it in order to protect ourselves. God Bless...]

Beyond Finite Comprehension.--
There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word.

It is true that the apostle has said that there are some things that are hard to be understood in the Scriptures. So there are. And if it were not that there are subjects that are difficult and hard to be understood, well might the skeptic who now pleads that God has given a revelation that cannot be understood--well might he, I say--have something else to plead. God's infinity is so much higher than we are, that it is impossible for man to comprehend the mystery of godliness.

...we are to accept the Word of God just as it reads. And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator, how long He has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond. We cannot grasp it, so what man is there that dares to take that Bible and say this part is inspired and that part is not inspired? I would have both my arms taken off at my shoulders before I would ever make the statement or set my judgment upon the Word of God as to what is inspired and what is not inspired.

How would finite man know anything about that matter? He is to take the Word of God as it reads, and then to appreciate it as it is, and to bring it into the life and to weave it into the character. There is everything plainly revealed in God's Word which concerns the salvation of men, and if we will take that Word and comprehend it to the very best of our ability, God will help us in its comprehension.

Human minds without the special assistance of the Spirit of God will see many things in the Bible very difficult to be understood, because they lack a divine enlightenment. It is not that men should come to the Word of God by setting up their own way, or their own will or their own ideas, but it is to come with a meek and humble and holy spirit.

Never attempt to search the Scriptures unless you are ready to listen, unless you are ready to be a learner, unless you are ready to listen to the Word of God as though His voice were speaking directly to you from the living oracles. Never let mortal man sit in judgment upon the Word of God or pass sentence as to how much of this is inspired and how much is not inspired, and that this is more inspired than some other portions. God warns him off that ground. God has not given him any such work to do.

God's Word Not to Be Dissected.--It takes all of eternity to unfold the glories and bring out the precious treasures of the Word of God. Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. Tell all such they simply do not know. They simply are not able to comprehend the things of the mystery of God. What we want is to inspire faith. We want no one to say, "This I will reject, and this will I receive," but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is. {7BC 919}

[This message has been edited by Cop (edited 04-08-2007).]

[Sister Marie]

What a wonderful post brother Cop. It was wonderful.

In another topic I found out that the C. Church believes in the Trinity far past the Truth of there being God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They bring Mary into it and other things. So we really can't say we believe in the Trinity doctrine for many would take that to mean that we believe in it as the C. Church does. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible that I know of.

I believe in three in one but don't know if I should use the word Trinity anymore.
=======================================
The Word Trinity does mean this according to the dictionary:

noun:   the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead

noun:   three people considered as a unit
==================================
There are three in one. One can not get away from it if they are to except the whole Bible as Truth. I have friends that are good SDA's and they do not believe in "3 in one". They won't talk about it, don't want to discuss it. They are strong to believe what they have learned and don't want any interuption in their belief. It is sad, because no one can believe this way without saying in their heart, "this I except and this I do not".  (:

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

[This message has been edited by Sister Glass (edited 04-08-2007).]

[Thomas M]

Brother Richard asked me a question, to which I responded. It would be good to keep in mind what that question was, and what the issue is. The question was whether I personally found any weaknesses in the KJV and what they might be. My response was that the most important weakness in the KJV is the inclusion of the comma Johanneum. I also made the remark that if the doctrine of the Trinity relies on that text, it has a very weak foundation. Let us not go beyond the issue here.
From my remarks an objective reader might draw the conclusion that 1) I consider the KJV the best available translation in English, and 2) that I do not take seriously the common scholarly critical approach to the Bible. The objective reader would be correct. The reader who suggests that I implied anything about the veracity of any doctrine based on 1 John 5:7 has not read my words carefully.
I made it clear that I was not questioning the content of 1 John 5:7 or any doctrine based on it. (Sister Glass rightly points out that other passages of Scripture are fully adequate to determine doctrine without 1 John 5:7). I was questioning whether or not the text of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV translation belonged to the Bible.
The KJV is not the Bible. It is a translation of the Bible. The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below refers to the Bible, not a specific translation thereof. The Bible is the historically preserved Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text. I believe that text has been divinely kept and guarded, and I believe that it was inspired by God. The KJV is not inspired. It is a human translation of a divinely inspired text.
Now the fact is that the comma Johanneum is not found in any Greek manuscript except the margin of the eleventh-century Greek 635, which was in the hands of the papal ambassadors to Erasmus, and formed the justification for inclusion in a late version of the Received Text.
It is missing from ALL of the ancient Greek manuscripts, manuscripts which are, by definition, the Bible.
The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below might well be applied to those persons who were responsible for introducing into the KJV a text not found in the Bible. I hope Brother Cop does not intend to apply this to me for pointing out this historical fabrication, product of Rome, which Erasmus would never have included in the Received Text had he not been brow-beaten by papal ambassadors. Read your history.

