-
There is great concern with the increasing use within churches today of the modern "bible" translations, especially the NIV. For many years I have encouraged all that I can to use the King James version of the Bible. Let us discuss the situation and learn why the concern.
In His love and grace, Richard
[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 07-04-2001).]
-
Brother Richard
I will try and find some information about the N.I.V. It is available although I am not certain it is on the internet. I recall a book put out about it by a non-Adventist and also a recent tape from Elder Lawrence Nelson delt with it.
From memory it does leave much out and change other things. In Hebrews the NIV has Christ going into the Most Holy place where as the KJV has Christ only going into the Holy place. Even the NJKV is not as good as I thought it was.
Blessings
Clive
-
One of the difficulties of using any Bible translation is that we are always at the mercy of the translators. Perhaps it is safer, when one is not familiar with the original language, to use multiple translations in Bible study. There are many instances in which a word or passage is not clear, and the translator must make a decision.
In my own experience, the KJV eventually became impractical for daily use...and I grew up reading it. I imagine asking children to memorize from the KJV (as I did) is also impractical. English is no longer spoken in that fashion, and use of the KJV by children is one more way to make the Bible and its contents irrelevant to them.
This is not to say that the KJV doesn't have its grand moments. As a child, I memorized the story of Christ's birth from Luke 2 for a Christmas program. Today, when I hear that passage read, I recite the KJV in my head.
-
After many years of experimenting with many other versions, I am back to the good old KJV
-
Sister Kelly, I agree that the KJV is difficult at times, but many who do not like it, love Shakespeare and find no objection to teaching it in our schools even though we have been told not to teach it. It seems that when old English is not in the Bible the greatest critics of the KJV (the proponents of NIV) love it. They consider it very "sophisticated" and the best of English. How much better to teach the children when they are young.
I was one who bought NIVs for my friends and told them to get a Bible they could understand. I have repented. The KJV is beautiful and children can understand it when it is taught properly. When we use multiple versions for teaching, we have the problem of getting confused over just what the Bible says. We have multiple translations running around in the mind. Our great difficulty in understanding the Bible is not because of the language, but from a lack of spirituality. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
It would be good to have a modern translation we could trust, but I am afraid I cannot recommend one. So, as far as I can see, we are left with the KJV. The evangelicals use the NIV for good reason, it supports their theology. The liberals in our church tend to use the NIV, for good reason.
All this is just so much commentary, but we shall have to look at the NIV in detail so as to discern the deception being used.
In His love and grace, Richard
-
A few years ago now at a Camp meeting the Bibles were on special so I bought one, NKJV.
It was around the $60 mark reduced from over $100. I had done a good deal.
At Church listening to the preacher one day I heard him quote from John 5:24 NKJV
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life."
Then he went onto say, there you are, once you accpet Christ there is no judgemnet.At home I checked out the KJV, it say "...shall not come into condemnation..."
There is a big difference, at least to me there is.
This is just one of many examples where the meaning of the text is changed.
The NKJV is not as good as most people think.
Heb. 9:12
"...He entered the Most Holy Place once for all..."
KJV
"...he entered in once into the holy place..."
Where did Christ go? The Holy or Most Holy.
NKJV has done away with the Judgement and now the Sanctuary truth as we know it.
Blessings
Clive
-
I have done extensive study on this topic because I believe that Satan's last effort to confuse people about the true gospel will be to provide Bibles which pervert it, especially since he is now unable to keep the true gospel out of the hands of the general population.
I had the privilege of comparing the modern translations with a hexapla printed in 1846. This hexapla had the received text (Greek) in the top margin, with six New Testament translations in their original English translations, starting with the Wyclif. The comparison was astonishing because, with a little knowledge of reformation history, one could understand that the differences in meaning was directly linked to one of two theologies -- Roman Catholic or Protestant.
The modern translations were consistent with the Wyclif and Rheims translations. (Wyclif's translation was consistent with the RC meanings, probably because he translated from the Latin Vulgate since he had no Greek manuscripts available to him. The Turks had not yet invaded Eastern Europe, thus causing the migration of refugees who brought Greek manuscripts with them. And the Vatican had forbade the study of Greek prior to that time. In fact, Erasmus was in as much hot water as his contemporary, Luther, for even compiling the Greek manuscripts which are now known as the received text. Unlike Luther, Erasmus remained RC. But the damage had been done. Those Greek manuscripts were translated by Luther into German, and into English by Tyndale.)
There is no doubt in my mind that the modern translations are attempts to bring about a successful conclusion to the counter-reformation in this age -- the ecumenical movement.
-
Thank you, Brother Thiele. This will a blessing for me as we look into this subject. When I was converted I went to all of the different denominations looking for a church. I had purchased a paperback Bible and was ready to purchase a leather bound one. I asked a Baptist minister which version I should purchase and he said the NIV. I bought a beautiful leather bound NIV and began my studies, Bible marking, and memorization of Scripture from this NIV. Soon after I became convinced from my studies and questioning of Sunday theologians, mostly Walter Martin, that the fouth commandment had not been done away with. I began attdending a Seventh-day Adventist Church. It was not long before I realized God had entrusted His sacred oracles to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. One morning as I was reading my NIV I became very concerned as I realized the passage I was reading was leading me away from the truth.
At this point in my Christian experience the Bible was my counselor and I trusted it implicitly. To think that it could be wrong was something that was causing me great concern. I had been telling my friends to buy modern translations so they would not have to learn a foreign language, old English. It seemed that I had made a rather large mistake. I considered the condition of the Protestant churches and realized who had been doing the modern translations. Why should those who are called Babylon do a proper translation of the Bible? I purchased the dreaded KJV which had been translated so many years ago and closed my NIV never to open it again.
Since being led by the Spirit to use the KJV I have discussed the matter with many faithful Seventh-day Adventists and those of other faiths who believe as I do. Some have revealed what they have learned and it has been confirmed over and over that many of the new translations have taken great liberty in changing the doctrines once delivered to the saints.
There are quite a few books written on the subject, but I have neglected to read them because I already understand the issue and years ago made the decision to use the KJV. As I stated in my opening post, I encourage others to use the KJV, but have not made an issue in the church over it. The pastors in my local church have always used the KJV so there was never the need to make it an issue. The adult quarterly would quote from the modern translations sometimes more than others, but it had improved greatly under the new leadership beginning about eight or ten years ago.
With the introduction of the NIV to our children through "Gracelink" we have no choice but to explain the deception of the new "bible" to our people. May God grant us grace to do so in a manner that will help many to see the truth.
-
Hi Brethren:
Back in 1992 while I was at Wildwood, in their bookstore I came across a book called, "The S.D.A. Bible." This had just been revised in May, 1992.
It was written by Gar Baybrook and came from the press of Leaves-of-Autumn Books. It goes through each of the translations and how they got started, who started them and does a comparison of verses with the KJV to show how the truth is being distorted.
For those of us that are not scholars, this is a great book, only 197 pages long in a 8x11 format. Whether it can be gotten at Wildwood or Leaves-of-Autumn I do not know.
Since I use only the KJV and use no other version, I keep myself safe. Have been grateful for stumbling upon this book, I as many have done would have gotten one of these newer versions because of the easy reading.
Just to give you an example of the KJV and the NKJV of verse Matt 18:3
KJV:
And said, VErily I say unto you, Except ye "be" converted, and bcome as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
NKJV:
And said, assuredly, I say to you, unless you "are" converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
To "be" specifically points to an outside force upon you, whereas "are" can mean you turned of your own will or it could still mean being acted upon by the Holy Spirit, but it is not as convincing.
So little words can change whole meanings when it comes to salvation and this was just a change from the KJV to the NKJV.
Liane
-
I have done some work in comparing the modern translations with the translations in this 1846 Hexapla. If anyone would like me to send the file to them, please email me a request.
The file consists of two columns comparing important passages from scripture with each other. It is easy to see the difference in meaning as one sees the changes made to verb tenses, prepositions and their phrases, and the usage of synonyms (i.e. judgment, condemnation used in an earlier post).
-
I began this topic here in an SDA forum because of the connection with Gracelink, but in contemplating the nature of the topic, I believe it would be better to put the subject in the BOL forum. There is no need to make this a Seventh-day Adventist topic. It is something that we may discuss without bringing the church into the conversation. Is there any reason to not move the topic to the BOL forum?
Richard
-
I think it would be a great idea. It might help everyone to see what is happening to the Bible.
It could open the minds of many to what is happening in these latter days to the Word.
Liane
-
What few people know and understand that there is a dangerous marketing ploy used to sell the modern translations -- that they are "based" on the oldest manuscripts discovered and are therefore the most accurate manuscripts because they are closer in time to the original manuscripts.
The simple fact is that the oldest manuscripts were found in regions where the climate was conducive to preservation, and that those manuscripts were not being used.
The reason why the received text consists of the majority of manuscripts (which basically agree with each other) and that those manuscripts are more recent is because they were in regions less conducive to preservation by reason of climate, and because they were used (therefore wearing out more quickly). The simple fact that they agree with each other to a greater degree than the older manuscripts is because they were being copied with integrity and diligence.
The reason why the older manuscripts are fewer in number is because they were largely keep from the people (therefore not used much), and because the differences were recognized as heresy by the faithful. The oldest manuscripts found at the monastary in Sinai, and named for that monastary, were actually being used as tender to start the monks fires for cooking. Were they really so illiterate that they couldn't tell the importance of those manuscripts? Maybe. After all, the study of Greek had been banned by the Vatican throughout the Dark Ages. But that doesn't change the fact that almost all historians and translators recognize that those manuscripts were copies of the original work of an heretic who openly taught doctrine which was contrary to the scriptures.
It is important to obtain knowledge and understanding on this issue.
-
Those are interesting facts, where did you learn that about the Sinai manuscripts?
------------------
WendyL ~ Maranatha!:)
-
Wendy,
There are several books that have been written on the subject of the translations. I have at least four. I read about the Sinai manuscripts in those books. But I cannot give the source because we are in the midst of preparing to move. My wife packed them.
So, I will be able to give the source after our move.
-
I have always wondered why those who have a high concern for biblical accuracy do not study the original languages and use them in their study.
The language of the KJV may be the language of Shakespeare, but I don't read Shakespeare every day (I don't even read Shakespeare every year). And yes, spiritual things are spiritually discerned...my own spiritual walk gives evidence.
However, I find that I need a Bible that I can read well. Of course accuracy is a concern. However, accuracy in relation to the original text should be the highest concern. I worry when people compare one translation to another and say that one is better because it says what they want it to say. It is better to compare a translation to the original language in order to find out what the author meant to say.
-
Sister Kelly, this will be an interesting discussion as many things will come out that will benefit those looking for truth. As you say there are some that are not, but rather just want to "prove" what they already believe. You say "accuracy in relation to the original text should be the highest concern." Along this line I have two questions for you. What is the "original text"? And, do you read a second language? If so, then you understand one cannot accurately translate many passages word by word. One must know the language to translate accurately.
Yes, some can learn the language, but what do you suggest for those that do not learn Hebrew and Greek? You say "I have always wondered why those who have a high concern for biblical accuracy do not study the original languages and use them in their study." What Christian does not have a high concern for Biblical accuracy? If we are looking to the Bible as the rule of our life, we all ought to have a "high concern" for its accuracy. This the reason for this topic. Many are trusting in "bibles" that are leading them away from the truth. They are led to believe they have a Christian experience when they do not have a "living" experience. As you said, you can see the evidence in your life of Christ within, but many today deny this direct relationship and one of the reasons for believing such is they are placing their faith in the the theology of the new "bibles".
-
Richard,
Indeed we should all have a high concern for accuracy in our translations. I am well aware that it is impossible to directly translate one language, word for word, to another. That's why I find it dangerous to stay with only one translation. One can know the original language well, but still find oneself presented with choices at the point of translation.
Of course, it's impractical to expect all Christians to learn the original languages of the Bible. One way to get a clearer picture of the original writer's intent is to use multiple translations in study, with the understanding that all study should be led by the Holy Spirit.
I am not fond of the practice of taking a text in one English translation and comparing it to another, and then saying that the second translation is somehow inferior to the first because it is translated differently. I think it is an intellectually weak practice. Different could be wrong, but it could also be right. Without further investigation, a decision should not be made.
As for original texts...well, there's a question I'm not qualified to answer. However, I'm aware that no original texts of any part of the Bible still exist, so perhaps I should not have used that word. Even then, the "original" (can't quickly think of another word) texts used for translation are not identical to one another. Yet another place for translators to make a decision.
Lest you think that I think that we should throw all caution to the wind...my prayer partner recently converted from Catholicism. During her entire period of study, she used her Catholic Bible. In fact, she's still using her Catholic Bible. She confesses that she's attached to it. I suspect (since I know the people who led her through Bible studies) that she was told that God's Word is God's Word, and that the truth could be found in her Bible, too...which she did. She won't stay with it always...we've had a brief discussion about it already. But when it's time, she'll move on.
Kelly
-
Kelly,
In your last post, you said, "I am not fond of the practice of taking a text in one English translation and comparing it to another, and then saying that the second translation is somehow inferior to the first because it is translated differently. I think it is an intellectually weak practice. Different could be wrong, but it could also be right. Without further investigation, a decision should not be made."
Frankly, it is not a matter of "different" or "inferior". It is a matter of right or wrong. Why? Because it is a matter of doctrine, reproof, teaching, etc.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" II Timothy 3:16, 17.
It is Satan's studied effort to pervert the Gospel of Christ so as to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. One of the most effective ways to do that is to pervert the scriptures so that they appear to support false doctrine.
There are many texts that are perverted in the modern Bibles. The work of the reformers was to get Bibles into the common language of the people, so that they read for themselves what the Gospel is. Those who wrote the original manuscripts did so in the common Greek, not that used by the nobility and the highly educated. Believe it or not, while the KJV has some archaic words, that translation requires a lower reading level (between 4th and 6th grade) than the modern versions (between the 10th grade and college levels).
The KJV tends to use monosyllabic words where as the modern translations use polysyllabic words. Where the KJV uses words like "coasts" to convey borders, the NIV uses the word "environs". What does that mean? I read "environs" and think "environment"? Sounds like it is refering to ecology and weather, not borders.
But what is really of great importance is the fact that the Bible is intended by God to teach doctrine. Should I read a Bible that supports mariology (the RC doctrine that Mary is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix)? If so, the NIV and other modern tend to support that doctrine by the way it refers to Jesus' parentage (KJV - "Joseph and his mother"; modern versions - "his father and mother" in Luke 2:33). The modern translations refer to Mary in prophecy as a matter of position rather than condition (KJV - "a virgin shall conceive"; modern translations - "the virgin shall conceive" in Isaiah 7:14). The modern translations do what they can to slip immortality of the human soul into the Bible by changing something as simple as a preposition (KJV - "yet in my flesh I shall see God"; modern translations - "from" or "without" in Job 19:26, thus making the experience possible even while the worms are destroying the body, instead of the "after" mentioned in the KJV). Want to know how to make the Creation Sabbath expendable? In the KJV the fourth commandment refers to "the Sabbath" of the Lord our God. Modern translations change the article, a reversing of what they did to the Virgin of Isaiah, by stating that the "seventh day is a sabbath" as though it is one of many, anyone of which could be altered (compare KJV with modern versions in Exodus 20:10).
