Bible Translations

[Mimi]

John 14:2

KJV John 14:2  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

NIV John 14:2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

NKJV John 14:2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

     a.   John 14:2 Literally dwellings
     b.   John 14:2 NU-Text adds a word which would cause the text to read either if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? or if it were not so I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.

ASV John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.

KJ21 John 14:2 In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

NASB John 14:2 "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.

[asygo]

Matthew 4:24

KJV and KJ21 are virtually identical, changing only “who” in the KJ21 for “that” in the KJV

NIV adds “those suffering severe pain”

ASV and NKJV read virtually the same, except ASV switches “fame” for “report.”

How do we know which is the "correct" one of these options? What criteria should we use?

An illustration:

Two infants were taken to the hospital. One infant was there to have his heart changed because it had a congenital defect. The other one was there to have his genitals changed because his moms thought he was born with the wrong kind.

Question: If I were to ask you to judge the "correctness" of each one of these changes, what criteria would you use to make your decision?

[Mimi]

Without getting into Greek or why tiny changes or additions were made? This verse speaks to Jesus' divinity. What best describes His divinity, validating His ability to work miracles?

[asygo]

Without getting into Greek or why tiny changes or additions were made? This verse speaks to Jesus' divinity. What best describes His divinity, validating His ability to work miracles?

If Jesus' divinity was the main point, they could have translated it this way: And his fame went throughout all Syria because of his divinity.

But they didn't do that. Why not? Had they just gotten to the point, things would be so much easier.

BTW, people used to chase Peter's shadow around to get healed. Peter and Paul each raised at least one from the dead.

[aerasmus]

Mimi, Thank you for posting the results of your study.
Do you find that after you have done the research for yourself;
1. That the NKJV is a good translation?
2. A sense of euphoria, for doing the homework, making the discoveries
3. A bit concerned about all the stuff that is actually on the net
4. In agreement with me that the quoted internet site should not be considered as reliable

I used to be a KJV and KJV only person, reading alot into what these "internet experts" had to say, till I started studying it out for myself, and trying to have the Word of God speak for itself... I am glad I have done so, as this has been very helpful in not only preparing sermons and Bible studies, but by reading different translations, I am able to exegete the text so much better, and am able to vindicate my Belief in Bible truth. It is the cause for a much richer Christian experience.

One thing I do not read though, and perhaps, this might start a debate, is; paraphrase Bibles, its a personal choice... I would in the stead of a paraphrase recommend a good study Bible. By the By, Amazing Facts are bringing out a complete study Bible.
http://www.amazingfacts.org/Home/LatestMinistryNews/tabid/121/newsid444/326/Amazing-Facts-NKJV-Bible-Prophecy-Edition/Default.aspx

And you guessed it, it is the NKJV 

[Richard Myers]

Are there some bad translations in the NKJV? I mean where the gospel is involved? Or the Sabbath? Or the state of the dead? Or the sanctuary?

[Mimi]

Good morning, Aerasmus: Before running off to Sabbath School, here is a little point: I have no bias for or against the NKJV. It has been in my library of Bibles for years and is, in fact, the most "marked" Bible I own. Instinctually, the KJV has been the translation of choice because I trusted the wisdom of my grandfather. And as studies have gone along and questions arise on certain "difficult" verses, the NKJV has helped along with other translations.

The trouble experienced with the NKJV is the change from "holy" to "most holy" upon Christ's ascension; using "rest" instead of "remnant" in Rev. 19:21. They are minor and I don't have time right now to list the rest, yet the term "remnant" is quite meaningful to us as a denomination, so I prefer that term. And the sanctuary service, the movements of Christ within the rooms is important to us as well relative to the antitypical day of atonement.

Gotta run - will be back this afternoon. Have a blest Sabbath. 

[Won Bae]

I had a talk with a retired chairman of  the theology dept. who is knowledgeable with Greek and Hebrew.  According to him, not all KJV is accurately translated from Greek or Hebrew.  Some are better translated in different versions such as NKJV or NRSV,  It is my personal conclusion that we should not limit to one particular version of the Bible.  We should expand our studying inclusive of different versions to better understand the Bible if we are serious about studying the Bible.