   

quote:Originally posted by Cop:
[I know this quote is long, but I believe we all need to read it in order to protect ourselves. God Bless...]

Beyond Finite Comprehension.--
There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word.

It is true that the apostle has said that there are some things that are hard to be understood in the Scriptures. So there are. And if it were not that there are subjects that are difficult and hard to be understood, well might the skeptic who now pleads that God has given a revelation that cannot be understood--well might he, I say--have something else to plead. God's infinity is so much higher than we are, that it is impossible for man to comprehend the mystery of godliness.

...we are to accept the Word of God just as it reads. And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator, how long He has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond. We cannot grasp it, so what man is there that dares to take that Bible and say this part is inspired and that part is not inspired? I would have both my arms taken off at my shoulders before I would ever make the statement or set my judgment upon the Word of God as to what is inspired and what is not inspired.

How would finite man know anything about that matter? He is to take the Word of God as it reads, and then to appreciate it as it is, and to bring it into the life and to weave it into the character. There is everything plainly revealed in God's Word which concerns the salvation of men, and if we will take that Word and comprehend it to the very best of our ability, God will help us in its comprehension.

Human minds without the special assistance of the Spirit of God will see many things in the Bible very difficult to be understood, because they lack a divine enlightenment. It is not that men should come to the Word of God by setting up their own way, or their own will or their own ideas, but it is to come with a meek and humble and holy spirit.

Never attempt to search the Scriptures unless you are ready to listen, unless you are ready to be a learner, unless you are ready to listen to the Word of God as though His voice were speaking directly to you from the living oracles. Never let mortal man sit in judgment upon the Word of God or pass sentence as to how much of this is inspired and how much is not inspired, and that this is more inspired than some other portions. God warns him off that ground. God has not given him any such work to do.

God's Word Not to Be Dissected.--It takes all of eternity to unfold the glories and bring out the precious treasures of the Word of God. Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. Tell all such they simply do not know. They simply are not able to comprehend the things of the mystery of God. What we want is to inspire faith. We want no one to say, "This I will reject, and this will I receive," but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is. {7BC 919}

[This message has been edited by Cop (edited 04-08-2007).]

[Thomas M]

I have read this entire thread and found that Domingo dealt with the issue of the comma Johanneum quite adequately in a post dated 12-21-2002. Was Domingo harrassed off this forum for pointing out the truth? I don't see him posting here.
I find Brother COP's reaction to my post somewhat hostile and his use of the Spirit of Prophecy to defend such hostility misplaced and obscurantist. I did not come on this forum to engage in conflict and hostilities and I have been careful to avoid them.
Brother Richard should have responded to the post that caused this situation. He was the one who raised the issue.

quote:Originally posted by Thomas M:
Brother Richard asked me a question, to which I responded. It would be good to keep in mind what that question was, and what the issue is. The question was whether I personally found any weaknesses in the KJV and what they might be. My response was that the most important weakness in the KJV is the inclusion of the comma Johanneum. I also made the remark that if the doctrine of the Trinity relies on that text, it has a very weak foundation. Let us not go beyond the issue here.
From my remarks an objective reader might draw the conclusion that 1) I consider the KJV the best available translation in English, and 2) that I do not take seriously the common scholarly critical approach to the Bible. The objective reader would be correct. The reader who suggests that I implied anything about the veracity of any doctrine based on 1 John 5:7 has not read my words carefully.
I made it clear that I was not questioning the content of 1 John 5:7 or any doctrine based on it. (Sister Glass rightly points out that other passages of Scripture are fully adequate to determine doctrine without 1 John 5:7). I was questioning whether or not the text of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV translation belonged to the Bible.
The KJV is not the Bible. It is a translation of the Bible. The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below refers to the Bible, not a specific translation thereof. The Bible is the historically preserved Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text. I believe that text has been divinely kept and guarded, and I believe that it was inspired by God. The KJV is not inspired. It is a human translation of a divinely inspired text.
Now the fact is that the comma Johanneum is not found in any Greek manuscript except the margin of the eleventh-century Greek 635, which was in the hands of the papal ambassadors to Erasmus, and formed the justification for inclusion in a late version of the Received Text.
It is missing from ALL of the ancient Greek manuscripts, manuscripts which are, by definition, the Bible.
The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below might well be applied to those persons who were responsible for introducing into the KJV a text not found in the Bible. I hope Brother Cop does not intend to apply this to me for pointing out this historical fabrication, product of Rome, which Erasmus would never have included in the Received Text had he not been brow-beaten by papal ambassadors. Read your history.