Folks, it is really dangerous to take a nonchalant approach to what you believe the Bible teaches. While it is possible to learn about Jesus, and what He did for us, it is very easy to be deceived into believing false teaching that could impair, even overturn, your salvation of which Peter warns in II Peter 2:1, 2, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."
-
Thank you, Brother Thiele. Very well written. Your examples of some of the passages are very good ones. I am always amazed as I hear of new ones. Amazed is not a very good choice of words, but it is rather amazing that such a deed could be done so effectively. The devil is very clever.
Sister Kelly, we would really be in big trouble if we started with the wrong "original" manuscripts. I like what our Brother Thiele has stated. We must know if the text is right or wrong, not just different. Of course it takes further study. This is the whole point as I see it. How does one know if the text is incorrect? It disagrees with correct doctrine. We seem to have a problem here. Which comes first the chicken or the egg? How can we know correct doctrine without correct texts?<P>I began my Bible study with the NIV. Using my NIV I discovered the Sabbath truth and I understood the truth of the papacy. The gospel was becoming very clear in regards to the power of grace to transform the life. There was a great advantage that was given me as I studied. I had no bad seed planted from Babylonian churches. My Christian experience had been interrupted when I was 13 and up until that point in my life I had only been indoctrinated with the ten commandments and the golden rule, I had been an Episcopalian.
There must be consistency in the Bible. We find this in the truth, but we do not find this in a lie. The new "bibles" have not been changed enough to make then consistent even in their untruths. When we read the sermon on the mount in Matthew, we have been given some very powerful statements of truth, even in the NIV, as I remember. This of course leads to contradictions in the NIV when passages are changed to teach "another" gospel.
As we progress through our study we shall see many examples of what I am speaking of. The evidence of a true interpretation is that it is consistent with the whole of the Bible. Two additional points that are very important. The Holy Spirit is the witness that it is true and God does not leave us without even human help. He protects His truth. He sends help through the human channel. One such help promised is that of modern day prophets. Do we have help of this nature? Hundreds of thousands of pages that are in harmony with the KJV, the Spirit of Prophecy. God has sent us help so that we might not err. He would send the angels if necessary to help us get a correct understanding of the Bible. It is His Word and He wants it protected.
-
David, I think you missed my point. How do you know if the KJV translates a text better than the NIV? Do you assume that the KJV translates it better? It's fine to feel safe in your assumption if you're certain that in each instance, the KJV is always better. I repeat...different could be wrong, but it could be right. You don't know until you've researched it. I believe that it's dangerous for us to make the Bible say what we want it to say, instead of what the writers originally intended.
I would put no final trust in any single English translation of the Bible, modern or otherwise. Do I stick to one version for my daily devotions? Yes. But for serious Bible study, I do not.
-
Hi Kelly,
I don't think he's assuming that the KJV is ALWAYS better but most of us have seen that the KJV is better MOST of the time. :)
------------------
WendyL ~ Maranatha!:)
-
Kelly,
I don't assume that the KJV is always better. There certainly are some human mistakes in it. But what is so amazing is that the modern versions retained most of those mistakes.
When you stop to think about, none of the Bible writers were perfect. They were human just as we are. One Gospel writer even was wrong in a source for prophecy he quoted (again, my materials are packed for our impending move, and I cannot give the precise example I would like to give -- but it is there).
However, there are some interesting points that should be pondered. The committee formed to do the Authorized Version (AV or KJV because it was King James who authorized the translation) was very open in the process of translation. They were very knowledgable of Greek. The preface in my NKJV states, in regard to the work done by that 1611 committee, "The precision of translation for which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled that monumental version of the Word of God to becaome the mainspring of the religion, language, and legal foundations of our civilization....The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the otehr hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted. In 1786, Catholic scholar Alexander Geddes said of the King James Bible, 'If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent.'"
Unfortunately, the committee that was formed in 1851 to revise the KJV did not meet with the same openess as the 1611 committee. Westcott and Hort formed that committee in 1851, and sought to obtain the same royal authorization as the KJV, without success. They met in secret. Dissenters were either forcibly removed, or were so disgusted by the process that they voluntarily left it. Certain rules for translation were changed. In 1881, they published and sold the first copies of their work -- the Revised English version. And when compared to the Jesuit sponsered Rheims translation of the New Testament, the wording and phrasing was almost identical. Westcott and Hort, though officially members of the Anglican Church, were very sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. One even wrote of praying to a Pieta, and wishing the experience obtained by that act could continue forever. One even wrote of seeking out and associating with anyone who desired to see a one world government.
What makes this history so amazing is this simple fact: From 1611 to 1881, the British Empire was growing (with the exception of the loss of one of her colonies -- the United States of America), and with that amazing growth in global influence the Gospel of the KJV went to all the world. Since 1881, the British Empire entered into stagnation and decay -- from which it has never fully recovered.
Never lose sight of the big picture: there are two main lines of Bibles -- the true Protestant Bible, and the Ecumenical one. If the Gospel of your Bible is leading you to accept the Pope as your final authority on Doctrine -- with all its changes to support papal beliefs of mariology, immortality of the human soul, and makes the Creation Sabbath a mere disposable Sabbath -- then it is leading you to accept and approve an Ecumenical Kingdom which is not the Kingdom of God.
-
"When you stop to think about it, none of the Bible writers were perfect. They were human just as we are."
That is quite true, on both accounts. But when we read the Word of God, our focus (or concern) should not be upon the imperfection of Its writers. The Bible tells us: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). Where the certainty of the Scriptures is concerned, our focus should be upon the fact that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible writers were indeed human, just as you and I, but what they wrote was given unto them BY GOD HIMSELF. This is why it is the Holy Bible. THEY WERE ONLY INSTRUMENTS through whom God chose to carry out His Purposes of presenting to mankind the Great Principles of Salvation. When we focus on any other fact, I am convinced we give the devil an opportunity to gain entrance to our minds with thoughts that are detrimental to our spiritual health. This is why we are to demonstrate COMPLETE FAITH in the Word of God in spite of the minor discrepencies in translation that are contained therein. We are admonished to GUARD VERY CAREFULLY the avenues to our minds and not give the enemy of souls an opportunity to gain entrance and PLANT THE SEEDS OF DOUBT. He only needs the smallest of openings to wedge his way in with his objective being for all of us to lose our souls ANY WAY HE CAN GET US TO DO SO.
M.A.
-
Brother Thiele, thank you again for the informative post. Could you elaborate on your statement "there are two main lines of Bibles-- the true Protestant Bible, and the Ecumenical one." I commented on Sister Kelley's post when she spoke of the importance of the "original text". I agreed that we must start from a proper place. We (I) need to better understand the history in this respect. Please share what you know regarding the manuscripts that have been used. I have heard some, but now we must know.
Richard
-
According to my readings of several researches done on this subject by both Adventist and Non-adventist authors, there are basically two different streams of the New Testament Manuscripts: Western (Alexandria to Rome to Roman Catholic Vulgate to Revised Version of Wescott and Hort to Modern Translations) and Eastern (Syria to Constantinople to Waldenses and Gallic Churches to Reformation to KJV),
From the Eastern tradition of very strict copying endeavors came what is genreally know the Textus Receptus (Received Text) which was used as a basis for the KJV. From the Western tradition of lax and intentional corruption of orginal texts came both what are known as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus was secreted in the Vatican Library for centuries and the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by a German textual scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf in a trash can of an ancient monastery - they were being used to light the monastery's ovens.
The obvious problems with the two Western manuscripts are that they contain many disagreements and repeated alterations. Here are some quotes from the textual scholars on this regard:
"Dean Burgon pointed out that in the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no fewer than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and pen to the extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-grade importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (from True or False, page 77 - David Otis Fuller)
"Dean Burgon went on to point out - In the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received Text in the following particulars: It omits at least 2,877 words; it adds 536 words; it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergencies. But the Sinaiticus manuscript is even worse for its total divergencies in the particulars stated above amount to nearly 9,000." (from True or False, page 78 - David Otis Fuller)
Another scholar states that these two corrupted manuscripts are found to disagree with each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone: "I have tabulated the major part of these differences between X and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities in each side. They amount to Matthew - 656+, Mark - 567+, Luke - 791+, John - 1022+ for a total of 3,036." (Codex B and Its Allies, vol 2, Herman C. Hoskier).
The above reason is why you don't find verses such as Matthew 18:11 and mark 16:9-20 in the NIV. Some of other missing verses from most modern translations are: Matthew 17;21, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7.
I have previously listed some of different translations between the KJV and other modern translations (which have significant impact on our Adventist understanding of the Gospels) in one of other threads on this forum.
Justin
[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 07-08-2001).]
-
When we consider the unsavory nature of most modern translations, we should look at how the mother of all modern translations - The Revised Version of 1881 - came about.
The revisers of 1881 originally only intended to update archaic words and some places where the KJV did not provide the best translation. But two very unsavory characters - Bishop B. F. Westcott and Professor F. Hort - subverted this original purpose by retranslating whole thing based on the corrupted Western manuscripts. They acted in very manipulative, secretive and underhanded manners to accomplish this turn-about. When someone does this to accomplish whatever goals one may have, we need ask many why's and be careful of their end-products.
Also, read the following quotes from these two "Christian Scholars" and judge for yourself who they are:
"I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues." (Letter written by Hort to John Ellerton, recorded in Life of Hort, vol 1, 78)
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be comtemporary with. . .My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period." (Letter to John Ellerton, dated April 3, 1860, Life of Hort, vol 1, 416).
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results...I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry...But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood...But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist...I believe that Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion; and I remeber shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." (Hort quoted in Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 155).
"After leaving the monastry, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill...Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a Pieta [a statue of the Virgin and the dead Christ] the size of life...Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Westcott wrote from France to his fiancee, 1847, Life of Westcott, vol 2, 50)
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." (Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson, November 17, 1865)
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890).
Here you have the true colors of these apostized pretenders. it should make your choice about the Bible versions easier. It was so for me.
Justin
[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 07-08-2001).]
-
Thank you, Brother Justin, this may help our Sister Kelly as she understands the importance of the "original" text.
-
To respond to your question, Richard, would be somewhat redundant since Justin has provided ample facts based on the differences in the Greek manuscripts.
My studies have led me to much of the same reading as Justin quoted. But my deepest study has been in the comparison of the English translations from the time of Wyclif to the present.
Again, I would invite any who have in interest in seeing those comparisons to request the MSWord document I have prepared. In this document you will see why the only Protestant Reformer to translate into the English language the New Testament the same words and phrasing as the RC Vulgate is Wyclif, who was not a Greek scholar, since the study of Greek was forbidden in RC controlled Western Europe at that time.
The Rheims translation into English was done by Jesuits during the Counter-Reformation period. The work was to intended to counter the versions that Luther and Tyndale had provided to their people in their respective tongues.
-
Brother's and Sister's. I just had to put my two cents in that I personally read the Revised Standard when studying...However, for a all-round study of the Bible, I prefer the KJV. :)
I am particularly interested in the comparing of scripture in a number of versions...It is possible (IMO) to sometimes get a much larger picture or concept regarding a particular study using multiple versions verses using the original Hebrew or Greek.
Do you think it really matters to the honest and dedicated *truth seeker* which Bible one uses...Isn't God big enough to use what ever version we pick-up to clearly and simply reveal Himself to that person...We must all be brought to the final decission as to whether or not we wish to do it God's way, or do it our own way...
Your brother in Christ.
-
Brother Herbert,
I would like to have a non-Adventist reply to your post:
"Can someone (truth seeker) get saved if one is using a bible other than the KJV? Yes! Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture. It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and 2 Timothy 3:16. It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See 1 Peter 2:2. It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture. It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing." (Samuel C. Gipp, The Answer Book, p 101)
If I've determined that most modern translations were defective and based on the perverted originals, I do not see any point in wasting my limited time in referencing them along with the KJV. It would be a poor management of the time resources given to us by our God.
Justin
-
Can a seeker of truth be saved by that truth gleaned from the modern versions? Can one be lost because of the subtle falsehoods promoted by them? This is what the apostle Paul had to say about the Devil's efforts to prevent us from Salvation.
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2Cor.11.3-5
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2Cor.11.13-16
So if anyone thinks that it is safe to cherish the modern versions above the KJV, then let them take heed that Paul wrote of Satan using "any means" by which he may deceive the very elect. It is not merely by the oral verbage that deceivers teach falsehood. Especially those deceivers who base their final authority on the traditional theology taught by "church fathers" and wish to support that tradition in Bibles which are designed to bring Protestants back to the Roman Catholic fold.
It is a fascinating deception, because the Reformation has its roots in the the famous cry, "Sola scriptura!" Meanwhile, the counter-reformers are laughing all the way to the bank.
-
"...the Bible is a weapon in the hand of a Christian...."
Yes, it is a weapon because it is described as a two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). But it is first a WEAPON FOR SELF-CORRECTION, then one for GENTLY pointing others to It in a Christlike manner as a Guide for everyday living . It IS NOT for the purpose of "beating one another over the head" with what is written therein as is done in too many instances today by those who profess to be "Christians(?)"
M.A.
-
Kind Sir's and Brethren. How I would like to take you through a study in translation and interpretation. :) There are so many variations which may or not be used; considerations of the time and conditions in which these things have been written...Are there really any of us who have this much expertise? :)
Additionally, I have flinched at the term of the *Bible being our Sword* in-as-much as the
greater majority of those who use this phrase are simply using their Bible's as clubs...
More tomarrow. That is if I'm not pinged for my directness? :(
-
With reference to Bible translations, what I have learned over the years is it is not so much a particular translation that is the problem. The problem lies in spending wholesale amounts of time focusing upon minor discrepencies that can be found in just about any Bible translation--including the King James Version.
As I have stated before, no Bible translation is perfect. There are questions concerning the accuracy of certain words, phrases, and some dates in practically all translations. Some reasons for these discrepencies lie in the fact that translations are made from existing copies of the original Greek and other manuscripts, and there is often disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of some words, phrases, and dates and their contextual relationship with other Scripture. Another reason is because these translations are made BY HUMAN BEINGS who often make mistakes in their understanding of these documents. But the bottom line is THERE IS NO MISTAKE in the principles of salvation that lead to eternal life that are contained in Scripture. Consequently, some scholars, theologians, and laymen end up wasting precious time by spending most, if not all of it, focusing upon those points of contention that have little if any relevance at all to being saved.
M.A.
-
The history of the Bible is a paradox. Yet when you review that history you can see a common thread throughout the history of mankind. The history of the Bible goes from being in hands and eyes of only a few men, who had and do have this great opportunity to serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Throughout history the flock were to trust that the color and texture of what the Bible words say were placed in the hands of a very few. What these few men said of the Bible rested the very souls of mankind. Yet Christianity prevailed and the message of Jesus has gone around the world.
Again, in the hands of a few men, we now have translations of the Bible which are being presented to the public as the true word of God and again the flock are to trust the color and texture of the words present in which they are placing their very souls in these men hands. And yes our Jesus as our Lord and Saviour prevails on.
No matter what Satan and men may do, God can do that which will preserve the truth in all its fullness. No matter from what part of the world you live, Jesus is getting out the good news, that there is a better way and He is the way, the truth and the life for all mankind.
