Author Topic: Bible Translations  (Read 209739 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #300 on: May 26, 2011, 11:54:02 AM »
A very nice article on the KJV: (emphasis mine)

Most of the Bible translations crowding American bookstores lack the KJV's gravitas and spiritual substance, Jeffrey said, and their sheer variety fractures Christian unity.

The need for the KJV itself was prompted by a related situation, Jeffrey argues in a forthcoming book, "The King James Bible and the World It Made."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/king-james-version-is-the_n_865861.html
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

Vicki

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3374
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #301 on: May 26, 2011, 12:55:04 PM »
Quote
...some scholars lament the lack of an up-to-date English translation with the majesty and musicality of the KJV, said K. Sara-Jane Murray, a colleague of Jeffrey's at Baylor University.

If there's anyone who could pull that proposal off, it is Jeffrey, she said. "A lot of scholars and artists around the world are dying to collaborate on a project like this...

Christianity needs another English Bible translation?

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #302 on: May 26, 2011, 01:06:53 PM »
It is good to have anyone acknowledge:
Quote
their sheer variety fractures Christian unity.
We can further say, which may be a matter of semantics to his quote, the "sheer variety" has changed Bible doctrine. We have quite a few pages in this thread showing just that. 
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

Vicki

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3374
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #303 on: May 26, 2011, 01:25:51 PM »
I will definitely agree that their "sheer variety" is a problem. I don't think it fractured Christianity, though. Perhaps to some extent, but it makes me wonder which came first - the variety of Christian Bibles, or the variety of Christian beliefs. I have not studied this by any stretch of the imagination, but would a Bible that is off from the truth be accepted by people who were following the Bible? Seems to me the different flavors of Christianity came before the different Bible versions. Now he wants to stack all the flavors in the same cone - uniting them with one Bible. It boggles my mind how so many different views can be united in one Bible. I'm sure someone will try. After all, we must have unity, right? (regardless of doctrine? some think so.)

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 44592
  • Grace, more than a word, it is transforming power
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #304 on: May 26, 2011, 08:08:27 PM »
Yes, Vicki, that is correct. The variety of Bibles is the result of the division within the professing Christian churches. The "scholars" chosen to do these so called bibles are representing their beliefs. The fracture occurred prior to the new translations. The rejection of Bible truth began long ago.

When I was first converted, one of the first perplexities I was faced with was which church to attend. I had not been converted by a church or a man. Therefore, I had a lot to choose from. It was perplexing because I could not understand why there was such division in the churches. It did not make sense to me then. Now, I understand. And, I believe that many truly converted are perplexed also, especially those newly come to the faith. Harold Camping has been successful at gaining a following because he has picked up many who see that there is a problem in the organized churches. But, many in their church  have failed to see that there is only one truth, Bible truth. They are moved by a man to follow what man has said and not what God has said in His Holy Word.  Even with the perversion of many of the new bibles, they still must reject simple Bible truth that is in their new bibles.

I would like to have a modern King James with some of the thees and thous, but with the archaic language improved. It would be a blessing, but I am not counting on it. Things are getting worse, not better and I don't see any great scholarly group of men who will do such an important work as to improve upon what we have in the KJV. Show me a group of men walking in the light of present truth and then we can discuss an improved KJV. Yes, they are there, but they are not easy to find. They are forming as we near the end.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Wally

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5666
  • Romans 8:35, 38, 39
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #305 on: May 27, 2011, 06:02:24 AM »
If this has been pointed out before on this thread, I apologize for being redundant.  This thread goes back 10  years, so I may have missed something.

I am not familiar with that many languages, but of those that I am familiar with, their Bibles read pretty much like the KJV, because they were translated from the Textus Receptus.  My French Bible reads just like the KJV, as does the Spanish Bible that my Spanish speaking friends use.  It is only in the English speaking parts of the world that there are multiple translations.  With the exception of Spanish, most other languages usually have 1 or 2.  I believe this is by design.  The devil wants to confuse things as much as possible.  He can do this by making a variety of translations, all of which read somewhat differently, each changing the meaning of certain key texts just enough to cause uncertainty.  Most of his attacks are aimed at the English Scriptures because it is the English speaking lamb-horned beast that will be instrumental in setting up the image to the beast and bringing in the time of trouble.  The majority will be led to believe that one can't be sure exactly what the original texts said, so it would be wise to accept the consensus of the Biblical "scholars."