Won

[Mimi]

I am in agreement with you, brother, but I will limit myself to those translations coming from uncorrupted manuscripts.

[Mimi]

Acts 17:29

I wish to ask the Bible students a question regarding the use of Godhead in these various translations. In Greek, Godhead is 2304, theios - derived from 2316, theos, Supreme Divinity. Paul is on Mars Hill bringing to comparison the unknown god and the living God.

As Christians we believe three persons make up the Godhead. Would any of these translations outside those that refer to the Godhead change our theology regarding the Three-as-One Deity or is that relevant in this verse? 

KJV Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

LITV Acts 17:29 Act 17:29  Then being offspring of God, we ought not to suppose that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone, engraved by art and the imagination of man.

NKJV Acts 17:29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.

NIV Acts 17:29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill.

CEV Acts 17:29 Since we are God's children, we must not think that he is like an idol made out of gold or silver or stone. He isn't like anything that humans have thought up and made.

NASB  Acts 17:29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

[Sister Marie]

KJV Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

LITV Acts 17:29 Act 17:29  Then being offspring of God, we ought not to suppose that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone, engraved by art and the imagination of man.

NKJV Acts 17:29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.
One could say this was anything they wanted a god to be.

NIV Acts 17:29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill.
This too could be anything one wishes it to be.

CEV Acts 17:29 Since we are God's children, we must not think that he is like an idol made out of gold or silver or stone. He isn't like anything that humans have thought up and made.
[font=Verdana]"he" could be any god[/font]

NASB  Acts 17:29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
You give it a name and anything could satisfy mans thought of what God is with "Divine Nature" as a lead.

We sure do need to be careful what we read and what we teach our children with.

[aerasmus]

Acts 17:29

I wish to ask the Bible students a question regarding the use of Godhead in these various translations. In Greek, Godhead is 2304, theios - derived from 2316, theos, Supreme Divinity. Paul is on Mars Hill bringing to comparison the unknown god and the living God.

As Christians we believe three persons make up the Godhead. Would any of these translations outside those that refer to the Godhead change our theology regarding the Three-as-One Deity or is that relevant in this verse?

Mimi, I do believe that your quote does not include the "whole" meaning of the word; I am underlying the word excluced from your dictionary...Which in turn would justify the NKJV Translation... I am using the SDA Bible Dictionary 

I have also highlighted what the meaning of Godhead really was, I think some will be suprised, and this might make some realise, why different translations have to be used, and why some things are translated differently than we expect.


Godhead. A KJV term, a rendering of: (1) the Gr. theion (Acts 17:29), “divinity,” “the Deity”; (2) the Gr. theiotēs (Rom 1:20), “divine nature,” “divinity,” (3) the Gr. theotēs (Col 2:9), “deity,” “divinity.” The English term “Godhead” means “godhood,” that is, “godship,” “divine nature,” “divine essence.”
Horn, Siegfried H.: Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Revised edition. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1979 (Commentary Reference Series)

[Mimi]

Thank you for the additional information. I can see that it may not be all inclusive. Once upon a time, I had Libronix's SDA Commentary software, but lost it when changing computers - and, of course, the installation CD has gone missing.

[Richard Myers]

Can it be all inclusive?

[aerasmus]

Can it be all inclusive?

What do you mean?

[Mimi]

Can it be all inclusive?

That is how I originally read it, as inclusive of all three divine entities. I could be wrong.

[Richard Myers]

Thank you for the additional information. I can see that it may not be all inclusive.

This is the difficulty we get into when we begin to enter into discussions attempting to better understand the Greek or Hebrew. We are at the mercy of others who we hope understand the language very well. We never know to a great degree. And, this in many cases proves deadly to the truth. When we go to Scripture for our understanding we do not have this difficulty.

Some will say that we ought not use our understanding of Scripture to interpret the meaning of a passage, but we need to go the to original language...even though we don't understand the original language. What this does is take away our responsibility for knowing what is being said in the Bible. Please don't take this in a narrow way, Brother Andre, but in a general sense. I understand the need to have translators, but to begin going to the Greek in this case is not very profitable, because there is more than we understand in coming to an intelligent understanding of the translation. I think it can be helpful, but it also can very dangerous.

