Bible Translations

[aerasmus]

That is how I read it, Richard. As an ongoing "thing" "unto" the coming of Jesus.

Let's look at something else in these two versions:

1 Thessalonians 5:23

KJV 1Thess. 5:23And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

NKJV 1Thess. 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The KJV's opening words appear to be a statement, saying the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ..."

The NKJV's opening words are more like a prayer, "May the God" of peace Himself sanctify you ..."

Just more notices in the differences here. Do the opening words make a difference? One appears to be a solid statement whereas the other does not. WDYT?

The opening does not bother me at all. It is a prayer. It is what that is being prayed for that bothers me. 

It is for present sanctification and purity up until the time of Jesus' coming, not for "sanctification", AND "may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless AT the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." No, we want the whole spirit, soul, and body to be preserved blameless now, not AT the second coming.

Let us do a little analogy and see what Brother Andre thinks. 

Brother Andre, let's say George has decided to quit using illegal drugs.  He wants to get married soon and he wants his marriage to be good. He needs to tell his future wife that he has made this decision. He says to her "Dear Betsy, may God sanctify me completely; and I want Him to take my whole spirit, soul, and body and keep me from using drugs at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

What will Betsy say about this request of her soon to be husband?  Will she go ahead and marry this drug addict based upon what he says he wants? What has he asked for?

Brother Richard, I will respond this evening(my time) as I have to concentrate on my Old Testament III exam which I am writing in 1h30 time. But I do believe brother Asygo's response is something to consider and definitely in line with my approach, though as previously stated, to be kept in the day of the Lord might be the purpose of this verse.

[Mimi]

Volume 7, SDA BC, 257 says this:

23. And the very God of peace. Rather, "but the God of peace himself." With this verse Paul begins the final section of his epistle, and molds it in the form of a prayer. He has upheld high standards (vs. 12-22), recognizes that no man can reach them without divine aid; so his closing words direct his readers to the enabling power of God Himself. The title, "the very God of peace," refers to the God whose outstanding quality in peacefulness, the God who is the source of all true peace. God ever seeks to restore peace between Himself and His rebellious subjects.

Sanctify wholly. Gr. hagiazo holoteles, "perfect," "complete in all respects," from holos, "whole," and telos, "end." Luther renders holoteles, "through and through." True sanctification involves the whole being: it is not really possible to be partially sanctified, in the sense of withholding certain areas of the life from being made holy. Every department of life must be submitted to the purifying power of God's Spirit.

Whole. Gr. holokleros, "complete in all its parts, " "complete," "entire," from holos, "whole," kleros, "lot," or "part." The adjective may apply to each of the nouns that follow - "spirit," "soul," and "body"; or it may be construed with the verb "to preserve," with the sense of "preserve in entirety."

Spirit and soul and body. Paul is not giving a study on the nature of man, but is making sure that no part of his converts' lives is left untouched by God's sanctifying power. Generally the Bible seems to speak of a twofold division in man, either body and soul, or body and spirit. In Thessalonians these ideas are combined to emphasize that no part of man is to be excluded from the influence of sanctification. It is possible to see special significance in the divisions that Paul makes. By "spirit" (pneuma) may be understood the higher principle of intelligence and thought with which man is endowed, and with which God can communicate by His Spirit. It is by the renewing of the mind through the action of the Holy Spirit that the individual is transformed into Christ's likeness.

By "soul" (psuche) when distinguished from spirit, may be understood that part of a man's nature that finds expression through the instincts, emotions, and desires. This part of one's nature can be sanctified, too. When through the working of the Holy Spirit, the mind is brought into conformity with God's mind, and sanctified reason bears sway over the lower nature, the impulses, which would otherwise be contrary to God, become subject to His will. Thus the humble Christian may reach such a height of sanctification that when obeying God he is really carrying out his own impulses. He delights to do God's will. He has God's law in his heart. COL 312; DA 668.

The meaning of "body" (soma) seems evident. It is the corporeal frame - flesh and blood and bones - which is controlled by either the higher or the lower nature. When the sanctified mind is in control, the body is not abused. Health flourishes. The body becomes a fit instrument through which the active Christian can serve his Master. Sanctification that does not include the body is not complete. Our bodies are God's temples. We should ever seek to keep them holy and glorify God in them.

Preserved. Gr. tereo, generally, "to keep," but here and in Jude 1 translated "to preserve."

Blameless. Gr. amemptos. The one who is sanctified will be kept by God and presented faultless in the great day of the Lord's coming.

Unto. Or, "at," that is, at the time of the coming.   

[Richard Myers]

Looks pretty serious. Why change it? What was the matter with the KJV? And, if you really just wanted to use a more modern word, how about "until"?