   

[Mimi]

Hi, Thomas. Brother Richard is out of town at the moment ... he will respond.

I would like to thank you for the indepth historical information you present. It is through contact with you and a few others that most of us get our education on the background relative to the original manuscripts. We get the benefit of your research while time presses against us with other issues. Be patient with us.

Blessings

Sybil

[JimB]

Brother Thomas, maybe my eyes on this are dim but I did not read into brother Cop's response any hostility. He posed a question to what he perceived as an attack on the Trinity. I don't have the links handy but I do believe there are already a couple of discussions on the trinity so please let's not get side-tracked with that here. The real discussion here is the legitimacy of mentioned text.

You made me stretch my knowledge of the english language today. I had never seen the word "obscurantism" before. I do not see any evidence of anyone trying to hide information.

In my eyes brother Cop's second post was just a simple word of caution and nothing more. He can speak for himself but I did not read it like you did.

Brother Thomas I appreciate your post and your concern over 1 John 5:7. The Bible is truth and will survive examination. However, in this examination I think it wise to follow  the counsel that brother Cop posted.

Let all of us strive to esteem others better than ourselves.

[This message has been edited by Jim B (edited 04-10-2007).]

[Sister Marie]

Brother Thomas,
I thank you so much for explaining yourself more fully and your stand. We often deal with people here that do want to teach what is not correct and we are aware of these things quite actively. This time I jumped the gun and I am glad that you do uphold the three in one doctrine. That was important for me to know. But as you say, it was not the issue of the question asked or the answer given.

I did not see brother Cops post as hostile either. But rather a warning, which it does not hurt any of us to re-read now in then when we get into discussions.

Since you did not bring up the discussion of the Trinity in any form here, but it may have me that done so, let us continue with the discussion at hand. Why was it added later?

Brother Thomas, I don't believe in adding to the Bible at a later date. But what about this text makes it so bad that one would complain about it so. It is supported in the Bible. Or is it purely the idea that it was added later.... opening up thoughts of "what else could have been added or taken away"?

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

[Thomas M]