I know that I've said this before, but I think it bear repeating:  Daniel 8:14 is a key text in the SDA Church.  The vast majority of modern English translations garble it in such a way that it is nearly impossible to trace its connection to Leviticus 16.  That, in itself, should set off warning bells in anyone who understands the Sanctuary system and the Investigative Judgment.

Not all languages read "the sanctuary be cleansed," but many do.  Here are 3 examples:  French, Spanish, and Italian.  le sanctuaire sera purifié;  el santuario será purificado; il santuario sarà purificato.  Even a non linguist can see the root word in these translations.  Some read "restored," as in Dutch, or "consecrated," as in Luther's translation.

And so, as Richard said, "the variety of Bibles is the result of the division within the professing Christian churches."  But the variety of Bibles also contributes to more division.  It is inevitable that it be this way.  And so, since there can be no consensus, the world will rally around the one authority who is admired by the whole world--the pope.  Or at least that's how it looks to me.
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants:  we have done that which was our duty to do.  Luke 17:10

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 44592
  • Grace, more than a word, it is transforming power
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #306 on: May 27, 2011, 06:46:48 AM »
Yes, dear brother. Satan is at work at both ends. When he confuses the Word, then he surely has done something. But, God has had His hand over His truth so that we can understand.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Marelis

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #307 on: May 27, 2011, 01:43:15 PM »
I am not familiar with that many languages, but of those that I am familiar with, their Bibles read pretty much like the KJV, because they were translated from the Textus Receptus.  My French Bible reads just like the KJV, as does the Spanish Bible that my Spanish speaking friends use.  It is only in the English speaking parts of the world that there are multiple translations.  With the exception of Spanish, most other languages usually have 1 or 2.  I believe this is by design.
This is a good point, Wally.  It is interesting to consider not only the number of English versions but the sheer variety of covers and types.  Bibles are a fashion accessory: choose "your" version in a cover that represents your personal style.
"Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."  Ps 16:11

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #308 on: October 20, 2011, 10:52:46 AM »
I am searching for a verse-by-verse comparison of Bible translations that include "The Message Bible." Thus far, I have only been able to find this. It is not comprehensive. http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #309 on: February 18, 2012, 03:56:34 PM »

Why the King James Version is Superior to the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT), RSV and many of the other newer versions which seem to be based on suspect and corrupted manuscripts. If you check them versus the King James, you will see not just a change for clarity as they claim but a complete change of meaning or outright deletion or insertion to support false doctrine.

Many Christians and others have noticed the missing verses and the changes of the text in the NIV and other newer versions. So who made the deletions and outright changes affecting even basic truths and wiping out doctrines. If you compare you find that key verses were either changed, or had missing words and some related to core truths. In simple language, the NIV and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the 'minority' texts which came from a corrupted source.These corrupted texts contain numerous other books, such as the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas, etc. The corrupted texts came out of ancient Gnostic manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt and they made the changes to put in their false pagan ideas and philosophy.

The problem is that it is not a 'different translation', it basically is editing to take out many core beliefs, and whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own and many theologians have noticed that with the changes, you cannot prove the Trinity in and other doctrinal truths. So its not just a 'different translation'....

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #310 on: February 18, 2012, 04:02:04 PM »
Now the King James version is based on the Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original,) and has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. We need to understand who made these corrupted manuscripts and why, and then who put the changed and edited manuscripts into the modern versions we see today.

The changes came from the Gnostic sects who tried to subvert the Gospel with their  insidious philosophy and beliefs, and Alexandria became one of their main centers soon after the death of Christ, and as Paul says there would be those who would try to deceive and it came even during his time. But before we go into what they did, lets look at the uncorrupted true text and see how we got it. We need to go into history to understand how we got the King James Version (KJV) and then go into whats going on with a few of the modern translations in use today. Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived.

Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus.When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

Now here is some important points on the Textus Receptus:

· Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
· Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
· Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices or corrupted Gnostic manuscripts. Remember this vital point.
· Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
· Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
· Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!

The TEXTUS RECEPTUS or 'Received Text or Majority Text' is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version. The Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text.

Bible scholar Benjamin Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus."

In his Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus, Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text."