It is this subject that concerns me most. This appears to hit right at the gospel of grace.

Bro Richard,

I agree that this does look significant, so let's take a close and careful look.

1) Does the verse actually say what you want it to say? IOW, does "en" ever mean "until"? Does the KJV ever translate it as "until"? It looks to me that the word properly translated "until" is "heōs" (G2193). And the KJV translates it as "until" a significant portion of the time. So if the KJV translators thought "en" meant "until" they could very easily have translated it as "until." But they didn't.

Brother Arnold, I understand they didn't translate it "until", they used "unto" which just fine.  I merely said that if the NKJV wanted a new and different word to make it easier to understand, which I think is foolish in this case, then they could have used until. But, my argument is for "unto" not "at" unless there is another change in language to support the meaning conveyed in the KJV. The use of at is fine if the meaning is kept intact.  See the post before this one where the meaning of the verse is revealed by the SDA Bible Commentary. It uses the word "at" and keeps the meaning of the KJV translation.

2) If one is blameless, can such a person say that he has no sin? Or can a blameless person have sin?

Well now, I think this is the issue and why I object to the intent of many new translations. If you had not brought up this slant to the translation that would indicate you are not happy with the KJV intent, others would have, for it it the "Evangelical gospel" to remove the truth of victory over sin and the perfection character that comes with the acceptance of Christ into the heart. The purity of heart is the issue and this is what is at stake in this verse. The NKJV removes an important aspect of what the author of the verse was teaching. This verse must be in harmony with the rest of Scripture and the NKJV removes an important aspect of the doctrine of the power of grace to "keep" one from sin. It is not what I want the Bible to say, but what the Bible teaches. The SDA Bible Commentary did a good job in this case of expressing the correct translation, in my humble unlearned opinion.

3) Can our "whole spirit and soul and body" be blameless now? Keep in mind that sin includes missing the mark (hamartia), regardless of intent. It also includes any kind of crossing over the boundary of God's law (anomia). IOW, is blamelessness something we are to have now and keep until Jesus comes, or is it something that we will get then?

If we follow your reasoning here, we shall have to remove our message we are giving to the world "Here are they that keep the commandments of God" because we cannot keep the law as you suggest because we cannot keep the law without "crossing over the boundary" or we are ignorant of parts of the law. God has told us that "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." God looks on the heart and the "missing of the mark" that you speak of is not what is important. God wants our hearts to be pure and blameless and this is the truth that is attacked in and out of the church. Grace can indeed keep us pure and blameless until the coming of Jesus, if we will keep our eyes upon Jesus. Is it possible to do this? The last group of Christians living when Jesus returns will surely do it, or they will not be taken to heaven, but I do not want to wait until the close of probation to manifest this purity or hope that Christ will keep me. He can do that today!

The first point there addresses the translation issue. The last two address the gospel of grace, and what it actually teaches.

And thus the reason for the concern with the NKJV. If their intent is true to what the churches teach from whence the translators come, then we understand why the change in this particular verse. I have been willing to believe that there were some translators who knew the gospel of grace even though their church teaching has rejected Bible truth. But, when we have this attitude towards the gospel of grace and see it as we do in the verse now being studied, we lose any hope of the translators being able to render the new translation in harmony with the truth.

Because the translators are human and can err, I am not going to throw out the NKJV based on one such verse, but you are getting to the issue of the intent of the translators having a bearing on the translation. It cannot but make a difference in how they translate the Scriptures, no matter how sincere they may be. From what I have seen of your ideas on the gospel, I am surprised that you disagree with our understanding of what it means to be preserved blameless unto the second coming. Purity of heart. You are at liberty to believe this for the Words of Jesus to the Pharisees included "blameless" when he pointed out that the priests were "blameless" when violating a command in the law. "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?" Matt. 12:5.   And Luke tells us that the parents of John the Baptist were "blameless". "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Luke 1:6. 

This may seem unimportant to some, but when a translation is intent on removing the teaching of the "purity" of the Christian heart, then the very foundation of the Bible, the power of grace to transform the life, to make a sinner a partaker of the divine nature is at risk. If the plan of salvation is not clearly revealed and the enemy of God and man is able to deceive the human race on the requirements for salvation, by placing a "new theology" in what many believe is the Bible, then we are going to reap a sad harvest from this Satanic success. It is not unimportant, but vital that the Bible we trust our very souls with, be as accurate as possible. Relying upon our human wisdom to correctly understand a dead language rather than taking the Bible as it reads will prove fatal to many in the future as it has been shown to be in the past when enemies of our faith came claiming to have a correct Word for us based on "their" knowledge of the original language. Too many innocent are led away from the truth when if they had resisted the temptation to look to the "arm of flesh" and had trusted in the Word of God and the aid of the Holy Spirit, they would have been kept from deception.