I'm not a theologian and I'm not prepared to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity. I have no interest in attacking it or defending it, since I don't understand such matters. I responded to a direct question put to me by Brother Richard. Only the incompetent have shown any interest in my response.
I cannot give a view of theology, nut I do understand historical evidence and the Greek language to a certain extent. All of the historical evidence points to 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV being based on a spurious gloss in one eleventh-century ms.
Pointing out that such a text is weak witness for the doctrine of the Trinity is not an attack on the doctrine. If the doctrine is true, my point rather favours it, by removing spurious evidence, that can only detract from truth. My remarks could, if taken seriously, prevent one defending the doctrine of the Trinity from making a laughing stock of himself. They should inspire gratitude rather than suspicion.
Brother Richard made the statement that there are some problem texts in the KJV. I have pointed out only one, the only one which in my opinion can without reserve be stated to be spurious. All others have something to be said on both sides. If we cannot consider the merits of this text without drawing suspicion, how can we investigate those that are more ambiguous?
Brother COP may be better than I in every other area, but I am obviously better than he in evaluating the merits of 1 John 5:7.
Instead of spending time finding statements in the Spirit of Prophecy against those who pick and choose in the Bible instead of accepting it as it is, he would have done better to investigate the issue in question.
I hold my original position. When it comes to this text, when you choose in favour of it, you are choosing a papal fraud and forgery in the face of all historical evidence. It comes down to a matter of choosing your group. And by saying that I make absolutely no implication for or against the doctrine of the Trinity.
Here is the evidence in my possession, though as I have not made a study of the matter as such, there may be more details.
The Greek evidence appears to be based on two mss of which I have no knowledge, numbered 61 and 629, and on the marginal gloss found in ms 635. These three mss disagree slightly in wording. 61 and 629 differ in the preposition before earth: en and epi. Both of these differ from 629 in lacking the definite articles before the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. The Clementine Vulgata agrees with 629, but that is of course the Latin source of Roman Catholic Bibles. The Latin marginal gloss of the 88 omits "the blood" from verse 7(. There are several more variations in the Latin sources. The sources for the comma Johaneum are extremely sparse, and show a good deal of variation. Furthermore, only a handful of early writers quote the text to include the comma Johanneum: Varimadum, Priscillian, Cassian, Pseudo-Vigilius, Pseudo-Athanasius, Fulgentius, and Ansbert. These seem to be late Latin Church fathers for the most part, if not all.
ALL other Greek sources exclude the content of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV. Far from showing diversity, the many hundreds of mss show only one variant: in some the content of verse 7 is "martyrountes" (testifying...) and in others it is "martyrousin" (they testify...). The first variant is found in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, 017 Paris, 018 Moscow, 024 Wolfenbüttel, and 025 Leningrad. The second variant is found in 048, 049, 056, 0142, 33, 81, 88 (text), 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 630, 945, 1241, 1505, 1739, 1877, 1881, 2127, 2412, 2492, 2495, the majority of Byzantine texts, the Wordsworth-White edition of the Vulgata, as well as underlying the early translations of the Phyloxenian Syriac, the Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, and the Slavic, all before the seventh century. The second variant is also supported in the quotations of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Dionysius, Hilary, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, Faustinus, Gregory-Nazianzus, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyril.
Furthermore, as Domingo's post pointed out, we have the documentation of how the comma Johanneum entered the Received Text of Erasmus, through the intervention of papal representatives. It is lacking in the first edition.
In sum, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the view that the comma Johanneum is a spurious text, the forgery of papal representatives.
Brother COP appears to have three arguments in favour of including the comma Johanneum in the Bible. 1) It is found in the KJV. 2) It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. 3) Ellen White says to believe in the Bible the way it is.
I shall approach each of these arguments separately. 1) It is found in the KJV. Against this I propose that the Received Text upon which the KJV stands included the text as noted above, against the will of Erasmus and on evidence supplied and obviously forged by papal representatives. The KJV is therefore not reliable in this matter. 2) It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Against this argument I propose that the text of the Bible is not to be established upon the basis of what doctrines happen to appeal to us or not appeal to us. The text of the Bible is a historical phenomenon, susceptible to examination in the thousands of ancient manuscripts available to us. We have to accept the evidence of the existing manuscripts, not the evidence of what doctrines we appreciate. 3) Ellen White says to believe in the Bible the way it is. Against this argument I propose that to assume that Ellen White is referring to the KJV as the Bible that we should believe as it is, is to presume too much. Ellen White actually quotes at least one other translation of the Bible, thus showing that she did not specifically prefer the KJV. It may not be too much to assume that when Ellen White refers to the Bible that we should accept as it is, she is referring to the body of Biblical manuscripts in the original languages which God has been pleased to preserve for us. If that assumption is true, then the evidence of those manuscripts overwhelmingly comes down against the inclusion of the comma Johanneum.
I still have my hackles up. I await a courteous and competent rebuttal or an admission that 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is spurious.

 

quote:Originally posted by Jim B:
Brother Thomas, maybe my eyes on this are dim but I did not read into brother Cop's response any hostility. He posed a question to what he perceived as an attack on the Trinity. I don't have the links handy but I do believe there are already a couple of discussions on the trinity so please let's not get side-tracked with that here. The real discussion here is the legitimacy of mentioned text.

You made me stretch my knowledge of the english language today. I had never seen the word "obscurantism" before. I do not see any evidence of anyone trying to hide information.