Liane
-
Whenever I stand before congregations, or for personal Bible study, I use the King James Version of the Bible. I have on occasion used The Living Bible from the desk but discontinued that practice because the standard translation most people have in their possession and bring to church is the KJV.
M.A.
-
Brethren. For the past week or so, while working on a paper, it suddenly occured to me that perhaps [since King James was Catholic] there is too strong a connection to the Catholic view of "righteousness by works"?
Discussing this possibility with other's, it has been mentioned that one almost need not even be able to read Hebrew or Greek now-a-days; as, there are enough translations that if one were to read a passage, in context, from all or as many as possible; one could with prayer, weighing the evidence, and using some reason, quite likely make a pretty good assessment over all.
My point is this. Believing as I do regarding the Catholic slant in the KJV, is it also possible that many of our more forensic views regarding such subjects as the "keeping of the law"; our "duty in terms of our neighbor"; and even regarding our personal relationships with God?
I personaly believe that the primary cause of sin was Eve's, and subsequently Adam's dis-trust in their creator. Had He hidden something from them? To take this one step further, if we refer to contemporary views of a love/trust model, then a view of perhaps more healing could be seen. We are all walking wounded...
Your brother in Christ.
-
Hi Herbert:
This is my understanding of the manuscripts and their history. I will go further later.
Waldensians to Old Latin, to Syriac, to pure text, to the KJV.
The Code B Vaticanus to Eusebius, to Jerome to the tainted test to code A sinsiticus, which is known as the Latin Vulgate became the Catholic Bible.
I will outline this with more detail and come back and post.
Liane
-
Brother Herbert, I agree that we are all "walking wounded", but Christ can make us whole. Amen? Amen! The law is the "school master" that leads us to Christ. This is not "Catholic", it is the truth by my testimony and that of the disciples and prophets. The later versions being published today tend to remove the need to keep the law. The "evangelical gospel" has been introduced in the new "bibles".
Do not let some who do not know Christ as Saviour bring reproach upon the KJV. Yes, there are "legalists" beating many over the head with it, but this does not mean that the Bible is to blame. Consider what is being said by those who are posting in this topic.
Have a good Sabbath! :)
Richard
[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 11-18-2001).]
-
"I personally believe that the primary cause of sin was Eve's...."
Please share with us the reason(s) why you believe the above.
M.A.
-
Brother's and Sister's. I believe that because I mis-stated my question in the beginning; and, because I personally have preference to the Revised Standard; I really don't wish to make an issue of this at this time...It seems that the response herein is quite different from the trian-of-thought being discussed between myself and others.
Is it possible to simply "bow-out" on a thread? :)
Sincerely your brother in Christ.
-
We appreciate your comments and look forward to you keeping us "honest" in our obejections to many of the modern translations, Brother Herbert. :) Keep reading and let us know when you have a concern.
Richard
-
Hello, I just want to make a short comment to this topic. The debate concerning King James version versus other bible translations, is as you may know a debate going on particularly in english speaking countries.
In my country we are blessed with an translation of the english king James version. But many places KJ is unknown to people. I don't beleive that this is a hinder for people to get to know the truth. The psalmist says that the SUM of Gods word is truth. It is very difficult to go astray if one take all the Bible into account when making up ones beliefs.
25 years ago there came out a new translation of the Bible here in Norway. It is still regarded as a very good and solid translation. But many conservative christians became worried because the translation clearly revealed the true nature of man. As a (indirect) result of this, a new Bible translation came out some years ago, which make use of words that would make a superficial reader to suppose that the Bible teaches an eternal burning hell. But even if some words are changed it is still possible to see the clear truth about the nature of man.
I beleive that the "fixed" translations is primarly dangerous for the superficial readers.
Secondarly I see a danger with these fixed translations which is dangerous for all Bible readers. By fixing some words and verses, the Bible loses its coherence, which is one of its strongest arguments for being what it claims to be. It becomes contradictory because some verses reveal opposite meaning.
Allan F
-
Interesting points, Brother Allan. I changed to the KJV because I saw I was being led away from the truth with my NIV. The Bible does not contradict itself. We want to find the very best translation we can get. Yes, we can get truth out of all "bibles", but the devil is at work with some and he takes a lot of truth and mingles in a little error that cannot be discerned by many and he has led the mind astray. It is an important subject and with the ease of printing we shall see more and more of Satan's effort to get us to believe a lie.
Richard
-
After reading the entire thread in one sitting (whew!), I have some thoughts to share:
I grew up a catholic in a spanish speaking country, and as such had no knowledge of the KJV controversy until sometime after I came to the USA (which was several years after becoming an adventist). I mention this because very often this issue is centered around a specific version (KJV) in a specific language (english), which was developed in a heavily calvinistic protestant enviroment. As Mrs White often says, the time, place, and circumstances must be considered when trying to interpret something. Many people from other countries do not view this issue in quite the same light.The opossing view must be considered. I now prefer the KJV (when reading in english), but it took me several years of careful study to come to this preference, and even then I constantly refer to Strongs definitions and Interlinear greek & hebrew concordances. I have found from personal experience that one cannot bring the arguments used in this thread to most any adventist minister trained in our seminaries, and be given the time of day, so to speak.
I feel most of the arguments used when discussing this issue are bound to produce more heat than light, not because of their lack of merit, but because of not taking into careful consideration the church enviroment most of us find ourselves nowadays. So, as one who agrees with much of what has been said, I would like to propose basic points on which we can reach and persuade people more easily, specially when the people do not share any special love for the KJV:
1-The easiest issue on which to find agreement is the translation issue. I have found it much less troublesome to get a sympatetic hearing when talking about translation, specially when speaking with people who speak several languages, such as myself (spanish, english & some french). Referencing with a good interlinear Bible or extreme literal translation (such as the Green version) is the easiest way to demostrate some of the issues involved. This reduces the choices to only a few versions out of the miriads available.
For example, I point out that having a passage translated unambiguously (NIV) as opposed to being ambiguous (KJV, NAS) is not necesarily a good thing. For this I give examples from modern languages which I know, to demostrate that even if the unambiguous is used in translation, the original ambiguos intent can be lost (in other words, both meanings can be intended). Plus, the original context often makes clear why the passage is best left ambiguous. In addition, if a passage is ambiguous, it is the job of the interpreter, not the translator, to determine what a passage means.
2-When dealing with manuscripts, I find there is a valid Biblical principle often ignored: at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established (Deut19:15). That is, more witnesses, rather than fewer, should establish the issue. Realizing that helped me sort out the huge jumble of scholarly arguments out there.
3-I find that this issue is pretty much like the evolution issue: Biblical scholars know the deficiencies and faults of Wescott and Hort and their theories (just as scientists know about Darwin's shortcomings), but they remain very much attached to the principles which originated the modern versions. This (spiritual?) blindness is a good part of why it is not a simple matter to settle, and why it is important not to use unpersuasive arguments. The KJV is better, but not because is it quasy-inspired. Some people criticize the reformation-based spanish versions, because they are not identical to the KJV, which I think is ridiculous.
4-Personally, I try not to dwell too much on the missing verses issue, because I find it can overwhelm the average believer, specially the new believer. This is because most people don't understand the nature of inspiration, and most new believers join the church with the impression of literal, verbal inspiration of every word and syllable in the Bible, as opposed to the writers themselves being inspired). This can shake their faith to the very foundation.
I think this an advanced believers issue, right up there with the Sanctuary, state of the dead, etc., and not nearly as important as those. In other words, I may impress a new believer with the importance of using a more literal translation, and suggest the KJV, or some other if they don't like that one. But the manuscripts and missing verses I would save for much, much later.
The problems with the NIV I feel have much less to do with the missing verses and much more to do with the manner of translation (paraphrase heavily slanted with calvinistic theology, plus an apparent desire to be more ecumenical, at the expense of inspiration).
In short, to me it is not a clear cut right versus wrong issue, but rather right principles versus wrong principles. As all know, principles do not make all things clear cut at every level of the issue, but leave some gray areas.
$0.02
Domingo
[This message has been edited by Domingo (edited 11-16-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Domingo (edited 11-16-2002).]
-
Brother Domingo, I appreciate your comments and think there is much good advice in them. The Holy Spirit showed me something in my NIV as a relatively new Christian and I closed it and got my KJV. I never really discussed the matter because I was not in a position to comment on other versions, not having studied the matter. Over a period of time I have become more familiar with some of the new versions and believe they do indeed slant their translations. I then consider who did the translations and am not surprised.
The reason for having started this topic here is the push for the NIV in the church. Your comments about other than English Bibles is very good. It would be foolish to condemn any translation without having personal knowledge of it.
The reason why I went to the KJV was because of the age. I wanted something not produced by Babylonian churches. I have been very happy with the KJV even with the archaic language problem. Which is interesting because I hated Shakespere in school.
After using it for many years I have grown accustomed to it and enjoy it now. Yes, I would prefer a modern translation that was accurate, but I am content. I trust the version.
Thanks for your input. I enjoy your posts.
Richard
-
Some reasons I do not use the NIV is do to the fact that many of the times the leave out "endearments" so to speak. Words that point to Christ lovingly as our Saviour. In many cases it is left such that one could read it and believe it meant anyone they wanted it too. Thus the idea of being a people friendly Bible. Anyone can read it and think it is talking about whom ever they want it to be. In many verses it can be taken that way. Where in the KJV it tells you just who it is talking about and in loving ways.
Also there are some texts that are left out all together. They may have reasons for this as they claim they do, however, I am feeling much closer to the Lord and knowing Him better through the King James Version. I am comfortable with it and believe in it. I don't see anything wrong with checking out different translations as it does help sometimes. but I lean on the basic ways of the KJV.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Glass
-
Ditto to Domingo's post. I just finished reading this topic (all 4 pages).
SOme time ago Brother Curt sent me some info on the different Bible translations. I checked them all out and put together a sermon called Search "Which" Scriptures. Here are some of the things I discovered.
Matthew 18:11. KJV says this :
"For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost." What does the RSV and NIV say?
(BBE) (OMITTED TEXT)
(CEV) (SEE 18:10)
(GNB) OMITTED TEXT
(GW) (OMITTED TEXT)
(Weymouth NT) OMITTED TEXT
YES -the text is MISSING!
Surely this is an important doctrine, isn't it?
After discovering that missing text, I wondered how many others were missing or changed also!
Here is what I discovered!
Acts 8:37
(BBE) (OMITTED TEXT)
(CEV) (SEE 8:36)
(Darby) (OMITTED TEXT)
(GNB) OMITTED TEXT
(GW) (OMITTED TEXT)
(World English Bible) (OMITTED TEXT)
(WNT) OMITTED TEXT
(KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Is this an important teaching acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God? I believe so!
For me it is difficult to understand why the various versions agree to omit the testimony of one of the Apostles!
1 John 5:7
RSV And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
(BBE) And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.
(CEV) In fact, there are three who tell about it.
(GNB) There are three witnesses:
(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Another doctrine which identifies Jesus as God,
" the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end".
HOWEVER, when we read Rev 1:11 in the "NEWER versions", this teaching is missing TOO!
Thus a well-known attribute of Jesus is taken away.
When we compare the various verses, we discover that KEY DOCTRINES are MISSING-doctrines like " The Seventh-Day Sabbath" , "The Sanctuary", "Christ's Second Coming" , "SOP", "The Mission and Divinity of Jesus" , "Judgment" and " Salvation"!- All the pillars of faith which our pioneers adhered to and the early Reformers -ALL have been changed by these "new versions" to accommodate the Global Community.
MY conclusion is this as recorded in Amos 8:10-11
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only [son], and the end thereof as a bitter day.
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:"
We are there. The "other"versions are inaccurate and not to be relied on for teaching doctrine.
I majored in Theology at La Sierra University (Riverside, Cal) , and the prime textbook Bible was RSV. Quite frankly, I was shocked when I disovered that important verses were missing which pertain to our Historic Adventist doctrines.
It wasn't until years later that I discovered the huge difference between them.
Laurie
-
I have not read all the posts. But from my study and expierence we do need to be careful about which version we choose.
However, as a pastor once told me, we need to be careful not to make a particular bible version our "god". I have met some people who seem to have gone in that direction.
If one is worried that a particular version is "tainted" then a study needs to be done to find out which original mauscript is more reliable. Textus Receptus, The Majority Text, or the Critical Text. There are a few mistakes in ALL versions. One needs to be sure about a few things before digging in their heels on this issue.
-
We are not talking tainged here, we are talking deleting and changing meaning. When a Bible deletes or changes any meaning in a text then the Bible cannot be trusted is the way I look at it.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Glass
-
Amen, Jim. I remember hearing about a famous evangelist that taught that the world had been populated prior to creation week. He used as his evidence Genesis 1:28 from the King James Version: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...".
He pointed out that if the command was to "replenish", then there must have been a prior population that had been destroyed and needed to be replenished.
In fact, the Hebrew word translated "replenish" in the KJV simply means "fill". It is translated correctly in every version I've ever seen other than the KJV, and it was corrected in the NKJV as well. It always pays to check the original language, and not to consider any one translation "infallible".
-
Let us examine DANIEL 3:25
(RSV-Revised Standard Version) "He answered, But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth, is like a son of the gods."(NIV) "He (Nebuchadnezzar) said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
(ASV-American standard Version) " He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods."
(CEV) "But I see four men walking around in the fire," the king replied. "None of them is tied up or harmed, and the fourth one looks like a god."
(GNB) "Then why do I see four men walking around in the fire?" he asked. "They are not tied up, and they show no sign of being hurt---and the fourth one looks like an angel."
(KJV) "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
Are all Bible versions the same?
Are all churches the same?
What does Ellen G. White say about this topic?
"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed." EWp220-221
I rest my case!
Laurie
[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 11-21-2002).]
-
That's very interesting, Laurie. But EGW is talking about the Bible in general. Not a specific version. Read the quotation you posted. It does not say the King James Version.
There seems to be an assumption that EGW used only the KJV. But if you look at her use of Bible quotations, you will see that she also used other versions herself. She also quoted from the Apocrapha on occasion. What does that mean?
In Daniel 3:25, the Hebrew word could be translated either way: "God" or "god". What difference does it make? It isn't a doctorinal statement. It is an accurate utterance of a pagan king. It is left to the reader to understand the true identity of the fourth person. Clearly, it is Christ. But did the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar KNOW it was Christ? Would it shake my faith if his exclamation showed that he did not know the exact identity of the fourth person, that he merely knew that it was not a mortal man?
I believe that the KJV is the best single English translation ever compiled. But I do not base my opinion on some of the reasons I see provided in this thread. There is nothing wrong with using multiple translations and it is very helpful to utilize a greek/hebrew cross reference as well, in my experience.
There are many legitimate judgement calls in translating. I remember one verse which is often cited in discussions of original sin. Are we born already guilty or merely with a propensity towards sin that all men have subsequently chosen? The Hebrew word is "adam". Adam is the word for "mankind", and it is also the name of the very first man. Now which is the correct meaning? It is a judgement call.
We need to get into the habit of looking at the scriptures as a whole. Using one text to shed light on another. I believe that you can use most translations and still come to the truth if that process is foremost.