[aerasmus]

I am sorry the burden is on you to say that the NKJV is miss-translated, this verse I have shown, and Mimi have quoted as well can be translated either way.

I still would like to know, why you keep on arguing against the evidence. Asygo has made a great argument for the case to use at instead of untill, The SDA Bible commentary has confirmed that "at" is acceptable and that this would apply to the Great and terrible day of the Lord.

Furthermore, lets not forget that the letter was written to 1st Centuary Christians, and these Christians actually believed the Lord will come in their time, hence the reason why they were woried about persons falling asleep before the Coming of Christ(This is the reason why Paul encouraged them with the words in 1Thes 4)

So we see that Paul even thought Christ would come in His time, thus, it would not have been a problem for him to think of God keeping them at the Coming of Christ.

Also whilst we are looking at this verse, why don't we consider the context, is it lost in the Translation... Not at all, Am I going to throw the KJV out for the amazing number of mistakes and misstranslations, not at all... Likewise, the NKJV won't be thrown out, because the CORRECT translation of a word has been applied... Lets look at the whole pericope now:

16Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.
25 Brethren, pray for us.
26 Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.
27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy[a] brethren.
28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Footnotes:
1 Thessalonians 5:27 NU-Text omits holy.


Is the meaning lost in this translation, Is Paul still telling the people that the Grace of Christ will still be with them?
Paul is still saying that God should santify them completely in verse 23... Now if they are not sanctified then, they would not be able to be sanctified in the Day of the Lord... Thus, the sanctification is the process of preserving them blameless...

I cannot see the problem in this verse being translated as it has been, the translation is consistant to the Greek.

By the by, should we not say something against the fact that the KJV has added 'holy" in verse 27?

[Mimi]

Bless you, Aerasmus - you have a tender heart.

I largely accept Volume 7's explanation for this because of contextual considerations of the entire text; however, preferring "unto" as a translation of this Greek word, as it flows along with biblical concepts of continuing, abiding and keeping sanctification. That little word helps in keeping the flow.  As I read the NKJV (which I have and love and use), the word "at" stops me in my tracks and makes me ask questions about my salvation and what exactly God's grace can do with me or won't do with me. Still relatively new in the faith and ever learning deeper meanings to justification, sanctification, glorification, that simple little "at" can hang me up.

Now, while hung up on "at" with the NKJV, as a new student of the Bible, the thing that could fix me is to go back and diligently study the verse again, understanding what all was said prior to that word along with going to other translations to locate the best one.

You know the song we sing that has these words? "I know not why God's wondrous grace to me He hath made known, nor why unworthy Christ in love redeemed me as His own. But I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able, to keep that which I've committed ... Unto Him against that day?" That pretty much sums up this text in my mind.

It is not in me to quarrel over this, yet to give you my explanation why there is a preference for the KJV in this instance. 

[aerasmus]

Thanks Mimi... I think.

That is precisely why we use more than one translation to have full understanding, I do have a gripe with people knocking other translations, but when the KJV is proven not to be the perfect word, then a blind eye is turned... It is about being able to study the Bible in the common tongue... unfortunately some are trying to keep the word from the people...

[Richard Myers]

Thanks Mimi... I think.

That is precisely why we use more than one translation to have full understanding, I do have a gripe with people knocking other translations, but when the KJV is proven not to be the perfect word, then a blind eye is turned... It is about being able to study the Bible in the common tongue... unfortunately some are trying to keep the word from the people...

"when the KJV is proven not to be the perfect word, then a blind eye is turned."  Turned from what? Error? I don't think so. Show me a significant error in the KJV and let us see what we think about it. First, I believe they exist. Secondly, I am not bothered by insignificant error. Thirdly, when we find significant error, we not only acknowledge it, but we try and correct it as we are able.

The verse we are looking at in the NKJV, I have said, is not a good translation. It opens the door to problems. The KJV gives a better meaning of the truth. Now, if we disagree on the truth, then we may have a legitimate argument. And, I leave room that we may have different understanding of common English. I am not sure where you live, maybe not in America. If so, then I can see how we would look at English differently. But, I am not meaning to offend you, my dear brother. And, if you go back and re-read my posts, you will find that I am not disturbed that the NKJV has an error any more than I would be if the KJV did. We just have a different attitude towards the risk since the translators come from fallen churches. But, again, one verse does not make an argument against the translation.