I think the point I am trying to make is that in my experience, I have found that most who enter into such study and discussions of doctrinal matters have a great difficulty in understanding first our modern English and secondly a closely related language, the Old English of the KJV. To expect that we will benefit in most discussions from the addition of the Greek and Hebrew is past reason.

In this case, I am enjoying the discussion and appreciate your input. I am learning more about the NKJV which may turn out to be a good translation. As has been pointed out the KJV has some translation difficulties, so I don't expect the NKJV to be perfect either. But, the most pressing issue is "present truth" and the gospel message. I have found the KJV to be very very good. It would be a blessing to find that the NKJV is very very good. It would be a miracle considering that it was translated by those in Babylon who do not accept the Sabbath, the state of the dead, and in many cases have perverted the gospel to the same degree the Jews did in the time of Christ.

In answer to your question about the "Godhead", I want to know if the translation can be said to include the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Can it be translated Godhead? And is Colossians 2:9 correct?

[aerasmus]

Thank you for the additional information. I can see that it may not be all inclusive.

This is the difficulty we get into when we begin to enter into discussions attempting to better understand the Greek or Hebrew. We are at the mercy of others who we hope understand the language very well. We never know to a great degree. And, this in many cases proves deadly to the truth. When we go to Scripture for our understanding we do not have this difficulty.

Some will say that we ought not use our understanding of Scripture to interpret the meaning of a passage, but we need to go the to original language...even though we don't understand the original language. What this does is take away our responsibility for knowing what is being said in the Bible. Please don't take this in a narrow way, Brother Andre, but in a general sense. I understand the need to have translators, but to begin going to the Greek in this case is not very profitable, because there is more than we understand in coming to an intelligent understanding of the translation. I think it can be helpful, but it also can very dangerous.

I think the point I am trying to make is that in my experience, I have found that most who enter into such study and discussions of doctrinal matters have a great difficulty in understanding first our moder English and secondly a closely related language, the Old English of the KJV. To expect that we will benefit in most discussions from the addition of the Greek and Hebrew is past reason.

In this case, I am enjoying the discussion and appreciate your input. I am learning more about the NKJV which may turn out to be a good translation. As has been pointed out the KJV has some translation difficulties, so I don't expect the NKJV to be perfect either. But, the most pressing issue is "present truth" and the gospel message. I have found the KJV to be very very good. It would be a blessing to find that the NKJV is very very good. It would be a miracle considering that it was translated by those in Babylon who do not accept the Sabbath, the state of the dead, and in many cases have perverted the gospel to the same degree the Jews did in the time of Christ.

In answer to your question about the "Godhead", I want to know if the translation can be said to include the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Can it be translated Godhead? And is Colossians 2:9 correct?

Brother Richard, as this debate is all about translation, I find it ironic that when we turn to the SDA Dictionary, it says the same as the people who are non Seventh-Day Adventists... but as I have previously quoted the SDA Dictionary, and having the privilage of having different commentaries; I shall share what the others say on this verse.

Also I do believe it is important to consider different Translations, as I think this verse points out that we don't fully understand the English of the KJV(which is an obvious evolution of language, over 400 years)