-
Agreed Randy, but if you check on what version EGW used 99% of the time it was KJV. In fact, if you check on her own use of other versions, I believe she only used other versions 5-10 times during her whole ministry,
Laurie[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 11-22-2002).]
-
Agreed Laurie. But it shows that she owned and used other translations besides the KJV. Remember, how many other translations were available in her day? Most of the ones we have access to did not even exist back then. And consider how English usage has continued to drift in the intervening 100-160 years. Some people even have trouble with EGW's use of english these days: hence the updates recently produced.
The fact is, many poeople who set off on their initial read-through of the Bible do not make it through the KJV. I have seen it time and time again. When I get them a modern english translation they are very greateful. Later on, they come to love the KJV. When I do Bible studies I often use Phillips New Testament. It is wonderfuly readable, and when I have checked the meaning verses the Greek, I have found it to be accurate, though my knowledge of Greek is limited.
I have personally observed the benefits of having someone understand what God says versus struggling with the sometimes archaic language in the KJV. Sometimes I think we lose perspective on that point.
-
Brother Randy!
I guess my point is this! Show me from the other translations what Matthew 18:11,Acts 8:37,1 John 5:7 they're missing!! Look at Isa .14;12(NIV "fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!) and
RSV "fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of dawn.HOW MANY "DAY STARS" are there? 2? Lucifer and Jesus? I think not...
Is the morning star Lucifer? Rev 22:16 suggests otherwise. Even the RSV says "I, JESUS have sent my angel to tell you with this testimony for the churches. I AM the root and the offspring of David, the bright MORNING STAR.
2 Peter 1:19 " We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" I don't believe this verse is applying to Lucifer, do you?
And THIS is my whole point The scriptures don't need to be confusing, for that causes confusion. Look at Rev 22:14. For those understanding Scripture, YES, washing one's robes in the blood of the Lamb involves keeping God's 10 commandments. (c.1 Cor. 6:11-11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.)"
It's obvious this verse is really referring to the requirements of entering heaven...those who KEEP God's commandments...in other words commandment-keepers. Look at verse 15...who is outside heaven?
15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
In other words, commandment- breakers!!
For the record, I use other translations TOO. I have at my disposal about 14 different ones, but the only consistent version for SDA doctrine is the reliable KJV.
Laurie
-
Brother Randy, Happy Sabbath! :)
My concern comes from who is translating. How do you feel about fallen churches translating the Bible? Don't you think their doctrinal beliefs effect their translations? And....can we expect that many who are in such high theological positions be effected by rejecting great light?
Richard
-
Brother Richard brings up an interesting point.
We here in Canada (Nova Scotia) have just completed an evangelistic series , VIA SATELITTE Revelation Speaks Peace by Shawn Boonstra and Henry Feyerabend (Canadian IIW).
Over the 4 week venture, alot of people who came to the meetings were amazed at the simplicity and explanation of the Holy Scriptures. KJV was the one used. Is there a difference between " the 2300 day prophecy" and/or the 2300 evenings and morning and evening prophecy?
Is there a difference between "a" sabbath and "the" Sabbath?
Is there a difference between "the end of the age" and the "end of the world"?
Is there a difference between believing that Jesus came in "fallen versus unfallen flesh"?
Definitely a difference to all of the above!!
Happy Sabbath to all!
Laurie
-
Here is a question that enters my mind from time to time. The Bible is God's Word. Would the devil attempt to change it? How could he do it? Would he need to use men to do it? Where could he find "Christians" that he could use to change the Word of God?
Am I off base here?
Richard
-
Richard, you ask:
quote:
My concern comes from who is translating. How do you feel about fallen churches translating the Bible? Don't you think their doctrinal beliefs effect their translations?
I hope we're not forgetting that our beloved KJV was translated by men belonging to those same fallen churches. In fact, they were only recently emerged from, and still heavily influenced by, the RC Church.The men whotranslated the KJV do not share our belief on the state of the dead, or hell, or the Sabbath, etc.
There is often simply more than one legitimate option of translation. Most times, it does not affect doctrine at all. Take Laurie's example of Isaiah 14:12 for example. The fact is that the name Lucifer means "morning star". Morning star is a perfectly valid translation of the Hebrew word "heylel".
In places such as Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28, God is pointing out how far Lucifer has fallen. We seem to forget that for unknown ages, Lucifer was a bright and shining star, the most perfect expression of God's handiwork. But God has not forgotten. And Lucifer has not forgotten. And the onlooking universe has not forgotten. And it is a pointed testimony in the Great Controversy on the terrible effects of sin.
I think part of the reason why we find it so hard to understand why 1/3 of God's angels chose to follow Lucifer, is because we want to downplay the high estate that was Lucifer's before the fall. EGW writes:
quote:
Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}
When speaking of Lucifer prior to the fall, God is talking about the created being most like himself. It was God who named him Lucifer.These are minor points, not worth arguing about. I was just trying to point out that when we do what EGW told us to do, learning to see the Bible as a whole and not tying doctrine to one specific text, then we can safely use most translations of the Bible. And particularly for new Bible students, there are advantages to modern English translations. That was the point I was trying to make. I certainly don't want to introduce any discord to this lengthy thread.
-
Brother Randy, you are very thoughtful in your posts. There is no discord. The discussion is an important one. I appreciate you pointing out the situation with the church at the time of the translating of the KJV. It is an often pointed out argument when I ask my question about the fallen churches today. I want to address this, but if you would, could you answer my concerns about those who translated, say the NIV? Do you really believe they are qualified to translate the Bible for our study?
Richard
-
Thanks Richard. You are always very kind.
Do I think that certain translators were qualified to do a translation? That's very difficult, since I am not qualified to judge. I do not happen to like the NIV as a translation, probably for some of the same reasons that I have read from your posts. I guess I believe that anyone who is a Greek/Hebrew scholar and is fully converted to Christ and is being led by the Holy Spirit is qualified to translate scripture.
Do I know if that was the case with all of the members of any given translation committee? No. I guess the best we can do is go by the work that they produce. That's essentially what we are all talking about.
The bottom line is that there are paraphrases in all translations. If you look at the KJV in Romans 3:25, for instance, there is a Greek word that means "lid of the ark". That's what it means, there is no disagreement about it. But when Luther translated it he didn;t use "lid of the ark", he coined a brand new word instead, which in English comes out "mercy seat". The KJV translators liked Luther's paraphrase and used "mercy seat" elsewhere in the Bible, but when they got to Romans 3:25, they paraphrased even Luther's paraphrase to "propitiation" instead. Now, how do you get "propitiation" from "lid of the ark"? That's a paraphrase. Perhaps propitiation is what the lid of the ark represents. Perhaps "atonement" or "reconciliation" is a better paraphrase. Perhaps it is best to let it read "lid of the ark" and have the reader think about what the lid of the ark represented.
So, if paraphrase is inevitable in translation, then clearly the bent of the translators is going to come into play. Were the men on the translating committee in 1611 England more in tune with God then the men on the NIV translation committee? Who knows? I love the KJV. But even with the KJV, I try to consider the Bible as a whole. And when I hit a text that doesn't seem right with my understanding of the rest of the Bible, I look up the original language to the best of my ability. I think if you do that you are safe with most translations.
-
Brother Randy!
I'm not trying to cause a division or pick an argument either...and I'm just expressing my beliefs as to why I believe other versions are unreliable for teaching doctrine.
Besides working in Radiology (xray tech), I preach in 3 churches on a regular basis(Lay Preacher). Very often, I have "other" members approach me, and say, "My version says something different than yours." They're right! Other versions don't synchronize with what I'm saying. And yes, the translators of KJV weren't wholly understanding what they were writing either. But I believe that God's Holy Spirit also had a "hand" in this work.
I have many good friends who are RC's, Baptists, Anglicans, JW's" who have their own "pet" versions...and when I compare Scriptures with them, albeit in the xray room, or on "the street", they seem surprised to believe that I still use the old "outdated KJV", when there are more modern ones that agree with their beliefs!
Right! Enough said!
Laurie
[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 11-24-2002).]
-
Thanks, Brother Randy and Brother Laurie.
It is a blessing to look at this without passion getting in our way. Because so many are not comfortable with many of the new translations, it does present a problem that I think we need to guard against. It becomes apparent when we look at non-English translations as Brother Domingo pointed out. The King James is not the only Bible and it is not perfect. For me, it is the only Bible because of my time contraints and the blessings I have recieved by doing just what Brother Randy points out. I take the Bible as a whole and if there is a passage that I am having difficulty with, it does not change my faith. There is a thread of truth that runs through the whole Bible.
Yes, I can use other versions, but I find too many objectionable verses that lead away from the truth. The King James may be (is) hard to understand in some places, but it has been faithful to not lead me away from truth like my NIV did.
The question comes again, are the translators from the fallen churches qualified to translate the Word of God? I don't think so. There may well be some who are converted, but I can truly state a fact. They are not at the leading edge of truth and not in a position to influence those who are. For some reason, if they are converted, they do not accept important aspect of "present truth".
This is enough to cause me great concern not to mention the fact that most of those translating are more than likely unconverted. Why can I say this? Because if they were, they would have uncovered the truth of the state of the dead, the Sabbath, and the gospel. And once they did this, they would come out of Babylon. The fruit of their work is seen in the translation of the NIV.
How about those who translated the KJV? God holds His hand over His Word. I believe that He took those men who were influenced by the religion of their time and kept them as true to the truth as He wanted. The Holy Spirit is a powerful agency to translate the Bible correctly. We cannot discount this. While they held error in their own understanding we can assume that the Holy Spirit led in the selection of honest souls who were open to the "present truth" of their day. This makes them qualified even with their erroneous doctrines. I believe by the fruit of their work that they were led by the Holy Spirit.
For those who need non-English translations, I am at a loss except to say that God can reach through even the NIV and teach us. He has protected other Bibles in other languages to the degree that He wants. We may rejoice that English has the status in the world today that it does. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy can be rightly understood and spread around the world just as it was at the time of Jesus in Greek.
This has been a good thread for me personally. I am enjoying it very much. Many minds are much better than one. :) We are growing in our understanding together.
Richard
-
quote:
Brethren. For the past week or so, while working on a paper, it suddenly occured to me that perhaps [since King James was Catholic] there is too strong a connection to the Catholic view of "righteousness by works"?
King James was not a Catholic, but a protestant. He was the son of the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, who was deposed when James was only 13 months old. His father had been murdered only months before. James was made king of Scotland, and a regent ruled until James was old enough to take control. He was raised by tutors, as Mary had fled to England where she was imprisoned by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, for 20 years. She was then excuted. On the dealth of Elizabeth, he also become king of England.James' most influential tutor was a staunch Calvinist. James was raised a protestant, and says of himself that he was not a papist. He
quote:
held the Roman Catholic religion in contempt. Roman clerics tried to kill him more than once. The King was born during the time of the Reformation and well knew popery's atrocities. In 1536, popery burned William Tyndale to death for distributing the Bible and it was MUCH displeased with King James' authorization of a Bible in English. Roman Catholic Nicolo Molin, an Ambassador said this of King James: "...He is a Protestant...The king tries to extend his Protestant religion to the whole island. The King is a bitter enemy of our religion (Roman Catholic)...He frequently speaks of it in terms of contempt. He is all the harsher because of this last conspiracy (Gun Powder Plot) against his life...He understood that the Jesuits had a hand in it."
King James said this in Basilicon Doron:
"I am no papist as I said before...Now faith...is the free gift of God (as Paul sayeth). It must be nourished by prayer, which is no thing else but a friendly talking to God. Use oft to pray when ye are quiet, especially in your bed..."
If James had been a Catholic, why would he have ordered an English translation of the Bible? The Roman church did not want the common man to have access to the Scriptures. And why did Guy Fawkes and 3 other Catholics attempt to blow up Parliment when the king was present? The plot was discovered and the men executed. The British still celebrate Guy Fawkes Day with bonfires. No, King James (VI of Scotland and I of England) was very much a protestant![This message has been edited by Linda Sutton (edited 11-24-2002).]
-
It has been a week or so since I last checked in on this topic and I am happy to see a dicussion on this topic done in such love and consideration. Ususally this topic generates a lot of heat and tempers flare a little. So it is good to be amoug a group of people that have a genunine love for each other. :)
Let me start by saying that I use the KJV. However, I don't use it because it is the only "reliable" version. I use mainly because it is what I grew up with and am very comfortable with it. I also find it easier to memorize. The archaic language makes it difficult to accidently slip in your own words when trying to memorize scripture.
I really don't understand the tendency of people to cling to the KJV and only the KJV. If that is the case then the version that Luther translated into german (if I remember my history correctly)is also "bad". Actually there are several translation errors in the KJV so maybe we should just learn greek and hebrew and read the original.
I think that people need to understand that not all bibles are based on the same originals and that they are based on different translation princples.
For instance the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and uses the formal equivalence method for translation. That means that careful detail was used to translate every word no matter how insignificant the word seemed to be.
The NIV is based on a different original and a different translation princeple. The NIV is based on the "critical text" and uses the dynamic equivalence translation method. Meaning that it attempts to as closely as possible translate the orignal thought behind the text.
The translators of the NIV didn't delete or omitt bible passages because it suited their own interestes or theology or some hidden agenda. These passages were ommitted because they didn't appear in the critical text. Most NIV that I have seen are careful to point out in the margin which verses have been omitted because of this.
Now please don't get me wrong. I am not giving my support to the NIV. It definitely has its problems maybe more so than the other translations.
We also need to remember that the bible is thought inspired not word inspired. If the Holy Spirit in deed inspired every single word then we would have big problems with the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they couldn't seem to be consistant about all the details. For instance how many demoniacs were there, 1 or 2? It depends on which book you read. I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit doesn't remember but rather it is man who forgot. In the end in the big picture does it matter how many there were? Nope! It is the thought or princple behind the story that counts.
-
Interesting ideas shared here! I'd like to comment on a few:
Laurie Mosher said:
"For me it is difficult to understand why the various versions agree to omit the testimony of one of the Apostles!
1 John 5:7
(snippety)
(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
There is something called the Majority text of the new testament, which is nearly indentical to the Textus Receptus, but not quite. The above is one example. We are told that when Erasmus was producing the Textus receptus he refused to add the above text because it was not present in ANY greek text he knew of. When pressed to add it, he declared that if just one greek manuscript could be found with that text in it, he would add it. In the course of time someone presented him with just such manuscript, and he kept his word, though he commented to his friends that he felt this manuscript was produced just for the occasion. According to the sources I have, there are only about 3 manuscripts in existence with that text in it. This establishes that it doesn't belong in the Bible, as far as I am concerned (it is neither in the majority text nor in the oldest text, and I know of no other manuscript position that is currenlty used to defend it). I mention this, not to start an argument, but as an illustration of how careful we need to be in defending our doctrinal positions. The Trinity can be proven just fine without a questionable text (it apparently comes from the Vulgata, the Latin text).
Brother Myers said: "Here is a question that enters my mind from time to time. The Bible is God's Word. Would the devil attempt to change it? How could he do it? Would he need to use men to do it? Where could he find "Christians" that he could use to change the Word of God?"
If the truth of our message could only be established by the Christianity I have seen while denominationally employed, there would be no hope, but thankfully it is established by the Word of God. All manner of deceit is customarily employed to "protect" the name of our church (well intended, of course). It goes without saying that the only way to protect the name of our church is by living what we profess to begin with!