The common language is a good argument if the translation is good. If Satan has inserted himself into the translation, then of course we would not want to feed it to anyone, would we? So, we use our common sense in taking care to not hurt the ones we love. We are listening to your defense of the NKJV. That there are concerns is to be expected and a good defense needs to be presented. You are doing so. Keep up the good work.

By the way, did you follow my response to Brother Arnold?  Do you see my concern about theology and how I differ with him in regards to purity of heart being "blameless"?

[asygo]

Brother Arnold, I understand they didn't translate it "until", they used "unto" which just fine.  I merely said that if the NKJV wanted a new and different word to make it easier to understand, which I think is foolish in this case, then they could have used until.

Bro Richard,

I understand what you are saying, and I'm familiar with the argument. But there are a couple of problems with it.

1) Paul did not mean "until" in that verse. If he did, he would have used "heōs" - the Greek word for "until." But he did not.

2) The KJV translators did not think Paul meant "until" in that verse. If they did, they would have translated it as "until" - which many other verses show that they had at their disposal. But they did not.

So, if the NKJV translated it as "until" (or any other translation for that matter), it would not be faithful to Paul's words, or to the understanding of the KJV translators. Even if "until" matches your theology, a translator's job is to faithfully render what was written, not to match a particular denomination's doctrines. The JWs made their own translation to match their theology, and that was a bad idea, not because their theology is wrong, but because that's an interpreter's job, not a translator's.

BTW, you should have a good handle on my theology by now. Disobedience is never acceptable as far as I'm concerned. And we are called to live godly lives today (which you'll hear in my latest sermon when I get around to posting it). Regardless, I don't see this verse as teaching that, and there are plenty of other verses that make the doctrine abundantly clear. However, there are also other verses that teach against the idea of sinlessness this side of glorification.

[asygo]

2) If one is blameless, can such a person say that he has no sin? Or can a blameless person have sin?

Well now, I think this is the issue and why I object to the intent of many new translations. If you had not brought up this slant to the translation that would indicate you are not happy with the KJV intent, others would have, for it it the "Evangelical gospel" to remove the truth of victory over sin and the perfection character that comes with the acceptance of Christ into the heart. The purity of heart is the issue and this is what is at stake in this verse. The NKJV removes an important aspect of what the author of the verse was teaching. This verse must be in harmony with the rest of Scripture and the NKJV removes an important aspect of the doctrine of the power of grace to "keep" one from sin. It is not what I want the Bible to say, but what the Bible teaches. The SDA Bible Commentary did a good job in this case of expressing the correct translation, in my humble unlearned opinion.

Bro Richard,

You say, "The NKJV removes an important aspect of what the author of the verse was teaching." Why do you think Paul's "intent" was to say "until" in that verse, considering that he didn't use the Greek word for "until"? Why do you think the KJV's "intent" was to say "until" in that verse, consider that they didn't use the English word for "until"?

You assert that the NKJV "removes" a particular teaching from the verse, though that teaching is found in neither the Greek nor the KJV. While I agree with the doctrine of victory over sin, putting it where it was not originally intended is still unacceptable. That is eisegesis.

Let's look at 1Jn 1:8 in the KJV: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Would you say that John was arguing against victory over sin? I would not. This verse is true, even though it does not teach the particular facet of truth that you're looking for.

So also, just because Paul didn't say "until" in that verse, and the KJV translators did not think he meant to say "until" in that verse, that doesn't mean that they were arguing against victory over sin. And just because I don't think that verse says "until" doesn't mean that I'm arguing against victory over sin. What I am saying is that not every single verse in the Bible teaches every single doctrine there is to teach. Every verse has limited scope and application.

So in this case, I think you are the one with the doctrinal bias, not the NKJV translators.

BTW, the KJV translators were Sunday-keepers, right? Even though they read Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 20, they still kept Sunday. Even though they knew Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law would be taken away, they still kept Sunday. Even though there have always been Sabbath-keepers all throughout history, the KJV translators still kept Sunday. Nobody here accuses them of bias, while every other translator of every other translation is biased by their fallen church's doctrines.

If we are honest with ourselves, we won't need to look far to find bias.

[Richard Myers]

So in this case, I think you are the one with the doctrinal bias, not the NKJV translators.

BTW, the KJV translators were Sunday-keepers, right? Even though they read Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 20, they still kept Sunday. Even though they knew Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law would be taken away, they still kept Sunday. Even though there have always been Sabbath-keepers all throughout history, the KJV translators still kept Sunday. Nobody here accuses them of bias, while every other translator of every other translation is biased by their fallen church's doctrines.

If we are honest with ourselves, we won't need to look far to find bias.