In my eyes brother Cop's second post was just a simple word of caution and nothing more. He can speak for himself but I did not read it like you did.

Brother Thomas I appreciate your post and your concern over 1 John 5:7. The Bible is truth and will survive examination. However, in this examination I think it wise to follow  the counsel that brother Cop posted.

Let all of us strive to esteem others better than ourselves.

[This message has been edited by Jim B (edited 04-10-2007).]

[Sister Marie]

Personally, I would not think that Ellen White would suggest we take the Bible as it is, about anything she herself did not have. I hear that she used different translations in her studys. But I don't think one of them was the original.

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

[Thomas M]

Maybe there is nothing bad about the text. I'm not saying one way or the other, because I don't feel qualified to say. It just doesn't belong in the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Sister Glass:
Brother Thomas,
I thank you so much for explaining yourself more fully and your stand. We often deal with people here that do want to teach what is not correct and we are aware of these things quite actively. This time I jumped the gun and I am glad that you do uphold the three in one doctrine. That was important for me to know. But as you say, it was not the issue of the question asked or the answer given.

I did not see brother Cops post as hostile either. But rather a warning, which it does not hurt any of us to re-read now in then when we get into discussions.

Since you did not bring up the discussion of the Trinity in any form here, but it may have me that done so, let us continue with the discussion at hand. Why was it added later?

Brother Thomas, I don't believe in adding to the Bible at a later date. But what about this text makes it so bad that one would complain about it so. It is supported in the Bible. Or is it purely the idea that it was added later.... opening up thoughts of "what else could have been added or taken away"?

[Mimi]

It is absolutely spurious. It has taken me a little while to gather this information as one of our members referred me to a couple of sermons - I had to listen to them as it dealt specifically with this one text - 1John 5:7. We are all learning here. Much, if not most of this is new to some of our members, so patience is a virtue while we come up to speed.

Below are rough notes from a sermon from Ron duPreez from Audio Verse. It is entitled: The Battle About the Bible – Versions – Diversions or Perversions. He speaks of various Bible translations, of which the KJ is one – Thomas is quite correct in his statement that the KJ is a translation of The Bible. He is also correct in saying the text in question is spurious – added later on – it is not a part of the original Greek manuscripts. We do need to know our history.

www.//audioverse.org/downloadsermon/dl/advent-hope/]www.//audioverse.org/downloadsermon/dl/advent-hope/]www.//audiov erse.org/downloadsermon/dl/advent-hope/
20060603-1000-Ron_duPreez-The_Babble_About_the_Bible_-
_Versions_-_Diversions_-_or_Perversions.mp3[/URL]

A quick comparison of popular verses …

KJV - John 7:8 “I am not yet going”
– other versions leave out “yet”

KJV - Rev. 22:14 Blessed are those who DO His commandments
NIV who wash their robes

KJV - Luke 23:42 – “Lord remember me”
NIV – “Jesus, remember me”  - the word “Lord” is not there – denies the divinity of Christ

KJV - 2Tim 3:16 – “God was manifested in the flesh”
-other versions “He appeared in the body…” – denies the divinity of Christ

Constantine Fishendorf (spelling?) in 1844
-discovered some manuscripts – Codex Sinaiticus – from Mt. Sinai
Now the NT had two different sets of manuscripts – what to do?

Which Bibles then are the best to use? Focus on the genuine. Discover the originals.

Additional help from SOP – EGW –

Ancient church fathers used the manuscripts behind the KJV. Those who push KJV only ignore Ellen White. She used 10 different marginal references from other translations. She quoted 10,000 Bible passages. Five hundred times she referred to other translations – 27 OT; 22 NT. Ellen White did not say KJV only.

How did she use the Bible translations?

KJV - Rev. 22:14 Blessed are those who DO His commandments
-others say: who wash their robes
She never used a version other than KJV on this verse

Luke 23:42 – “Lord remember me
NIV – Jesus, remember me  - the word Lord is not there
Desire of Ages – “Lord, remember me” – she used the KJV because it rightly places Jesus as Lord

2Tim 3:16 – “God was manifested in the flesh”
-other versions “He appeared in the body” – denying the divinity of Jesus
-EGW never used a text from other translations that denied the divinity of Jesus

Ellen White used translations in the following three ways:
1.  She used them when they said in a clearer way what was already in the KJV
2.  She used new translations when they said more correctly what was said in the KJV
3.  She used it for concepts – it brings out more correctly and clearly more concepts – i.e. the Divinity of Christ; keeping the commandments

Use the KJV as your basis – use it as a check against other translations. Use it as your study Bible. Do not throw out other Bible translations.