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #311 on: February 18, 2012, 04:08:04 PM »
So were did these corrupted versions come about. Well right as the Great Awakening or the period of religious revival was coming to be, curriously around 1844, two previously unknown or unrecognized manuscripts appeared or resurfaced depending on how you look at it. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus codices since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & the other in a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy where several Gnostic manuscripts had survived. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

The Gnostic heresy was a Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism. We find it specially in the background of the Pastoral Epistles, the Letter to the Colossians and the Fourth Gospel. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which appear all through the Pastoral Epistles as the characteristics of those whose heresies were threatening the Church and the purity of the faith. It had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. That issued in two opposite results.

If matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down. Therefore Gnosticism could and did issue in a rigid asceticism. The Gnostic looked on creation as an evil thing, the work of an evil god; the Christian looks on creation as a noble thing, the gift of a good God. The Christian lives in a world where all things are pure; the Gnostic lived in a world where all things were defiled.(Titus 1:15)

But Gnosticism could issue in precisely the opposite ethical belief. If the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, let him sate his appetites. These things are of no importance, therefore a man can use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. So the Pastorals speak of those who lead away weak women until they are laden with sin and the victims of all kinds of lusts.(2 Timothy 3:6) Such men profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds.(Titus 1:16) They used their religious beliefs as an excuse for immorality.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #312 on: February 18, 2012, 04:12:09 PM »
Now as the Great Awakening brought great interest in the Bible, and the events of 1844 brought about the formation of the Adventist movement,  two men Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and bring in the text from the corrupted Alexandrian codices and suddenly differences began to appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV) But since the Alexandrian Codices were considered older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory for many years.

However, since Westcott & Hort's version, some reavealing scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place anthere now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices. There is even fragments of the Gospel of Matthew dating to AD 50 a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading. By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text.

(You can look for Acts 8:37 in most of these 'Modern' Bibles based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text & you will see that it skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian.)

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #313 on: February 18, 2012, 06:34:08 PM »
Good evening, Rick. Do you have a citation for the material that appears copied? I do not believe you will find many arguments with what you've copied. Because we have this existing topic on Bible Translations, your contribution posted elsewhere is merged with it.
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #314 on: February 19, 2012, 02:24:03 AM »
That is how I put it but can adjust for better reading, as the title was cut off which refers to this sentence when it was moved.....................

Oops... looks like your modify is set and cannot be changed, so if you can put the title back in for me.

It should read  "Why the King James Version is Superior.......…to the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT), RSV and many other newer versions as they are based on suspect and corrupted manuscripts."


Thx
Rick

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #315 on: February 19, 2012, 02:34:08 AM »
To continue, the versions after Wescott and Horts revision using the Alexandrian text, showed the wholesale changes and deletions. Thousands of changes great and small were made and if you look at the following verses you see some of the important beliefs they subtley try to destroy with these newer versions:
1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
KJV-For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
NIV----For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
RSV---( missing )
Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV-Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
NIV---- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
RSV---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV-wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
NIV----and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
RSV---wash your sins away, calling on his name.
In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:
Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #316 on: February 19, 2012, 02:35:02 AM »
So why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?

Well the answer is simple, the vast number of manuscripts of the Textus Receptus confirmed the true text of Gods Word and agree with each other so were untainted by those who wanted to corrupt Gods truth. The four or five manuscripts of the Minority Text left them open to corruption of the writers, and they were changed as they came from the Gnostic heresy or Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The one thing thay all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the orthodox Christian faith, but the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The Alexandrian Codices that Westcott & Hort's version used, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus reflect this and are unique in their reading in toto. In fact many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says:'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries.

With the discovery of a Gnostic Library called the Nag Hammadi, it became clear that the sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Nor did they really believe in His humanity either. They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #317 on: February 19, 2012, 02:35:48 AM »
Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Coptic texts as they were caught up in the veiws prevalant from darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. These corrupted Coptic texts easily appealed to Westcott & Hort's own sensibilities (as testified to by their surviving correspondence with each other). They in my opinion from the letters they exchanged, knowingly made a Greek translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Coptic translation of a Greek original.

So check your version and if is not the King James, or based on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text, look and see what you may be missing, and now you know why and how..

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #318 on: February 19, 2012, 05:54:48 AM »
Rick, we have a slew of examples here in this topic:

http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.msg77555#msg77555
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #319 on: February 19, 2012, 06:52:28 AM »
Good evening, Rick. Do you have a citation for the material that appears copied? I do not believe you will find many arguments with what you've copied. Because we have this existing topic on Bible Translations, your contribution posted elsewhere is merged with it.

Let me post some as I have some in my notes...