Well....yes, I admit to "doctrinal bias". Jesus Christ is the Son of God and any translator that says otherwise may not be biased, but he is wrong. Did I bring up "bias"? What I said was that many who translate the modern versions are in the fallen churches. So, I assume that ought to be of interest to those who rely upon the Bible for their truth. I did not say that "every other translator of every other translation is biased by their fallen church's doctrines." If I wanted the Bible translated, I would not go to the "experts" in the fallen churches. Were the translators of the KJV in churches that were called Babylon? If so, I missed it.

Even though I suspect that many translators from fallen churches do have a bias, I am open to seeing that a modern translation does not mis-represent the truth. I thought I was doing pretty good with the NKJV. I am not going to pretend to be able to translate the Herbrew and Greek on a word by word basis. So, my understanding will come from the translation being consistent with truth. Where it is not, then I will not be silent on what I see. I am not an expert and am not going to be without error when it comes to translating a verse. But, I Surely can see that there is a difference in meaning in today's language. "unto" and "at" do not come out being equal in the verse in question. So, if you like "at" then the KJV translators did a poor job in using "unto".  I am a little sensitive. Forgive me if I seem to be defensive of the Bible that has revealed the love of God from Genesis to Revelation and did so without denying God's justice. I have good reason to be concerned after so many years of not hearing the truth as it is in Jesus. I have found peace and comfort in my Bible.

[asygo]

So, my understanding will come from the translation being consistent with truth. ...  I am not an expert and am not going to be without error when it comes to translating a verse.

What you seek is an interpretation, not a translation. In that case, it is not the KJV that you want, because that is one of the best translations there is. You want something along the lines of what the JWs made for themselves, but from your perspective.

But, I Surely can see that there is a difference in meaning in today's language. "unto" and "at" do not come out being equal in the verse in question. So, if you like "at" then the KJV translators did a poor job in using "unto".

"Unto" works fine, unless you wish to make it mean "until." The fact is, if you continue to insist that the verse means "until," then you are the one who claims the KJV translators messed up, since they had "until" at their disposal, but failed to use it.

If they meant "until," they were adept with English enough to say "until." But they didn't. So if you are right that "until" is the way it should have been, then they messed up.

I have found peace and comfort in my Bible.

That's fine, if you have no problem that JWs find peace and comfort in their Bible. Make the Bible say what you want, regardless of what it actually says, and anyone can find peace and comfort.

But if we really believe the the fallen human heart is exceedingly wicked and deceitful, then we would not trust it in this matter. If peace and comfort was all I wanted, then I would have been better off following the flesh, and silencing the Spirit. But what God offers is peace and comfort in His objective truth, amidst the war against self.

[Richard Myers]

What you seek is an interpretation, not a translation. In that case, it is not the KJV that you want, because that is one of the best translations there is. You want something along the lines of what the JWs made for themselves, but from your perspective.

Brother Arnold, I guess it depends on what "it" is? You call my desire for a correct translation and interpretation. I am merely saying that God gave man His Word and expects man to accept the responsibility to correctly interpret that Word. I have seen in the NIV a perversion of the Word of God in such a manner that I say to others, do not use it. The NKJV appears to have a better basis. My only hope is to compare the verses in the NKJV with what I know to be truth. If there are multitudes of verses that push one away from the truth, then I will close the book and not use it. If you find that your ability to understand Greek is sufficient for  you, then fine. But, don't come to me and try to convince me that you can translate the Bible. It won't work. I will trust in my knowledge of Scripture to reveal error in translating. Jesus is the Son of God and any translation that says otherwise or tends to push one away from this truth will find no place in my home. Satan has been successful at entering into some of the modern Bibles. Not knowing the Hebrew and Greek and knowing that many are confused themselves about the gospel, I will not depend upon their translations of Scripture and I would suggest to others that they not either.

To make my point abundantly clear, I will not read or study from the JW "bible". I did not arrive at that conclusion based upon my understanding of Greek or Hebrew nor anyone else's. I can see it is a wrong translation or as you may say interpretation based upon what I know to be truth. Truth is consistent in Scripture. When you have a foundation of truth that is consistent and then all of a sudden you find a new "bible" that is not consistent, then throw it away. Satan is at work. This all supposes that one has Spiritual discernment. If one is not born of the Spirit, then he is in trouble. And that is why we discuss this. Many have not the Spirit for discernment. This is a warning to them. There are "bibles" out there today that will lead one away from the truth. Can God use them to teach? Yes, He can and will. But, it would be good to go those who are Christians, manifesting the fruits of the Spirit and seek counsel regarding what to do in regards to different translations. God sends teachers to help. He does not leave man alone to be deceived.