GODHEAD. The word “godhead,” compounded of “god” and “hood,” later changed to “head,” means that which is qualitatively of the nature of Deity. It refers not to any one person in the Trinity but rather the whole. The Shorter Catechism uses the term as it asks. “How many persons are there in the Godhead?” Three Gr. words are translated by this term in the KJV.
1. Theion is used once in Acts 17:29 by Paul as he speaks to the learned Greeks on Mars Hill about the unknown God whom they ignorantly worshiped, and contrasts His “Deity” (RSV) or “Divine Nature” (NASB) to the images of gold, silver and stone formed by the art and imagination of man.
2. Theiotēs in Rom 1:20 is a term particularly of quality and stresses the nature of God as divine. As man looks at creation he should come to two conclusions: the existence of a God who is powerful enough to cause it all to exist, and His “Deity” (RSV) or “Divine Nature” (NASB). By the use of theiotēs God’s invisible qualities or attributes are indicated (see NASB, TEV).
3. Theotēs occurs in Col 2:9 and stresses the divine essence rather than attributes. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” In Christ only, since He alone of the Trinity became incarnate, does absolute and perfect Deity, all the divine essence, dwell in One who has a body.
The term Godhead stresses monotheism and the unity of the three persons of the Trinity, and guards against a polytheistic view of God. The OT categorically states, “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4). In the NT Christ declares, “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30). The doctrine of the Godhead develops this monotheistic concept further.
The doctrine of three persons in the one Godhead supplies certain very important philosophical needs. If God were a unitary person rather than a trinity of persons, the world and man would add basic new dimensions to Him. He would know added relationships when they came into being. To this extent a unitarian concept of God fails in that the God proposed by all Unitarians—be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian—needs the world and man to be fully developed. The world adds an “I-It” relationship; man adds an “I-Thou” and a “We-You” or social relationship. The Christian Trinity in contrast possesses all of these. The Son and the Spirit are objects to the Father, and each to the other. The Father and Son have always enjoyed the “I-Thou” relationship, the personal encounter. Any two of the Trinity can minister the the third, and thus God forever knows the “We-You” or social relationship
Pfeiffer, Charles F.: Vos, Howard Frederic (Hrsg.) ;  Rea, John (Hrsg.): Wycliffe Bible Encyclopoedia. electronic edition. Chicago : Moody Press, 1975; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996

[Richard Myers]

Thank you,  Brother Andre. Here we get deeper into my concern. The influence and thinking put forth in a portion of your post has little to do with the meaning of the translation. It is true that some have placed confidence in the men who have put for these thoughts regarding the "Trinity", but it is all foreign to my mind and while it is interesting reading, it is not necessary for an understanding of the Godhead. The term Godhead is a useful term and one that we rightly understand. It is inclusive of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are God. Here we enter into another doctrinal matter that only goes to show that this is a complicated subject that requires spiritual discernment and when we begin to add additional human reasoning such as we have regarding the commentary on the social needs exemplified in the Trinity, we begin to wander away from what is in fact the truth.

I don't think I would point to this verse as a problem of great importance with the translation , but it does illustrate my concern about who it is that is translating and what they are thinking as they translate. The social nature of the Godhead ought not enter into the matter, in my humble opinion. Of course I am open to correction. I understand that the commentary does not pertain to the translators, but I fear that it could. This is the state of modern theology and it does not stop at the border of the fallen churches.

[aerasmus]

Thank you,  Brother Andre. Here we get deeper into my concern. The influence and thinking put forth in a portion of your post has little to do with the meaning of the translation. It is true that some have placed confidence in the men who have put for these thoughts regarding the "Trinity", but it is all foreign to my mind and while it is interesting reading, it is not necessary for an understanding of the Godhead. The term Godhead is a useful term and one that we rightly understand. It is inclusive of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are God. Here we enter into another doctrinal matter that only goes to show that this is a complicated subject that requires spiritual discernment and when we begin to add additional human reasoning such as we have regarding the commentary on the social needs exemplified in the Trinity, we begin to wander away from what is in fact the truth.

I don't think I would point to this verse as a problem of great importance with the translation , but it does illustrate my concern about who it is that is translating and what they are thinking as they translate. The social nature of the Godhead ought not enter into the matter, in my humble opinion. Of course I am open to correction. I understand that the commentary does not pertain to the translators, but I fear that it could. This is the state of modern theology and it does not stop at the border of the fallen churches.

Interesting response brother, but clearly, as I have pointed to the SDA commentary before, it has shown that this verse actually says exactly what the NKJV translate it as... Divine Nature... If we read the next verse, we see why Paul used it as he did, as to contrast God with the idols of gold and silver.

People have used this verse to point to the Godhead as we understand the meaning, theologically and contemporary... But the meaning, can only be truly understood by reading other translations, or using a dictionary. As you have done so yourself

The term Godhead is a useful term and one that we rightly understand. It is inclusive of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are God.

That is not really what the verse is saying in English, it is talking of the Divine Nature of God(Which I concur includes Father, Son, Holy Ghost) but it is not to be used, and was not used to point directly to the Three persons of the Godhead(contemporary understanding of word)

They are God

He is God