This statement is intended to illustrate that the issue of who produces a translation (a fallen or unconverted church for example) is not necesarily a reliable method for judging the translation. It needs to be judged by its own merits. For example, fortunately the translators of the NIV produced a book in which they clearly told us what they had in mind when they produced their translation. This book tells me that they were honest and had very good intentions, but they are deceived and deceiving others (the book describes how they 'clarified' the meaning of texts). Would to God that our Adventist committees were this candid!
I recall reading where the Lord told Mrs White when she could trust certain people, and when she could no longer trust them. What struck me is how little time transpired between the two states!
When I recall how the spanish, french, early english and german versions were produced by catholic monks newly come to the reform, and yet they are highly trusted the world over, I feel, even though I understand the point being made, that perhaps it needs to be refined a bit.
There is also the issue of 'Present Truth'. Can the conversion or honesty of people be established by their not discovering things which were not 'Present Truth' for their time?
I feel that the SOP quotation Laurie shared with use applies most eminently to the NIV, among other recent versions (mainly in the manner of translation, but who could say whether that was not what she was refering to):
"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed." EWp220-221
[This message has been edited by Domingo (edited 12-21-2002).]
-
Dear E-Brethren,
I became interested in reading your postings on Bible translations, and I am amazed that some of you are so concerned to support KJV as THE translation, and to discuss about inspired or non-inspired translations.
There is simply no such thing as "inspired translation". Translations are good or not so good, and be sure that all of them are imperfect. We SDAs can be satisfied with this, because we don't believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible. Thus we allow not only the translators and scribes to err, but
also the inspired authors themselves. Don't we ?
I teach Biblical Languages, Hermeneutic and Exegesis in a SDA Theological Seminary overseas. For many years I compared translations, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, I also have read studies authored by others, and I can tell you that there is no basis to cling to THAT translation.
In my country (Romania), our people avoid the Orthodox (majority) Bible translation and stick to the Evangelical Cornilescu Bible. I am convinced that their main reason is that they are familiar with the language of Cornilescu Bible (which is indeed, more modern). Another reason is that the Orthodox Bible adds Apocripha in the OT (because its text is translated from the Septuagint, which Orthodox think it's THE inspired Old Testament), and because in the New Testament there are some verses where Orthodox translated "priests" instead of "elders".
But if you search for other references (for example in Daniel etc., you discover the Orthodox Bible aa a better translation...
Now I am an active member of the Romanian Interconfessional Bible Translation, and I am acquainted with leaders of the international forum (UBS), and with their translation policy. I can testify that it is now conspiragy against the Truth. But, anyway, doctrinal criteria (even SDA doctrines) are anot accepted understandably in translation.
All these people who serve in the Bible translation, at local level or at UBS aren't perfect. They smoke, they drink, maybe some of them have a wordly life. Some of them are staunch fundamentalists (Evangelical or Orthodox), and some are quite liberal (e.g. thinking that Daniel is written late in the second century BC). However, they are honest people, trying to do their best professional and being more than respectful with a SDA scholar: they care what I would say, when we meet for translation.
I think it's better to have 7 sinners unite and translate a Bible, than just one righteous man. This is not so much an "inspired" work, but it is professional. I had a surgery at my left eye, and the surgeon, a renegated Jew, was cursing, using God's name during that operation. However, his surgery succeded well, because he was a good professionist.
Each human work is imperfect, so is the Bible authoring, copying, editing, and translation. Its interpretation is also imperfect. God make us responsible for what we could do, not for what is beyond our control. God gave in the Church different gifts, and I don't think that will ever be a time when we have the perfect translation, or when all the Church will read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. If you trust the KJV translators' motivation or skill, though you cannot check it out, please trust also the contemporary gifts in the Church, even they aren't supernatural. Or, if not, please learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, textual criticism and so on...
Excuse my poor English. I love you, anyway.
------------------
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2)
[This message has been edited by Florin Lăiu (edited 03-05-2003).]
[This message has been edited by Florin Lãiu (edited 03-05-2003).]
-
Good to have you with us, Elder Lãiu. Your presence brings back memories of the first class to graduate from the seminary there in Boucharest in 1991. It was a blessing to be present. It was a holy occasion. I was impressed by the reverance shown. That all of our religious services would be of such a manner.
In regards to our present topic, can we say that it is important that any translator of the Scriptures be led by God? And, that if the Holy Spirit is not leading that there will be great difficulties in the translating? If one does not understand the subject being translated, is it not true that context will be difficult to ascertain? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Again, good to have you with us in this important discussion.
-
Well, I would like that any Bible translator be led by God. This would be very helpful for their soul at least... Howeverm God's miracle of Providence is that He leads circumstances even in spite of lack of spirituality of such and such.
And there is more: we all see some things very well done by professionals who are not spiritual people, and also we witness not a few spiritual people who aren't good professionals.
I often heard Orthodox scholars say that philologists, language teachers, must not be involved in such a sacred work as Bible translation. However, I know Greek scholars, who aren't theologians but they are better prepared to make a correct and nice translation. SPIRITUAL is sometimes a volatile term. The highest amount of spirituality cannot compensate for lack of skill. Even the Holy Spirit, wanting to do a better job through someone, He uses his reason and skills to expect the best possible solution, and not just holy feelings, that can't serve anyone but the one who bears them.
Translation must be fair in thought expression and gracious in form. Nothing more. The rest is not the translator's job. Further, God's Spirit will lead an exegete, a minister, a prophet or a simple person to develop a thorough explanation.
Thank you for the good recollections from our campus. God bless !
-
Welcome Brother Florin Lãiu. We are happy to have you with us here on TRO. :)
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Glass
-
Brother Lãiu, glad to have you here at TRO. From what I read, I wouldn't worry too much about your english. You did just fine. Probably better than some of us who have english as a first language.
I also don't completely grasp why some people get so warm under the collar when "defending" the KJV. If it is the only "good version" out there then the rest of the non-english speaking/reading people out there are in trouble.
However, I do use the KJV as my preferred version. I prefer it because it is what I grew up with and am familiar with it. I've also found that most study helps such as "Strong's Concordance" and "The Englishman's Greek and Hebrew Condordances" and others are built around the KJV. So if I'm doing a word study it is much easier (for me) to follow.
Not that I do a whole lot of memorization (like I should!) but when I do I find the KJV is easier because it's wording is different than how I'd normally speak. I've found the closer a version reads to how I speak it is much much easier for me to accidently put in my own words.
Anyways, good to have you join us :)
-
Thank all of you for welcoming me in this forum.
Dear Br. Jim,
I understand "perfectly" this clinging to KJV, because it is not a unique phenomenon of the English speaking people. Everywhere,especially among the evangelicals, there are preferred versions. My preferred version is BIBLIA SACRA, a combination of the Hebrew OT critical text of Stuttgart, with the Greek NT, also a critical edition. And though we have some different translations and versions in Romanian, I still PREFER to use the classical evangelical Cornilescu Bible, simply because I am familiar with its text, and especially because I can find verses easier (I have a better visual memory to find the right page, than to memorize numbers of chapters and verses). Surely I understand what means a preferred version, but I distinguish between a subjective preferrence and a theological preferrence. It is not always the same thing.
I know that some people are afraid of new translations, and some concerned brethren published unwise and misinformed studies in an attempt to proof an evil (jesuit) conspiracy against the only inspired English translation... Would they tell us what is the "inspired" translation in each language ?
It's OK to have a preferred version. The Pope himself probably has one. But I'm sure, the Devil hates them all, even the supposedly most affected by jesuits...
Whenever I was taken an interview for the Romanian television on this topic, I didn't allow me to enter their game, to show preferrence between the Orthodox and the Evangelical Bible. The mos important thing is that people faithfully read THEIR Bible, no matter what version.
I understand that it is easier to memorize exactly a fixed non-colloquial form. Two decades ago I was memorizing the book of Obadia and chapters of the OT in Hebrew, and it helped me to keep the text in a fixed form in my mind. When I memorized the Revelation in Romanian I didn't cling always to the fixed form of the Evangelical Version (and sometimes intentionally!). I think that nobody should have remorse if he / she misses the "correct" wording and puts the same idea in his / her words. This is common with translators who choose the best way of expressing the same idea in a literary form.
SDAs in each country didn't strive to have their own good translation. They simply used the same Bible as their opposers. This is a wise position to defend the truth. Now, if this is so important (and certainly it is !), why not have our good translation ? I'm sure that some SDAs will not be satisfied with this solution, because they have nightmares with jesuits infiltrated within our ranks in leading and ifluential positions, and so on...
May God give us wisdom and peace while we read each own preferred version of the Bible !
-
Greetings from me, Joan, in Germany to you Br.Lãiu. I am delighted you found a TRO forum thread to your liking. If we as Seventh-day Adventists are holding to certain doctrines or teachings only because of a particular wording in the KJV verse, and that the concept of the message is found only in the KJV, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
-
The Jehovah Witnesses have a translation they use. I wonder if we believe it to be one worthy of our study. I think there may be some confusion as to the discussion here so far. If there are English translations of the Bible that are not influenced by evangelical theology or by JW theology, I would like to know which ones they are. I have no problem with another translation, I would just like to know which ones have not been translated by those who have rejected truth. Is this too much to ask for? If my theology is based upon the Bible and the Bible is translated by those with whom I have a theological difference, it seems to me we have a problem?
What happens in other languages is important also, but I have little knowledge of that. What happens in the English language is of great importance because of it's broad acceptance in the world.
[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 07-02-2005).]
-
The JW's bible is a cheeky manipulation of inserting the name Jehovah in places it wasn't there in the first place.The Roman Catholic's scholars did an English version of the New Testament from the Vulgate in 1582. They followed up in 1610 with the Old Testament translation. It's referred to as the Douay-Rheims Bible. Does anyone know of specific erroneous RCC church teachings coming out of this version because of errors in translation?
-
Brother Richard, I guess I am a little confused by your comment...
"....I would just like to know which ones have not been translated by those who have rejected truth. Is this too much to ask for? If my theology is based upon the Bible and the Bible is translated by those with whom I have a theological difference, it seems to me we have a problem?"
I know of no translation of that isn't mixed with a small amount of bias from the theology of the translator/s themselves. Even the theology of the translators of the KJV would not have agree with us (SDAs) on many of our doctrines.
This well known verse below shows that the translators of the KJV were biased in a certian direction. When we well know that there was no punctuation in the bible.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
As far as I am concerned there are times in the OT when the hebrew word "sheol" should have been translated "grave" instead of "hell" like they did.
I think we would be hard pressed to find a version out there where the translators have the same theology as us.
Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to stay and if that is case please correct me.
-
Very good question, Brother Jim. I realize waht you say and agree that there are some problems with the KJV. What my concern is not that someone misunderstood Scripture, but that they rejected light. There is present truth and there is truth. If David were to have translated a whole Bible, he would not have understood all and there would be some misunderstandings because the light had not yet come. But, what is we follow the translation of the Roman Catholics during the dark ages, or even today? How would you like to do this? I don't think so.
What I am saying is that I will trust the experience of the translators of the KJV before accepting a translation made by those who are leaders in the "Protestant" faith today. Why? I think you can help me out with why I am concerned. Let me just add one word so that my concern is perfectly clear. "Babylon".
In re-reading my post, I will allow for a translation that is not slanted, even if done by those not of our faith. If there is one, then I am not completely prejudiced against it. I am just using the intellect and reasoning that God gives. The reason why I gave up the NIV I had when first converted was because it was leading me away from the truth. The thoughts expressed here came after I gave up my NIV.
-
Brother Richard, I can see and follow your reasoning to a point. However, I'm wondering at what point in history do people of other faiths cross the line from misunderstanding truth to rejecting truth? I very well could be mistaken here but I thought Ellen White used the RV from time to time. Correct me if I am wrong about that.
Let me say this before I finish. I also agree with you about the NIV and any other version that uses the "dynamic equivalence" method to translate the bible. This is where the translators thought they were doing us a favor by translating the "thought" behind the words instead of translating it word by word (formal equivalence). To me the dynamic equivalence method gives too much latitude to the individuals doing the translating.
With the formal equivalence method it is a lot harder for the translators to change the meaning. Unless it is done by changing a word here and there to suit their own liking which is also done in KJV, which I'm sure you are aware of, with words like, grave, hell, wine, etc. They even supplied words in that some in cases shouldn't be there at all.
However, after saying all of that I will continue to use the KJV. For me the KJV is the closest to the original and still readable and understandable. 95% of the in depth bible study helps like concordances, dictionaries and commentaries were designed around the KJV.
In this age with computers and book stores so easily accessible we have no excuse for not digging into the Bible to discover new and wonderful truths.
Some people may find the following information interesting.
King James Version (1611,1769)
Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Robert Young, 1862,1887,1898
The Darby Bible, A literal translation of the Old Testament (1890) and the New Testament (1884) By John Nelson Darby (1800-82)
English Revised Version (1885)
American Standard Version (1901)
Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952)
New American Standard Version (1960, 1971)
The New American Bible (1970)
New International Version (1973, 1978)
New King James Version (1979, 1982)
New Revised Standard Version (1990)
-
Sorry to have missed your post, Brother Jim.
I am not sure that I can answer your question. But, there is a difference between 1885 and 2005. Those who sit on such committees today have to reject much light to in order to do so. Can I speak of each man? No, but of most. The light is shining brightly and the results of the rejection is clearly seen in the new translations.
In looking for more information on translations, I will post some links that will help our study. There is much written, so all may do their own research.
Here is a list of translations based upon the work or Erasmus. There was a break from the Roman lies perpetrated in the Vulgate. His work was the beginning of the end of the Roman "dark ages".
Translations from Erasmus:
1. John Tyndale (1)
2. Martin Luther used Erasmus' second edition. (2)
3. All English Bibles of the 16th and 17th century were based on Erasmus; text. (3)
4. French versions of Lefevre and Olivetan 1534 and 1535
5. Dutch version by Biestkens 1558
6. Swedish Uppsala Bible by Laurentius 1541
7. Spanish Bible by Cassiodoro de Reyna in 1569
8. Danish Bible by Christian III in 1550
9. Czech version of 1602
10. Italian version by Diodati in 1607 (4)
11. Welsh New Testament of 1563 (5)
In Defense of Erasmus--Dr. John Cereghin
This is of importance to those who have choices in other languages besides English.
-
Sinaiticus, it is old, but is it the best? "A manuscript containing the oldest known Biblical New Testament in the world is set to enter the digital age and become accessible online." BBC
Sinaiticus is not the manuscript that was used for the translation of the KJV. It was not the Bible of the Waldensees.
-
"In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his
countrymen." GC 1888
-
The following posts were moved from a duplicate topic.
****************************************Laurie Mosher
Moderator posted 09-30-2005 07:23 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Laurie Mosher Click Here to Email Laurie Mosher Edit/Delete Message This could be "a sticky topic". I've examined and re-examined most of the "newer versions". Often times "other" versions can be used for a better Bible explanation, but one needs to be very careful that the original translation is not substituted or replaced. For instance in the KJV, Revelation 22:14 says Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Nearly all of the other versions have replaced "that do his commandments", with the phrase, "B;essed are they that wash their robes". The argument here is that, "WHAT does washing ones robes have to do with keeping God's commandments?"