When the gospel is brought into the life, then man has a basis to judge the translations that are set before him. With the help of the Holy Spirit, it is possible to see the tracks of Satan as he attempts to set aside the power of God's grace to save. One thing I have learned is to beware of those bearing the Hebrew and Greek.  Too many of them are intent in teaching a false gospel. Having failed at persuading with the Bible, they then will translate for you. You have no basis for argument with them, not knowing language they speak. It would be like me coming to you with a Chinese Bible and telling you what it says. Will you trust me for your truth? Will you put your salvation in my hands? That is what many do when they trust in those who tell them what the Greek is saying.

This is a good opportunity to review the NKJV and see if it is in harmony with truth. Does it tend to lead away, or is it teaching our need of Christ and His power to save us? Is present truth perverted in it, or is it true to what we know to be truth? The KJV is very good. I am not trusting in my wisdom, but that which has been revealed in my Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, it is consistent and is confirmed by what I have read in the Spirit of Prophecy. If the NKJV does the same, then praise God!!

[Mimi]

The Bible, but not as you know it

By Stephen Tomkins

Bible Illuminated
The Illuminated Bible is not dissimilar to a copy of ID or Wallpaper*

Most people think of the Bible as a densely printed book with no pictures, but a version of the scripture that resembles a glossy coffee table magazine aims to change that. It's part of a wave of radical presentations of the Bible, including a manga version and a Lego gospel. But how do Christians feel about these attempts to spread the word?

It's the kind of magazine you might find in a doctor's waiting room next to Cosmopolitan or Reader's Digest. On the front is a pale face heavy with mascara. A flick through throws up striking images: urban flooding, a Nigerian abattoir, a girl eating noodles, a pooch in a limo.

It's only when and if you get round to reading the text that the incongruity strikes you: "Go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven." What kind of problem page is this?
   
BIBLE VERSION HISTORY
382: Jerome commissioned to tackle Latin Vulgate translation
1382: Wyclif's Bible, translations of Vulgate scripture into Middle English start to appear
1455: Gutenberg prints Bible using movable type
1522: Martin Luther translates New Testament into German
1526: Tyndale's English New Testament printed

Bible Illuminated is the latest attempt to bring the Bible into the modern world. In the format of a 300-page glossy magazine, it contains the whole text of the New Testament in a popular translation, with no chapter or verse numbers.

The images are by turns beautiful, violent, oblique and provocative - much like the book itself.

The text "She will have a son, and you will name him Jesus" is illustrated with a veiled Muslim. One verse has a photo of a pair of knickers draped over high-heeled shoes, sending you back to the passage to find out what it's really about.

The person behind this remarketing of holy writings is Dag Soederberg, a Swedish businessman. And contrary to expectations, he is not a Christian hoping to convert anyone. "I'm not on a mission from God," he explains. "I'm not particularly religious. I'm not telling anyone they should believe."
   
What he sees in the Bible is a profitable chance for people to look again at their world. "We are all affected by it," he says. "Morals are based on it, rightly or wrongly, government, laws. I'm saying to people: this is your history, read it.

"It's the most sold book in the world, but the least known. I want to take it off the shelves and put it on the coffee table."

It's the kind of thing that might provoke tuts and headshaking in the pews, one imagines. "Some people will feel it's dumbing down," says David Ashford of the Bible Society, an organisation that exists to "make the Bible heard". "How can it be the Bible when it's got Angelina Jolie in it?"

There is much more to this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7750842.stm

[JimB]

The person behind this remarketing of holy writings is Dag Soederberg, a Swedish businessman. And contrary to expectations, he is not a Christian hoping to convert anyone. "I'm not on a mission from God," he explains. "I'm not particularly religious. I'm not telling anyone they should believe."

At least he's honest.

And for those who might be tempted to think that this is a good thing.... what people don't understand is that the presentation of the truth and how it's delivered is almost as important as the message itself. When the truth is delivered in a cheap novel like way (knickers over high heels) people will not take it any more seriously than a cheap novel.

[KiwiYvonne]

When was the Bible first published....?

The Bible was first published in the mid-15th century when Johann Gutenberg invented a new form of movable type that eventually led to the mass production of books. The Gutenberg Bible was printed in Mainz, Germany, around 1454 or 1455, and it was the first major book printed in the West. About 180 copies were printed, and significant parts of 45 copies still remain.
However, the Bible was preserved and duplicated for many centuries before Gutenburg published it. The Books of the Old Testament existed before Jesus was born, and both He and His disciples called them "the law and the prophets"(Luke 16:16;John 1:45).
The Jews guarded the Old Testament Scriptures so carefully that if a scribe made the single mistake while making a copy, he had to destroy the entire manuscript! It was a life's work to make sure that every letter was just right,and curses were pronounced on any scribe who dared to alter God's Word in any way. This careful work paid off.The text of the dead sea scrolls,which existed before the time of Christ,is almost exactly like the versions we have today.
After Jesus died, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John penned their Gospels and Paul wrote his letters. Many years later, godly men began to assemble all of the writings from the time of Christ, which they referred to as the New Testament. By A.D. 300, all of these books have been compiled to form the Bible that we still use today.