Lock paraphrases in the closet – it is what the author thinks the Bible says. Do not let children read a paraphrase as it will confuse them later on.

EGW: The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek (textus receptus) Scriptures have been preserved through the ages … by a miracle of God.  See EW 220; SD 190; 1SM 15; ML 27, 45.

End of first duPreez presentation
_________________________________________________ ___________
Pastor duPreez  then has a question and answer period. These are notes taken from that session that deal directly with the text 1John 5:7 – I did not bother with taking notes on the balance of his questions – you can quickly download to listen to more. Here is the link:

http://www.audioverse.org/downloadsermon/dl/
advent-hope/20060603-1700-
Ron_duPreez-Bible_Translations_Question_
and_Answer_Session.mp3

Question on EGW statements: A divine hand has preserved its purity through all the ages. In 1881 and 1884 she made these statements. At this point only the KJV was available to her.

In 1903 and 1913, when other Bible translations were available to her she stated this again.  In 1899, a year after she published the Desire of Ages – she had a vision of the Angel – to teach the divinity of Jesus – they all support textus receptus.

1John 5:7 – KJV – a verse to prove the Godhead, typically. [quoted]. The NIV says “For there are three that testify.” Ellen White believed in the Godhead but never, in her 10,000 Scripture quotes, quoted 1John 5:7. Divine inspiration! The scholars at her time did not know this one text has no early Greek manuscript text to support it. It is spurious – added in later. The Spirit led her not to use it to prove the Godhead. She used other texts.

[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 04-10-2007).]

[Mimi]

Thomas, dearest: We do appear as incompetent Bible students at one time or another, but we are doing our best with what we know. When we learn better, we do better. Thank you for your kind patience.

We are simple people attempting to understand holy things. Be patient with us.

[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 04-10-2007).]

[Mimi]

Here is a short statement from the EGW Estate which verifies Pastor duPreez answers to questions.

"God had faithful witnesses to whom He committed the truth, and who preserved the Word of God. The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been preserved through the ages by a miracle of God." Letter 32, 1899.

Mrs. White's Use of the Revised Versions

As noted earlier, Mrs. White occasionally used the Revised Version renderings, also the marginal reading of texts, in nearly all of her books published after 1885, the year of the appearance of the complete English Revised Version.

In The Great Controversy, published in 1888, seven texts from the newly issued revision were employed, and she also used the marginal rendering of eight other texts. The proportion of Revised Version and marginal rendering of texts is very small when we consider that there are more than 850 scriptures quoted in The Great Controversy, or an average of a little more than one scripture text to a page, whereas there is approximately one Revised Version rendering and one marginal rendering for each one hundred pages.

In 1901 the American Revised Version came from the press, and from that time forward we find that Mrs. White occasionally employed both the English Revised and the American Revised versions.

In 1911, when The Great Controversy was reset, Mrs. White retained six of the seven texts previously quoted from the English Revised Version. For the other text she substituted the American Revised rendering. The eight marginal renderings were used as in the earlier edition.

In the publication of The Ministry of Healing (1905) Mrs. White employed eight texts from the English Revised Version, 55 from the American Revised Version, two from Leeser, and four from Noyes, in addition to seven marginal renderings.

Other volumes in which Revised Version texts frequently appear are Patriarchs and Prophets (1890); Steps to Christ (1892); Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896); The Desire of Ages (1898); Education (1903); and Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (1904).
The E. G. White books using a few Revised Version or marginal renderings are Christ's Object Lessons (1900); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7 (1902); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9 (1909); The Acts of the Apostles (1911); Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (1913); Gospel Workers (1915); and Prophets and Kings (1917).
Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) also contains two renderings from the Bernard translation, and at least one from the Boothroyd Version. Education (1903) contains at least one rendering from the Rotherham translation.