Well, I've studied this topic for a bit, and believe that the Bible gives us the answer. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Obviously these two (2) verses are talking about commandment-breakers.
NOW examine verse 11
And such were some of you:
The word, "were" is past tense.
Continuing verse 11:
but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
"But you are washed- that is washed in the blood of the Lamb".
John 8:31 Jesus says," Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; "
AND John 14:15, we read these words, If ye love me, keep my commandments.
So whether the verse reads "doing His commandments OR washing one's robes, the verse means exactly the same.
A further study of Revelation 22:15 in any version obviously refers to the obnedience of the commandments from the previous verse. In whichever version- Outside the city are who?
"Commandment breakers"!
Rev 22:15
(American Standard V) Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.
(Bible Basic English) Outside are the dogs, and those who make use of evil powers, those who make themselves unclean, and the takers of life, and those who give worship to images, and everyone whose delight is in what is false.
(Contemporary English Version) But outside the city will be dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idol worshipers, and everyone who loves to tell lies and do wrong.
(Douay-Rheims Bible - Roman Catholic Version) Without are dogs and sorcerers and unchaste and murderers and servers of idols and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.
(Good News Bible) But outside the city are the perverts and those who practice magic, the immoral and the murderers, those who worship idols and those who are liars both in words and deeds.
(God's Word) Outside are dogs, sorcerers, sexual sinners, murderers, idolaters, and all who lie in what they say and what they do.
(KJV) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(LITV) But outside are the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving a lie, and making it.
(World English Bible) Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
(Weymouth NT) The unclean are shut out, and so are all who practise magic, all fornicators, all murderers, and those who worship idols, and every one who loves falsehood and tells lies.
(Young's Literal Translation) and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.
IP: Logged
Randy S
Member posted 09-30-2005 07:58 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Randy S Click Here to Email Randy S Edit/Delete Message While some translations are no doubt superior to others, we need to keep in mind that none of them are perfect: not even the KJV. Ellen White counseled that we should learn to see the Bible as a whole, and I think that is the key. The proof text method is not the best method for gaining a complete understanding of God's Word.
For example, the KJV rendering of Genesis 1:28 has God commanding Adam to "replenish the earth". "Replenish" what? Replenish gives the idea that something was there before, and was depleted. But that was not the case. There is reportedly an evangelist who uses this KJV text to teach that there was a prior creation to the Genesis account, which God destroyed.
Where did the KJV translators get this idea? The prior English translation had the word "fill", differently spelled of course, instead of replenish. In fact, I know of no other translation that carries the idea of replenish. It was even corrected in the NKJV translation.
Another point to remember is that there is inherently some paraphrasing that occurs in most translations, including the KJV. Take a look at the Greek in Romans 3:25 for example. How do you go from a noun in the original (lid of the Ark) to the word "propitiation"? The translators did not choose to tell you the God made Jesus the "lid of the Ark", but rather they chose to tell you what the lid of the Ark represented (propitiation). This is the same word that Martin Luther chose to translate into a brand new word: English translation "mercy seat". At least it stayed a noun in his translation. Best to let the reader know what the original concept actually was, and then to have the reader study and think about what the lid of the Ark of the Covenant represented, rather than to tell the reader what the committee thought it represented, don't you think?
Still, the KJV is the finest English translation I have ever read. But there are many new and prospective Christians who find it tedious reading and get discouraged with the antiquated English it contains. They find some of the newer translations easier to understand and, I believe, if they are taught to see the Bible as a whole, comparing one scripture with another, they are on safe ground with most Bible tranlsations.
We need to teach people to build a framework of truth based on the Bible as a whole, and then to paint in the detail with additional study. When you do that, each text must fit into the framework, and the ones that don't are easy to spot, easily researched with a concordance and a Strongs dictionary, even for simple lay-folk like myself. It's when we teach people to build doctrine off of individual texts where specific translations become critical, and I think that method is fraught with danger, as the couple of quick examples I have given may indicate.
-
While the KJV is indeed difficult for new readers to bear with, it will get easier as they read. The Holy Spirit will bring to mind just what is needed day by day. It is a promise. This is not to shame anyone for reading from the new versions. Maybe there is a honest translation, but I have yet to find it.
There is a caution that needs to be repeated. First look at who translated the version and ask if they are walking in the light God has given. Next consider that we hold the Bible to be the Word of God. How will you judge the Book when it is the Book that we look to for our judgment? We are on faulty ground when we study from a bible that is not the Bible. If the translators were not led of God then there is a big problem when you trust in what you are reading.
One is not at liberty to trust a book because it is called the Bible. God expects more from us than such blind faith in a corrupt church and a corrupt generation. Babylon is fallen is fallen. Take heed lest ye be found wandering after truth that is not Truth.
-
Thanks Brother Richard, for bringing me up to par. Seems I have a great memory- it's just getting shorter as I grow older.
Brother Randy mentioned about KJV having errors also. He's right, but I gleaned the following from some research material I have.
Spirit of Prophecy and 'MODERN VERSIONS’ by- Elder G. Burnside (with appendix by Temcat)
This article is taken from the book by George Burnside “The New International Version or The King James Version” Published by Leaves of Autumn Books Inc. 520-474-3654 Ellen White's experience was "The Lord showed me." .'He told me." "It was presented before me." "Said the angel." "I asked my accompanying angel the meaning of what I heard." Thus God has provided guidance and instruction for His remnant church. (temcat's Note) The SOP is OUR light on the Bible given us straight from the Holy Spirit! SISTER WHITE AND THE MODERN VERSIONS. To justify their use of modern versions of the Bible, many claim "Sister White used them." To the many, this answers all. They argue, all versions therefore must be good. I have often wished that Adventists used the modern versions as Sister White used them. If they used these versions as Sister White did, there would be no problem as we shall see. Turn to - PROV. 30 :5 ."Every word of God is pure." (my emphasis-LM) How much impurity needs to be added to a glass of pure water to make it impure? 5%? 1%? A much higher percentage of error has been added to the Scriptures. The flood of at least one hundred versions in recent times has certainly corrupted truth and produced a babel. REGARDING THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, HERE ARE A FEW FACTS - According to the Index, there are listed 15,117 Scripture references in the 25 Volumes that are listed. 95% Of these references are from the King James Version (KJV) and 5% from all the other versions. The Revised Version came out in 1881. Since 1881 more than three quarters of Sister White's writings have been produced. Therefore several of the revised versions were available during most of Sister White's writing years. IN TESTIMONIES Vol.8 There are 666 Quotations from KJV. 53 from American Revised Version, and 5 from the Revised Version. She quoted often from Practical Psalms where the change was slight in the wording. We should notice that verses that are omitted by the N.I.V. and other modern versions are quoted as the Word of God by Sister White. For instance:- ACTS 8:37 The N.I.V. omits this passage of Holy Writ, but Sister White Quotes it as inspired. Many other instances of omissions from the N.I.V., but quoted by Sister White could be given and God willing, will be given. It should be remembered that there are no true Scriptures in the N.I.V. that cannot be found in the King James Version. But there are many true Scriptures that are omitted from the N.I.V. as we have noticed and will notice. When the thought is plainer and without error in a modern version, true, Sister White quotes it. But she never quotes the modern version when it has error. For instance several times she quotes REV.22:l4 "do His conunandments," but she never Quotes the erroneous "wash their robes" as found in the N.I.V. and other corrupted versions. (See G. Burnside, Rev.22:l4 and the N.I.V.) Again in - JOB.l9:26 (A.R.V.) "Then without my flesh shall I see God." : Or Lesser's, “Then freed from my flesh shall I behold God." While at times Sister White uses the A.R.V. or Lesser, she never uses them where they have been corrupted as above. On the other hand several times she quotes this text but always when it is true as in the KJV. "Yet in my flesh shall I see God." See G.C. p 299 etc. TESTIMONIES VOLUME NINE. This was the last Volume written by Sister White. Notice she never quoted from a Revised Version once in this volume. Sister White began with the King James Version and she finished the Volume with it. Our prophet used these modern versions less and less. It is a tragedy that too many Adventists are now using the modern Versions more and more. Inspiration used them less and less. Apostasy uses them more and more. May you follow the example of Sister White in her last volume of the Testimonies and drop out the so called revisions. . Now let us look at Sister White's historic statements. "THE FATEFUL FOURTH CENTURY.” We are fortunate to have an inspired guide in history. Historians write with a bias, and as a result can be confusing. Inspiration alone presents the full facts. Notice some interesting and enlightening facts of history. G.C. 45 “The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century. ..now the work of corruption rapidly progressed." This was in the fateful "fourth century." One of Constantine's acts was to have the Catholic bishop Eusebius make copies of fifty Bibles for use in the churches. As Constantine aimed at unity, the pagans with apostate Christians, he naturally chose tampered manuscripts to suit his compromised Christianity. The evidence is overwhelming in favour of the fact that the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts were two of Constantine’s fifty Bibles. Sidney Collett in his "The scripture of Truth" when writing about the Sinaitic manuscript that was found by Dr. Tischendorf stated:- Dr. Tischeodorf believed that This and the Vatican manuscript were two of the fifty copies of the Bible which were made in Greek by command of the Emperor Constantine, about the year A.D. 331, under the supervision of Bishop Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea. 'P,28~ These manuscripts came from the Fourth century -the century of corruption. Sister White further states:- G.C. 56 “Ancient writings were forged by monks…And a church that had rejected the truth greedily accepted these deceptions." Of the Catholic bishop who prepared these Bibles for Constantine, inspired history states:- G.C. 574 "Eusebius a bishop who sought the favour of princes, and who was the special friend and flatterer of Constantine. " This was the century that brought in Sunday. This was the century that produced the Vulgate from which came the Catholic Bible. In this same “fourth century" of corruption came the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from which came the N.I.V. and its companion versions. They are companions in crime and corruption. For instance compare the Catholic "Douay, Bible" and the N.I.V. Note their striking parallel. MATT.18:11 is missing from both of them. REV. 22: 14 has the corruption "wash their robes" in each. LUKE 4 : 4 "But by every word of God' is omitted from both the N.I.V. and the Douay. Many more parallels will be given in a later leaflet -God willing. "TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY ." Hold fast to our Lord's gift to His remnant people. May you ever be in the company of God's "saints" that "have the Testimony of Jesus." Rev.12:17 REV.19:1O "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." That inspired voice further declares:- G.C. 65 "The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures~. Hundreds of years before the Reformation they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution they stood unflinchingly for God's word and His honor." The Waldenses, like the saints on Scotland's isle of Iona had the true Scriptures. "They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them special objects of hatred and persecutions." G.C. 65. Note it was because these saints held the Scriptures -" "truth unadulterated" that Rome hated and persecuted them. Rome has always hated the Bible. Rome held the Vulgate, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for centuries. But inspiration further states:- "Theirs was not a faith newly received. Their religious belief was their inheritance from their fathers. They contended for the faith of the apostolic church "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. "The church in the wilderness," and not the proud hierarchy—enthroned in the world's great capital, was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth Which God has committed to His people to be given to the world." G.C.64. God preserved His Word. He preserved it through His saints, the Waldenses and in Scotland's Iona. We are clearly told that it was "the church in the wilderness" and "not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital" -Rome "that was the guardian of the treasures of truth." Rome may have had the Vulgate, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but they did not have the "Scripture of truth" -the Received Text, the "Majority. text"-- from which we have the King James Version. May we each one be willing to die for it. To sum up.- Rome upholds the Vulgate, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but hated the King James Version. Why? The sure word of prophecy answers: “Rome 'cast down the truth to the ground."' Dan.8: 12. It "shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.” Dan.8:24. "He shall also stand up against the Prince of prince but he shall be broken without hand." Dan.8:25. Such is the work and doom of Rome. Remember! "But the Word of the Lord endureth 1 Peter 1:25 1 JOHN 2:17 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (temcat)- Here is another bit of evidence from the SOP Mrs. White did not condone the use of other versions of the Bible from the pulpit. She said it would bring confusion. Has this not occurred ? I do not have a reference on this but Do we not have confusion when you teach a SS class and the class has several different versions- you give them a text and half can't find it as it has been left out of their particular version. In children’s classes confusion reigns- no longer can the class stand up and repeat memory verses in unison- some are using different versions. Please see my own testimony below. "The faith which for centuries was held and taught by the Waldensian Christians was in marked contrast to the false doctrines put forth from Rome. Their religious belief was founded upon the written word of God, the true system of Christianity. But those humble peasants, in their obscure retreats, shut away from the world, and bound to daily toil among their flocks and their vineyards, had not by themselves arrived at the truth in opposition to the dogmas and heresies of the apostate church. Theirs was not a faith newly received. Their religious belief was their inheritance from their fathers. They contended for the faith of the apostolic church,--"the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. "The church in the wilderness," and not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital, was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth which God has committed to His people to be given to the world." -Great Controversy pg 64 Friends- the Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts were both in the keeping of that ‘Proud Hierarchy’- They were not the guardians of God’s Truths! The ‘Received Text’ (Textus Receptus) from which our Authorized Version descended, was the scripture of the ‘Church in the Wilderness.’ After the time of the Apostles, the Holy Scriptures where carried rapidly throughout the world from the center of Antioch. Before the time of Jesus there existed a false school in Alexandria under a Jew named Philo who sought to combine Judaism with Greek philosophy. It was there that the corrupt Old Testament manuscript, the Septuagint, was produced which confused many so they did not recognize the Messiah when He appeared. From this school also arose false teachers such as Clement and Origen who produced corrupt New Testament manuscripts combining Greek philosophy and their own personal views. These men followed Plato. They did not believe in the inspiration of the scriptures and felt they were free to change whatever they wished according to their own scholarship! From hence came the corrupt MS. from which Jerome’s Catholic Latin Vulgate later was drawn- The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus .
E.G.White states this version had "many errors". GC 245 "While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it; and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen." GC 245 From the center at Antioch, the Word of God, selected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, streamed out into the world. This pure text was translated early into many languages and became known as the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text. The Waldenses had it and other primitive Christians. Where ever it went light and truth and hope sprang up in the hearts of believers.