How good are those newer versions and translations of the Bible? Are there any dangers in reading any of them?

Personally, say's Doug Batchelor, I think there are some dangers.Some of the new English versions are translated with a  very strong bias. A friend of mine told me that his wife was looking at one of those "New Age "versions of the Bible.She wasn't very happy with it and said she wanted to go back to the "old age" version! I prefer versions that stay very close to " textus receptus." I've done a lot of research on it and heard arguments for and against new translations.
 Let me explain a phenomenon....The King James Version of the Bible is public domain. So in order for publishers to make money by selling the Bible, they're required to say something different from existing versions in order to copyright, market, and even own it. For instance, you can be sued for copying and quoting the New International Version without permission, because the publishers own that version. They have a monetary motivation to come up with something different, but how many ways can you say the same thing in English?? I personally do not like the NIV very much. Paraphrases can be dangerous too.
The Living Bible, for instance, isn't really a translation, it's a paraphrase---it's dangerous when you start calling the mark of the beast  a tattoo.

 The Lord can work through any version and some are good for comparison. But when we start reading different versions of Scripture in church it starts to sound like Babylon.
So my favourite versions for accuracy and symmetry are the King James and the New King James. 

 

[Wally]

[
 The Lord can work through any version and some are good for comparison. But when we start reading different versions of Scripture in church it starts to sound like Babylon.
So my favourite versions for accuracy and symmetry are the King James and the New King James. 

 

Have you seen Walter Veith's lecture's, "Battle of the Bibles," and "Changing the Word?"  Fascinating material.  Well worth seeing.

[Mimi]

Earlier this year I listened to Veith's DVDs and listed what he found. Here is the link to that list given earlier in this topic:

http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.msg78411#msg78411

[KiwiYvonne]

[
 The Lord can work through any version and some are good for comparison. But when we start reading different versions of Scripture in church it starts to sound like Babylon.
So my favourite versions for accuracy and symmetry are the King James and the New King James. 



 

Have you seen Walter Veith's lecture's, "Battle of the Bibles," and "Changing the Word?"  Fascinating material.  Well worth seeing.

I grew up with the KJV Bible and
I have just obtained all of Prof.Walter Veiths CD's and am making my way through them. He is excellent...and am throughly enjoying thus far his CD's I have listened too. I do enjoy our 3ABN broadcasting also. I do have Veith's  "Changing of the Word" CD
 and the "Battle of the Giants"...but not the "Battle of the Bible"..Can you please let me know what number CD the Battle of the Bible ihappens to be? I have 37 of his CDs.

I am not interested in battling over the Bible with any here on the forum..been there and done that without success on both sides of the fence...but I will leave you with this..

I am reading  a religious book at present entitled " The Fruit of the Spirit...by John W.Sanderson.
I came across this interesting paragraph that gives 'food for thought' and would love to share this with you...
 
Robert Murray M ' Cheyne once preached on, "Why is God  a Stranger in the Land?" He said that one of the reasons was ignorance of the Word of God. Perhaps when we realize how desperately we need the Scriptures--there is no piety, no cultivation of the fruit, no saving of souls apart from the gospel message--then we will; become less encultured, more biblical and God once again will become familiar to us.
It will not escape our notice that the fruit of the Spirit is, after all has been said, a description of Jesus Christ. Who truly loves, has real joy, peace, patience and the rest, but the Son of Man?
But He has imparted this nature to us, and the fruit is ours as we look at Him.There is  a mysterious chemistry of the Spirit  by which we become like what our eyes see. This was illustrated in the Old Testament when men were delivered from death from a serpent's venom when they looked at the  brazen serpent Moses had placed on a pole in the camp. John tells us  that the complete fulfillment of that type will be when we see Him face to face--" we will be like him for we shall see Him as He is"(1John 3:2).
But the process is going on now."We all, with open face beholding as in  a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
(2 Cor.3:18).
The Christian must see his Lord! and the blessing of reading the Scriptures correctly is to see not mere words however true, but the Son of God Himself. " You search the Scriptures," He once reminded His contemporaries,"because in them you think you have eternal life, and they testify concerning me, and you won't come to me to have life"(John 5:39).