In the five volumes of the Conflict of the Ages Series, we find the revised versions quoted. As might be expected, those volumes that enter into an exposition of Bible truth dealing with points of doctrine or the teachings of Christ, contain more texts quoted from the revised versions than do volumes of counsel to the church and those presenting largely historical description. In the three-volume Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White use of revised versions is indicated in the Scripture Index.
As to Mrs. White's attitude toward the revisions of 1885 and 1901, and as to her own use of these in preaching and writing, her son, W. C. White, who was closely associated with her in her public ministry and in the preparation and publication of her books, wrote in 1931:

"I do not know of anything in the E. G. White writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister White's conversations, that would intimate that she felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised Version. . . .
"When the first revision was published, I purchased a good copy and gave it to Mother. She referred to it occasionally, but never used it in her preaching. Later on, as manuscripts were prepared for her new books and for revised editions of books already in print, Sister White's attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version. In other cases she instructed us to adhere to the Authorized Version.

"When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable. Sister White gave the matter deliberate consideration, and instructed us to use the Revised Version. When you study these passages you will find that in a number of places where the Revised Version is largely used, the Authorized Version is used where translation seems to be better.

"We cannot find in any of Sister White's writings, nor do I find in my memory, any condemnation of the American Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. Sister White's reasons for not using the A.R.V. in the pulpit are as follows:

"'There are many persons in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version, and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker.'

"She did not advise me in a positive way not to use the A.R.V., but she intimated to me quite clearly that it would be better not to do so, as the use of the different wording brought perplexity to the older members of the congregation." White Estate DF 579; Ministry, April, 1947, pp. 17, 18.

The extracts quoted above reveal the position of Ellen White on such questions as the transmission of the Sacred Text, the union of the divine and the human in the written record of God's revelation to man, and also as to her relation to the various translations of the Holy Scriptures.

December 9, 1953
Ellen G. White Estate
Washington, D. C.
Revised May, 1991

[Richard Myers]

Brother Thomas, my apologies for having missed your answer to my question. Having responded to me on the same day, I missed your post. One of the dangers in trying to stay abreast of all that is being posted in all forums. Our new software will show who has made the last post, thus revealing at a glance that there are new posts in a particular forum and thread.

Even if I had seen your post, I am not sure that I would have responded quickly. The information is such that I would have had to give much thought to a reply. Having the luxury of reading all that has been posted now, I can see exactly what you meant and also that we have indeed been here before with Domingo's posts (No one took exception with him when he posted this information).

As Sister Sybil has said, please forgive our rush to defend Scripture. We are used to having to defend the Word of God against many who are not as you are. Communications is difficult at the best of times. The subject is not an easy one for most of us. The teaching has been lacking in the church and therefore we are not as educated on this subject as we ought to be. As I have stated from the beginning of this thread, I did not study my way into the KJV, the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the NIV was leading me away from the truth. I then changed to the KJV because it was not authored by Babylon. Just a little bit of common sense brought out by the Holy Spirit.

Being content with my KJV I did not feel the need to study the matter furhter. Now that we have opportunity and because many have not seen the need to refrain from many of the modern "Bibles", it is good that we become better educated on the subject.

Often I considered the problem for those who do not read English and need a good translation. I could not offer any suggestions. It revealed to me that the KJV was not the Bible, but as you have said, it is a translation. I know there are some errors in the KJV and I know that many reading in other languages are reading mistakes in translation. So, I agree with you in regards to Ellen White's comments on trusting in the Bible. It is the truth that we are to follow. This is the reason why this discussion is so important. We are not to use our thoughts to know God, but our Bibles are to reveal God, His ways, and the plan of salvation. All prophets are to be tested by the Bible. Therefore, we need to have faith in the Bible. And, we need to do all that we can to understand the translation we are studying from. Where there are problems, we need to identify them and explain why they are problems.

Those using the KJV may have a problem here, but they ought not. If they will just stop and consider the plight of the Turk who does not have a translation that is as good as the KJV. How are they to view their Bible? Are we to think that there are no errors in the translations? We know better. I say this having been blessed by having faith in my KJV. Until I changed over, my faith was in my NIV, and this was not a good thing. God will work with us as we look to Him and study to show ourselves approved.

In further defense of your position, I want to repost something that I posted in this thread early on. It is an inspired statement from the Great Controversy.