Once the leaders had the Received Text, the reformation became unstoppable! Where ever the corrupt Alexandrian text went there followed confusion .God is not the author of confusion. "The Jesuits’ task was to entice Protestant scholarship back to Rome. They knew that they could not wean the leaders of Protestantism back to Rome as long as the stubborn "heretics" clung to the pure text of the Reformers. This Bible would have to be replaced with one which contained the pro-Roman Catholic readings of Jerome’s Vulgate and the Jesuit translation of 1582.It would be necessary to "educate" the Protestant scholars to believe that their Reformation Text was un reliable and that their Authorized Version was "not scholarly". Once thus programmed, the egotistical scholars would spontaneously attack their own Bible and believe that they were helping God!!!" pg. 98-99 Understandable History of the Bible-S.C.Gipp ‘Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth for ever’ Ps. 119:160 God protected His Word! Look at the fruits- where ever the Received Text went came light and power- The common man heard it gladly and it changed his life and set him free in Jesus. Where ever the Alexandrian text went it brought confusion and enslavement to the Papacy! The foundation of our faith was laid on the firm foundation of the Majority Text- confirmed by the blood of martyrs! My personal testimony- There was a time when I did not realize the dangers of these corrupt modern translations. I had been not very closely connected with the church due to living in a remote area. I thank Go for this because I escaped much of the brainwashing that has taken place in our denomination. I well may have slept to my eternal doom had I been exposed to it like so many I know. Anyway, I came to where I could be closely connected again with the church. I went and bought a very expensive copy of the NIV with reference chains and all the bells and whistles. It was my determined desire to really study and give my all to God. I began to read the NIV. I came across various strange renderings of many foundation scriptures that my faith as an SDA were built upon. It shook me up. I began to reject my former simple faith in God's Word. The thing that really corked it was finding whole sections left out or with notes in the footnotes saying these sections did not exist in the 'oldest and most reliable MSS'. What did this do?? DOUBT came in. Did God say this or did He not?? If we could not be sure how can we be sure about anything in our faith? It became very easy to believe our pioneers were uneducated and ignorant. That they, though well meaning, just didn't know what they were talking about. Also confidence in the SOP went out the window. Every time I read the NIV I came away with more doubt and discouragement and less faith. Finally The expensive new Bible went onto the shelf to gather dust. I started a search in the New Age. I found more to anchor faith and hope there then in a Bible that broadcasts doubt like a squid squirts ink. I joined a New Age order as a postulant. I'd probably be still there is it wasn't for something that turned me back to pick up my faithful Holy Bible instead of the fancy NIV hole y Bible. I began reading and found again the POWER of the SPIRIT. Later I studied into the differences between the modern perversions and the received text. I now also have the Tyndale NT and it is interesting as well. I have Wycliffe's, Geneva, 1611 KJV and others. I have studied all angles on this subject and would gladly by God's grace die rather than again sacrifice my faith on the altar of modern 'Higher Criticism". I know whereof I speak, and lest you would say - oh well, that was just your experience- I have also found others who have shared the same testimony and only barely were rescued from damnation because of having their faith destroyed by "Some MSS don't have this part". Brother Hoppe, the Siniaticus and Vaticanus differ with each other in over 2000 places!!! Those 2 MSS were the survivors of 50 Bibles Constantine had made to boost his lovely meld of sun worship with the now apostatized Christian church. There are only 4 Alexandrian MSS and two, I understand are only fragments. Even the two they stake their souls on are fragmented and especially the Siniaticus have been corrected and annotated until it is worthless as a accurate document. There are hundreds of MSS and other evidence for the majority text. This is not a matter of preference brother, it is a matter of eternal life or death. Can't you see that the vaults and monasteries of Rome were never meant to be the depository of God's truth? If the Modern translations are correct, then you have to take the stand that God allowed His true Word to be bottled up by Rome for hundreds of years and we only just got it back in the late 1800s???? It would put the lie to the reformation, the work of Wesley and others- AND the GREAT ADVENT AWAKENING!! Can't you see that these modern versions lead to spiritualism and the mysticism of Rome?? May God in His mercy send you eyesalve! “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” Rev. 22:19 We can see how serious God is about this when we look at the genealogy in Matthew 1, it says, “Josias begat Jechonias” (vs.11). Jehoiakim actually begat Jechonias; Josias was his grandfather. Why does it say that? God took Jehoiakim’s name out of the book of life, acting as if he had never existed. Why? Jeremiah 36 tells us; Jehoiakim took a penknife to the word of God. It says he was not afraid, and when they warned him, he would not hear them. So God took his name out of the book of life. “And he shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” Jeremiah 22:19 -There are 64,000 missing words in the NIV! SEE_ Jesuits Tampered with OUR BIBLES!
Well, that's quite an epistle, isn't it?
-
I was , also just reading the story of the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus in John 9. Verse 35 has some interesting text interpretations from "other" versions. So I'm including some of them here:
(Analytical-Literal Translation) Jesus heard that they cast him outside. And having found him, He said to him, "Do _you_ believe [or, trust] in the Son of God?"
(American Standard Version) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
(Bible Basic English) It came to the ears of Jesus that they had put him out, and meeting him he said, Have you faith in the Son of man?
(Bishops) Iesus hearde that they had excommunicate hym, & when he had founde hym, he sayde vnto hym: Doest thou beleue on the sonne of God?
(Contemporary English Version) When Jesus heard what had happened, he went and found the man. Then Jesus asked, "Do you have faith in the Son of Man?"
(Darby) Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him, he said to him, Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?
(1899 Douay-Rheims Bible) Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?
(English Majority Text Version) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and having found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?"
(English Standard Version) Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
(Geneva) Iesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he sayd vnto him, Doest thou beleeue in the Sonne of God?
(Good News Bible) When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
(God’s Word) Jesus heard that the Jews had thrown the man out of the synagogue. So when Jesus found the man, he asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
(International Standard Version) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out. So when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
(King James Version) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
(LITV- Literal Translation of the Holy Bible) Jesus heard that they threw him outside, and finding him, He said to him, Do you believe into the Son of God?
(MSG- Message) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and went and found him. He asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
(Murdock) And Jesus heard that they had expelled him; and he found him, and said to him: Believest thou on the Son of God?
((1898 Young’s Literal Translation) Jesus heard that they cast him forth without, and having found him, he said to him, `Dost thou believe in the Son of God?'
Is thre a difference between being called the Son of man (Man), and the Son of God?
I believe there is!
-
There are only two versions of the Bible. Those translations based on the Greek 'Received Text' (English: KJV) and those based on the Roman Catholic Vulgate (English: NIV, RSV, etc.).
THE WESTCOTT & HORT CONSPIRACY: THE TRUE STORY OF OUR MODERN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
[translators of the texts upon which ALL modern versions are based] http://www.nccg.org/101Art-Westcott.html
The best book about this subject was written by an SDA scholar and dean of our seminary, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. He knew and worked with EGW and was well known and respected for his knowledge...until he defended the KJV against the new versions. It is strange that this book is now published by many other churches, but not by Adventists. It is: 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated'.
-
Hi,
I did not follow all the posts in this thread. I'll just give some of my own findings.
I too started reading the bible with NIV. But I then found many manipulations in NIV, one of the shocking ones is in Isa 14, when Lucifer was referred as the morning star while Jesus himself is the bright and morning star. Whereas in KJV in Isa 14, Lucifer is called the son of morning.
I ditched the NIV for KJV. And I found KJV easier to memorize and to recite because it's different from our every day language. I remember reading somewhere Shakespeare has about 500 words that no longer have meanings. KJV on the other hand has only a handful.
The NT translations are of two sources. The Greek majority text--KJV, Tyndale... and the Greek (less than 1%) minority text: NIV, NKJV, RSV...
NKJV is NOT KJV with modernized words.
KJV has proven, for me, to be more superior than any other versions. For example, in Acts 12:4, KJV translates Easter while all other versions (including NKJV) translate Passover. The context reveals the holiday that comes after the Days of Unleaven Bread is Easter. Passover was before. KJV is correct and indicates that Easter was already a (pagan) holiday disproving claims that Easter was later instituted (probably 325AD) for the resurrection of Jesus.
Furthermore, KJV does not use the guess name for the name of the Lord unlike many other versions. Jehova, Yahwen...are guess pronouciations of YHWH. A question for those who have read more of EGW's writings, did she ever use those names?
There's the third source that claims superiority emerging recently in the Hebrew Roots Movement that's becoming popular in christian churches. That's the Syriac Pershitta or the Aramaic New Testament. Is Babylonian Aramaic more sacred than Greek? Not really. Not at all. Greek has the same alphabets as the paleo-Hebrew. Probably has similar pronounciations. And earliest text found are still the Greek text.
About the OT, what seems certain is alittle more confusing to me.
Was the OT written in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek LXX (Septuagint)?
Did Jesus and his diciple quote from Septuagint? In Matt 5:18, Jesus seemed to be talking about the Hebrew text when He said about the jot and tittle. They are parts of Hebrew characters not Greek, unless He was talking the law only not the scripture. Also, Hebrew text divides the bible into law, prophet and psalms. Greek makes no such distinction.
And about the so-called preserved Hebrew text... Is this the paleo-Hebrew that children of Israel spoke when they came out of Egypt? By all indication, Egyptian/Pheonician phonics that Moses spoke is lost. No one knows how to pronounce it. The jews spoke Babylonian Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity.
More on the name of the Lord... the word Lord is translated from the word YHWH first appears in Genesis and throughout the OT. And yet while on mount Sinai, the Lord said 'I AM THAT I AM' translated from 'EHYEH'. EHYEH is shortened to YEH meaning God in Hebrew. Aramaic has only 3 vowels, 'a', 'u' and 'i'. 'YHWH' is Aramaic meaning lord/master. Then how did the Aramaic word YHWH get into the scripture before the jews spoke Aramaic? Was the OT corrupted by the scribes while they were in Babylon?
Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by camgears (edited 10-13-2005).]
-
Amen, camgears!
-
Well here's a translation "for the books"!
EVERYDAY PSALMS 100(James Taylor)
Two guitars and a washtub bass, a country fiddle, an old-time caller.
Come on everyone, join the dance.
Do-si-do and allemande left, swing your partner, bow to your corner.
Clap those hands and stamp those feet.
God calls the square dance of our lives;
God swirls our varied colors like a kaleidoscope.
We dance our complex patterns to God’s grand design.
Step unto God’s dance floor with a song in your heart and a smile on your face,
for God loves a good time too. God is in the sweat and the swinging,
in the sawdust and the singing .
God is the dance of life. Whether you join the dance or sit on the sidelines, the beat goes on,
and fills the night with music!
MSG (Message Version)
Psa 100:1 A thanksgiving psalm. On your feet now--applaud GOD!
Psa 100:2 Bring a gift of laughter, sing yourselves into his presence.
Psa 100:3 Know this: GOD is God, and God, GOD. He made us; we didn't make him. We're his people, his well-tended sheep.
Psa 100:4 Enter with the password: "Thank you!" Make yourselves at home, talking praise. Thank him. Worship him.
Psa 100:5 For GOD is sheer beauty, all-generous in love, loyal always and ever.
KJV
Psa 100:1 <A Psalm of praise.> Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands.
Psa 100:2 Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Psa 100:4 Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
Psa 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
I believe the KJV is not corrupted, but I have my reservations about the "other" ones.
So what do you think? Are these other versions adding to or taking away from scripture? And what about Isaiah 8:20?
[This message has been edited by Laurie Mosher (edited 10-21-2005).]
-
Here is an interesting presentation about the different Bible versions.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1356136486318407242
-
Personally, I read the Bible in the original languages (which is not the same as reading the original text). I regard the KJV highly, despite the fact that we have a good deal more manuscript evidence for the Bible now than the KJV translators had. I don't think the new evidence makes all that much difference when you come down to it. Most of the variants are insignificant and those that are significant don't have much if any effect on the message.
For the last few years I have been making my own translation of the Bible, but when I compare it to the nonsense Bible translators are putting out today, I look like a KJV dinosaur. I really call it a paraphrase, but it's an awful lot closer to the Hebrew and Greek text that what people are publishing nowadays.
Here's an example from my New Jubilees Version of the Sacred Scriptures in Verse with Verse Commentary. By the way, I don't approve of the pronunciation Yahweh for the name of God YHWH, since it is so close to the Roman Jove. I use Yah or Huw.From Genesis 15
5 Then He brought him outside the bars,
"Look now toward heaven, and count the stars
If you can count them all." And He
Said to him, "So shall your seed be."
6 And he believed in YHWH, and He
Accounted it to him freely
For righteousness. 7 And then He said
To him, "I'm YHWH, who when you fled
Out of Ur of the Chaldees, brought
You to this land to give to ought."
8 And he said "Lord YHWH, how shall I
Know that I shall inherit it?"
9 So He said to him, "Bring Me by
A three-year heifer that is fit,
A three-year female goat and ram,
A turtledove, and pigeon's dam."
10 Then he brought all of these to Him
And cut them each in two, and trim,
And placed each piece against the other,
But did not cut the birds or smother.
11 And when the vultures came to feed,
Abram drove them away indeed.
Some birds are sweet, both in their song and meat.
Some birds appearing here appear a treat.
But not the vulture. Even Abram drives
Away the vulture. Yet the vulture thrives.
When You, Beloved, set out a table decked
With sweetmeats and sweet wine for the elect,
Do not drive out, like Abraham Your prophet,
The vulture who would choose a morsel off it.
Though I may be an ugly bird and truly
A filthy one, do not treat me unduly
With harshness. I too join the rushing throng
That hears the siren calling of Your song.
I am content, Beloved, to taste what's left
When sweeter birds have fed. Leave none bereft.
quote:
Originally posted by Allan F:
Here is an interesting presentation about the different Bible versions. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1356136486318407242
-
There are some problem texts in the KJV. Which ones have you seen to be especially difficult, Brother Thomas?
-
The most serious problem, in my view, with the KJV is in 1 John 5:7, which is clearly spurious.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
There are some problem texts in the KJV. Which ones have you seen to be especially difficult, Brother Thomas?
-
"The most serious problem, in my view, with the KJV is in 1 John 5:7, which is clearly spurious."
Why?
[This message has been edited by Pete (edited 04-07-2007).]
-
1 John 5:7 KJV
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is a very simple and straight forward text. No double thinking on what it means, it is very plain. It teaches that there is God, The Son ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.Jn. 1:1,2)
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:16-17 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Matthew 17:4-6 (in Context) Matthew 17 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:7
And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Mark 9:6-8 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 9:35
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:34-36 (in Context) Luke 9 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:16-18 (in Context) 2 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)
and the Holy Spirit are all in heaven.
=======================================
How could anyone say that this is false (clearly spurious)???
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
[This message has been edited by Sister Glass (edited 04-07-2007).]
-
The text may be Gospel truth. It may have been the will of God that it be included in the Bible. But it is spurious in the sense that it was added to the Bible at a late date. The only Greek ms that contains it is 635, an eleventh-century text, and even then it appears to be a marginal gloss, perhaps even added by 16th-century Roman Catholics for the purpose of convincing Erasmus to include it in the received text. In any case, it cannot be older than the eleventh century, a thousand years after John. It is definitely spurious, an added text.
But it is quoted as though it were part of the Bible by a handful of late Western Church fathers and is included in the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgata.
It the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on the basis of this text, then the doctrine has no foundation whatsoever, outside a Roman Catholic forgery. Choose your group!
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
1 John 5:7 KJV"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is a very simple and straight forward text. No double thinking on what it means, it is very plain. It teaches that there is God, The Son ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.Jn. 1:1,2)
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:16-17 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Matthew 17:4-6 (in Context) Matthew 17 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:7
And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Mark 9:6-8 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 9:35
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:34-36 (in Context) Luke 9 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:16-18 (in Context) 2 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)
and the Holy Spirit are all in heaven.
=======================================
How could anyone say that this is false (clearly spurious)???
-
But it does not stand alone. That may be why it was excepted. When Jesus was baptized the Father Spoke, The Son was baptized, and the Holy Spirit landed upon Him. And God said there that Jesus was His Son. Then there is this text that I mentioned... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.Jn. 1:1,2)
We either believe it or we do not. But these are only a few short texts that uphold it. In the begainning God does not speak of Himself as the Creator, but says, "Let "us" make man in "our" own image. And there are many others. The whole gospel hinges on there being three, "in one".But we do not believe in this doctrine as the C. Church does. There fore I do not say I believe in the Trinity anymore. But rather I believe in a three in one God. Not all the other man made additions to it that are kept in the C. Church.