Jesus is here reminding us of a trap into which it is easy to fall: the error of reading the Scriptures but not finding Jesus Christ there in His glory. In a sense this was what the Judaizers were doing, and the Galations were in grave danger of doing it. They were studying the Scriptures but missing Jesus Christ. The prayer of every Christian must be directed toward avoiding  this trap.
 Our prayer must be--"Through-out the sacred page I seek thee,Lord; My Spirit pants for thee, O living Word."

[KiwiYvonne]

How about having  a personal friendship with Jesus? I want you to know Jesus in a practical, tangible way. I want your experience to be the same as that of an old preacher I once read about...

Saying the Psalm... It's all about Him. by Lee Venden.

A great actor had just finished giving a live performance, and stood receiving the standing ovation given him by a full house. The applause continued at great length, moving the actor to offer a gesture of gratitude for the audience's kind affection.
"Friends," he said, " as a way of letting you know how much I appreciate you, I would like to take selections from the audience and perform highlights from some of the works I  have performed."
Immediately there was a response for a portion of one of Shakespeare's sonnets, which the actor recited with passion and power. Then followed numerous other requests that he performed with rich expression--to the audiences tremendous delight. Finally someone said," How about the twenty-third psalm?" We'd love to hear you say the twenty-third psalm!"
The great actor paused for a moment, uncertain as to whether he remembered the passage.Finally he began, giving it all the color, shape and expression that he could muster. His voice was majestic as he spoke of the Lord as "my Shepherd" ; it softened "beside the still waters"; and almost broke into music with the "restored soul." As he ended "dwelling in the house of the Lord forever," the people rose to their feet again with applause and shouts of "Bravo! Bravo!"
As they were applauding, the great actor noticed someone in the audience he hadn't seen for many years. It was the pastor of a church that he had attended as a boy!. A rush of memories flooded in as he recalled the way that man had made the stories and teachings of Jesus come alive.
Impulsively he asked the audience if they would permit him to invite the old gentleman to the stage. As the old man shuffled to the front, the actor told of how Jesus had been made real for them in that congregation so many years ago. Turning to the pastor, he asked him if he would recite the twenty-third psalm again--for them all to hear.
With a different sort of power, the old man began to repeat quietly the words of Scripture--the way an elderly mother might recount some favorite story about her child. When he was done, every eye was overflowing.
All, including the great actor, were in tears.
After finally regaining control of his emotions, the actor said," Friends, I  RECITED  the twenty-third psalm, and you applauded. My beloved pastor PRAYED the twenty-third psalm, and you wept.
 
I want to tell you why you responded so differently.

I knew the twenty-third Psalm.
But this man knows the Shepherd."
 
"I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Jesus Christ my Lord...  I want to know Christ."(Philippians 3:8-10,NIV).

[Richard Myers]

It will not escape our notice that the fruit of the Spirit is, after all has been said, a description of Jesus Christ. Who truly loves, has real joy, peace, patience and the rest, but the Son of Man?
But He has imparted this nature to us, and the fruit is ours as we look at Him.There is  a mysterious chemistry of the Spirit  by which we become like what our eyes see. This was illustrated in the Old Testament when men were delivered from death from a serpent's venom when they looked at the  brazen serpent Moses had placed on a pole in the camp. John tells us  that the complete fulfillment of that type will be when we see Him face to face--" we will be like him for we shall see Him as He is"(1John 3:2).
But the process is going on now."We all, with open face beholding as in  a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
(2 Cor.3:18).
The Christian must see his Lord! and the blessing of reading the Scriptures correctly is to see not mere words however true, but the Son of God Himself. " You search the Scriptures," He once reminded His contemporaries,"because in them you think you have eternal life, and they testify concerning me, and you won't come to me to have life"(John 5:39).

Jesus is here reminding us of a trap into which it is easy to fall: the error of reading the Scriptures but not finding Jesus Christ there in His glory. In a sense this was what the Judaizers were doing, and the Galations were in grave danger of doing it. They were studying the Scriptures but missing Jesus Christ. The prayer of every Christian must be directed toward avoiding  this trap.
 Our prayer must be--"Through-out the sacred page I seek thee,Lord; My Spirit pants for thee, O living Word."

Yes, dear sister, this is just the point. We must read to know our Saviour.  Sadly, many do not. They are not under conviction that they need a Saviour for they do not see themselves as condemned. The false teachers have perverted the truth just as did the Jews in days of old. Today, they have even printed "bibles" that they use to help hide the truth, giving false assurance of salvation.

We have many topics that address the gospel truth. Please join us in this study. 2 Corinthians 3:18 is the best kept secret in the churches. Thanks for sharing it!