"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.

There always has been "errors" in different "versions" of the Bible. We now ought to take advantage of the times in which we live to weed out these errors as best we can. I have at least one that bothers me and that I know is an error or at least is very misleading. The new translations have taken advantage of the KJV wording and furthered their false gospels.

Again, our apologies. Your explanation as to what you meant clearly reveal that you were not attacking the doctrine of the "godhead". We have had our hands full regarding that subject and our minds have been exercised to protect the godhead from those who have other ideas regarding the divinity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Thank you for your faithfulness to the truth.

[Sister Marie]

Amen, my thoughts also Brother Thomas.  

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

[Thomas M]

What a wealth of beautiful and extremely useful material! I apologize for my impatience!
It seems that the example of Ellen White really answers the translation question. She used every available translation or version on occasion, with thoughtful comparison to the KJV. She used the KJV from the pulpit because of its familiarity. Personally, I think the diminishing of familiarity with the KJV is unfortunate.
Ellen White's remarks on the Received Text of 1516 are appropriate indeed. That text was far superior to what was earlier known in Western Christianity, but it was far from perfect. Her remarks take both matters into account. The comma Johanneum of 1John 5:7 was only added to the Received Text in 1522. The remarks of Ellen White quoted by Sister Sybil and Brother Richard appear to me to reinforce the validity of Ellen White's own claim to inspiration. She was able to step around this knotty issue better than the most highly trained Biblical scholar.

quote:Originally posted by Sister Glass:
Amen, my thoughts also Brother Thomas.  

[Richard Myers]

 

quote:Originally posted by Thomas M:

It seems that the example of Ellen White really answers the translation question. She used every available translation or version on occasion, with thoughtful comparison to the KJV. She used the KJV from the pulpit because of its familiarity. Personally, I think the diminishing of familiarity with the KJV is unfortunate.
Ellen White's remarks on the Received Text of 1516 are appropriate indeed. That text was far superior to what was earlier known in Western Christianity, but it was far from perfect. Her remarks take both matters into account. The comma Johanneum of 1John 5:7 was only added to the Received Text in 1522. The remarks of Ellen White quoted by Sister Sybil and Brother Richard appear to me to reinforce the validity of Ellen White's own claim to inspiration. She was able to step around this knotty issue better than the most highly trained Biblical scholar.

Amen! It is an evidence of her divine guidance.

quote: I apologize for my impatience!

It is difficult when we are misunderstood. God is preparing us for the difficult days that we are entering. He is working on my character, your character dear brother, and all who will share His company for eternity. The only thing we shall take with us to heaven is our character and it must be like His!  

We all need to be more patient with each other and especially to those who hurt us. We are to be His witnesses on this earth. This is our privilege to give Jesus His reward for His suffering on the cross. He lives to see us reflect Him.    

[Mimi]

I erred greatly by not reading this thread from the first post through to the last. Domingo did, in fact - as Thomas and Richard said, present the facts about our text and it went unmentioned, untouched for over four years.

Such happens with a revived topic and aging memories ... I will try not to repeat an  unacquaintance with what has gone before.

On the other hand, it is thrilling to be learning in the vineyard of the Lord. For one to rekindle a fire that can bring new light to the members is a blessing indeed.

There is still much to learn of the Bible translations in our hands. And even greater to know how it has been preserved "through the ages" through nothing less than acts of God.

------------------
Sybil
"In times like these, we have a Savior!"

[Liane H]

It is interesting that I had missed this topic along the way here at the Bread of Life.

I am currently reading a very interesting book regarding the history starting from the Revised Version to the New International Version of current use.

There is no question from what I am reading that the background of the first revision to the current one today is filled with error and can set one down path wrong paths of understanding God's Word.

There is no question in my mind that this situation of revisions should be a concern of all of us.  

------------------
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]

Walter Julius Veith is a scientist, author and speaker known for his work in nutrition, creationism and other Christian topics. He studied zoology at the University of Stellenbosch and obtained his doctorate in zoology from the University of Cape Town in 1979. We have linked to his web site Amazing   Discoveries since June 2001.

For some additional information on the differences in the modern "bibles" and the KJV we present a link to an hour long lecture by Dr. Veith. Battle of the Bibles video streaming broad band or download.