If we do not believe the places the Bible tells us that there are three in one, it seems to me that the gospel folds up.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
-
Thomas M
You state: quote:
It the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on the basis of this text, then the doctrine has no foundation whatsoever, outside a Roman Catholic forgery. Choose your group!
I may have misunderstood what you have posted and ask for clarification. Are you saying "the doctrine of the Trinity" is based upon what you construe to be, "a Roman Catholic forgery.", and that this doctrine [the Trinity] is false? Is it your belief (Choose your group!) that those who believe in the Trinity are following a teaching of the Roman Church that is un-Biblical?
-
[I know this quote is long, but I believe we all need to read it in order to protect ourselves. God Bless...]
Beyond Finite Comprehension.--
There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word.
It is true that the apostle has said that there are some things that are hard to be understood in the Scriptures. So there are. And if it were not that there are subjects that are difficult and hard to be understood, well might the skeptic who now pleads that God has given a revelation that cannot be understood--well might he, I say--have something else to plead. God's infinity is so much higher than we are, that it is impossible for man to comprehend the mystery of godliness.
...we are to accept the Word of God just as it reads. And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator, how long He has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond. We cannot grasp it, so what man is there that dares to take that Bible and say this part is inspired and that part is not inspired? I would have both my arms taken off at my shoulders before I would ever make the statement or set my judgment upon the Word of God as to what is inspired and what is not inspired.
How would finite man know anything about that matter? He is to take the Word of God as it reads, and then to appreciate it as it is, and to bring it into the life and to weave it into the character. There is everything plainly revealed in God's Word which concerns the salvation of men, and if we will take that Word and comprehend it to the very best of our ability, God will help us in its comprehension.
Human minds without the special assistance of the Spirit of God will see many things in the Bible very difficult to be understood, because they lack a divine enlightenment. It is not that men should come to the Word of God by setting up their own way, or their own will or their own ideas, but it is to come with a meek and humble and holy spirit.
Never attempt to search the Scriptures unless you are ready to listen, unless you are ready to be a learner, unless you are ready to listen to the Word of God as though His voice were speaking directly to you from the living oracles. Never let mortal man sit in judgment upon the Word of God or pass sentence as to how much of this is inspired and how much is not inspired, and that this is more inspired than some other portions. God warns him off that ground. God has not given him any such work to do.
God's Word Not to Be Dissected.--It takes all of eternity to unfold the glories and bring out the precious treasures of the Word of God. Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. Tell all such they simply do not know. They simply are not able to comprehend the things of the mystery of God. What we want is to inspire faith. We want no one to say, "This I will reject, and this will I receive," but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is. {7BC 919}
[This message has been edited by Cop (edited 04-08-2007).]
-
What a wonderful post brother Cop. It was wonderful.
In another topic I found out that the C. Church believes in the Trinity far past the Truth of there being God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They bring Mary into it and other things. So we really can't say we believe in the Trinity doctrine for many would take that to mean that we believe in it as the C. Church does. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible that I know of.
I believe in three in one but don't know if I should use the word Trinity anymore.
=======================================
The Word Trinity does mean this according to the dictionary:
noun: the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead
noun: three people considered as a unit
==================================
There are three in one. One can not get away from it if they are to except the whole Bible as Truth. I have friends that are good SDA's and they do not believe in "3 in one". They won't talk about it, don't want to discuss it. They are strong to believe what they have learned and don't want any interuption in their belief. It is sad, because no one can believe this way without saying in their heart, "this I except and this I do not". (:
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
[This message has been edited by Sister Glass (edited 04-08-2007).]
-
Brother Richard asked me a question, to which I responded. It would be good to keep in mind what that question was, and what the issue is. The question was whether I personally found any weaknesses in the KJV and what they might be. My response was that the most important weakness in the KJV is the inclusion of the comma Johanneum. I also made the remark that if the doctrine of the Trinity relies on that text, it has a very weak foundation. Let us not go beyond the issue here.
From my remarks an objective reader might draw the conclusion that 1) I consider the KJV the best available translation in English, and 2) that I do not take seriously the common scholarly critical approach to the Bible. The objective reader would be correct. The reader who suggests that I implied anything about the veracity of any doctrine based on 1 John 5:7 has not read my words carefully.
I made it clear that I was not questioning the content of 1 John 5:7 or any doctrine based on it. (Sister Glass rightly points out that other passages of Scripture are fully adequate to determine doctrine without 1 John 5:7). I was questioning whether or not the text of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV translation belonged to the Bible.
The KJV is not the Bible. It is a translation of the Bible. The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below refers to the Bible, not a specific translation thereof. The Bible is the historically preserved Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text. I believe that text has been divinely kept and guarded, and I believe that it was inspired by God. The KJV is not inspired. It is a human translation of a divinely inspired text.
Now the fact is that the comma Johanneum is not found in any Greek manuscript except the margin of the eleventh-century Greek 635, which was in the hands of the papal ambassadors to Erasmus, and formed the justification for inclusion in a late version of the Received Text.
It is missing from ALL of the ancient Greek manuscripts, manuscripts which are, by definition, the Bible.
The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below might well be applied to those persons who were responsible for introducing into the KJV a text not found in the Bible. I hope Brother Cop does not intend to apply this to me for pointing out this historical fabrication, product of Rome, which Erasmus would never have included in the Received Text had he not been brow-beaten by papal ambassadors. Read your history.
quote:
Originally posted by Cop:
[I know this quote is long, but I believe we all need to read it in order to protect ourselves. God Bless...]Beyond Finite Comprehension.--
There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word.It is true that the apostle has said that there are some things that are hard to be understood in the Scriptures. So there are. And if it were not that there are subjects that are difficult and hard to be understood, well might the skeptic who now pleads that God has given a revelation that cannot be understood--well might he, I say--have something else to plead. God's infinity is so much higher than we are, that it is impossible for man to comprehend the mystery of godliness.
...we are to accept the Word of God just as it reads. And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator, how long He has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond. We cannot grasp it, so what man is there that dares to take that Bible and say this part is inspired and that part is not inspired? I would have both my arms taken off at my shoulders before I would ever make the statement or set my judgment upon the Word of God as to what is inspired and what is not inspired.
How would finite man know anything about that matter? He is to take the Word of God as it reads, and then to appreciate it as it is, and to bring it into the life and to weave it into the character. There is everything plainly revealed in God's Word which concerns the salvation of men, and if we will take that Word and comprehend it to the very best of our ability, God will help us in its comprehension.
Human minds without the special assistance of the Spirit of God will see many things in the Bible very difficult to be understood, because they lack a divine enlightenment. It is not that men should come to the Word of God by setting up their own way, or their own will or their own ideas, but it is to come with a meek and humble and holy spirit.
Never attempt to search the Scriptures unless you are ready to listen, unless you are ready to be a learner, unless you are ready to listen to the Word of God as though His voice were speaking directly to you from the living oracles. Never let mortal man sit in judgment upon the Word of God or pass sentence as to how much of this is inspired and how much is not inspired, and that this is more inspired than some other portions. God warns him off that ground. God has not given him any such work to do.
God's Word Not to Be Dissected.--It takes all of eternity to unfold the glories and bring out the precious treasures of the Word of God. Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. Tell all such they simply do not know. They simply are not able to comprehend the things of the mystery of God. What we want is to inspire faith. We want no one to say, "This I will reject, and this will I receive," but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is. {7BC 919}
[This message has been edited by Cop (edited 04-08-2007).]
-
I have read this entire thread and found that Domingo dealt with the issue of the comma Johanneum quite adequately in a post dated 12-21-2002. Was Domingo harrassed off this forum for pointing out the truth? I don't see him posting here.
I find Brother COP's reaction to my post somewhat hostile and his use of the Spirit of Prophecy to defend such hostility misplaced and obscurantist. I did not come on this forum to engage in conflict and hostilities and I have been careful to avoid them.
Brother Richard should have responded to the post that caused this situation. He was the one who raised the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
Brother Richard asked me a question, to which I responded. It would be good to keep in mind what that question was, and what the issue is. The question was whether I personally found any weaknesses in the KJV and what they might be. My response was that the most important weakness in the KJV is the inclusion of the comma Johanneum. I also made the remark that if the doctrine of the Trinity relies on that text, it has a very weak foundation. Let us not go beyond the issue here.
From my remarks an objective reader might draw the conclusion that 1) I consider the KJV the best available translation in English, and 2) that I do not take seriously the common scholarly critical approach to the Bible. The objective reader would be correct. The reader who suggests that I implied anything about the veracity of any doctrine based on 1 John 5:7 has not read my words carefully.
I made it clear that I was not questioning the content of 1 John 5:7 or any doctrine based on it. (Sister Glass rightly points out that other passages of Scripture are fully adequate to determine doctrine without 1 John 5:7). I was questioning whether or not the text of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV translation belonged to the Bible.
The KJV is not the Bible. It is a translation of the Bible. The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below refers to the Bible, not a specific translation thereof. The Bible is the historically preserved Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text. I believe that text has been divinely kept and guarded, and I believe that it was inspired by God. The KJV is not inspired. It is a human translation of a divinely inspired text.
Now the fact is that the comma Johanneum is not found in any Greek manuscript except the margin of the eleventh-century Greek 635, which was in the hands of the papal ambassadors to Erasmus, and formed the justification for inclusion in a late version of the Received Text.
It is missing from ALL of the ancient Greek manuscripts, manuscripts which are, by definition, the Bible.
The Spirit of Prophecy quotation below might well be applied to those persons who were responsible for introducing into the KJV a text not found in the Bible. I hope Brother Cop does not intend to apply this to me for pointing out this historical fabrication, product of Rome, which Erasmus would never have included in the Received Text had he not been brow-beaten by papal ambassadors. Read your history.
-
Hi, Thomas. Brother Richard is out of town at the moment ... he will respond.
I would like to thank you for the indepth historical information you present. It is through contact with you and a few others that most of us get our education on the background relative to the original manuscripts. We get the benefit of your research while time presses against us with other issues. Be patient with us.
Blessings
Sybil
-
Brother Thomas, maybe my eyes on this are dim but I did not read into brother Cop's response any hostility. He posed a question to what he perceived as an attack on the Trinity. I don't have the links handy but I do believe there are already a couple of discussions on the trinity so please let's not get side-tracked with that here. The real discussion here is the legitimacy of mentioned text.
You made me stretch my knowledge of the english language today. I had never seen the word "obscurantism" before. I do not see any evidence of anyone trying to hide information.
In my eyes brother Cop's second post was just a simple word of caution and nothing more. He can speak for himself but I did not read it like you did.
Brother Thomas I appreciate your post and your concern over 1 John 5:7. The Bible is truth and will survive examination. However, in this examination I think it wise to follow the counsel that brother Cop posted.
Let all of us strive to esteem others better than ourselves.
[This message has been edited by Jim B (edited 04-10-2007).]
-
Brother Thomas,
I thank you so much for explaining yourself more fully and your stand. We often deal with people here that do want to teach what is not correct and we are aware of these things quite actively. This time I jumped the gun and I am glad that you do uphold the three in one doctrine. That was important for me to know. But as you say, it was not the issue of the question asked or the answer given.I did not see brother Cops post as hostile either. But rather a warning, which it does not hurt any of us to re-read now in then when we get into discussions.
Since you did not bring up the discussion of the Trinity in any form here, but it may have me that done so, let us continue with the discussion at hand. Why was it added later?
Brother Thomas, I don't believe in adding to the Bible at a later date. But what about this text makes it so bad that one would complain about it so. It is supported in the Bible. Or is it purely the idea that it was added later.... opening up thoughts of "what else could have been added or taken away"?
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
-
I'm not a theologian and I'm not prepared to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity. I have no interest in attacking it or defending it, since I don't understand such matters. I responded to a direct question put to me by Brother Richard. Only the incompetent have shown any interest in my response.
I cannot give a view of theology, nut I do understand historical evidence and the Greek language to a certain extent. All of the historical evidence points to 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV being based on a spurious gloss in one eleventh-century ms.
Pointing out that such a text is weak witness for the doctrine of the Trinity is not an attack on the doctrine. If the doctrine is true, my point rather favours it, by removing spurious evidence, that can only detract from truth. My remarks could, if taken seriously, prevent one defending the doctrine of the Trinity from making a laughing stock of himself. They should inspire gratitude rather than suspicion.
Brother Richard made the statement that there are some problem texts in the KJV. I have pointed out only one, the only one which in my opinion can without reserve be stated to be spurious. All others have something to be said on both sides. If we cannot consider the merits of this text without drawing suspicion, how can we investigate those that are more ambiguous?
Brother COP may be better than I in every other area, but I am obviously better than he in evaluating the merits of 1 John 5:7.
Instead of spending time finding statements in the Spirit of Prophecy against those who pick and choose in the Bible instead of accepting it as it is, he would have done better to investigate the issue in question.
I hold my original position. When it comes to this text, when you choose in favour of it, you are choosing a papal fraud and forgery in the face of all historical evidence. It comes down to a matter of choosing your group. And by saying that I make absolutely no implication for or against the doctrine of the Trinity.
Here is the evidence in my possession, though as I have not made a study of the matter as such, there may be more details.
The Greek evidence appears to be based on two mss of which I have no knowledge, numbered 61 and 629, and on the marginal gloss found in ms 635. These three mss disagree slightly in wording. 61 and 629 differ in the preposition before earth: en and epi. Both of these differ from 629 in lacking the definite articles before the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. The Clementine Vulgata agrees with 629, but that is of course the Latin source of Roman Catholic Bibles. The Latin marginal gloss of the 88 omits "the blood" from verse 7(8). There are several more variations in the Latin sources. The sources for the comma Johaneum are extremely sparse, and show a good deal of variation. Furthermore, only a handful of early writers quote the text to include the comma Johanneum: Varimadum, Priscillian, Cassian, Pseudo-Vigilius, Pseudo-Athanasius, Fulgentius, and Ansbert. These seem to be late Latin Church fathers for the most part, if not all.
ALL other Greek sources exclude the content of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV. Far from showing diversity, the many hundreds of mss show only one variant: in some the content of verse 7 is "martyrountes" (testifying...) and in others it is "martyrousin" (they testify...). The first variant is found in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, 017 Paris, 018 Moscow, 024 Wolfenbüttel, and 025 Leningrad. The second variant is found in 048, 049, 056, 0142, 33, 81, 88 (text), 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 630, 945, 1241, 1505, 1739, 1877, 1881, 2127, 2412, 2492, 2495, the majority of Byzantine texts, the Wordsworth-White edition of the Vulgata, as well as underlying the early translations of the Phyloxenian Syriac, the Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, and the Slavic, all before the seventh century. The second variant is also supported in the quotations of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Dionysius, Hilary, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, Faustinus, Gregory-Nazianzus, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyril.
Furthermore, as Domingo's post pointed out, we have the documentation of how the comma Johanneum entered the Received Text of Erasmus, through the intervention of papal representatives. It is lacking in the first edition.
In sum, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the view that the comma Johanneum is a spurious text, the forgery of papal representatives.
Brother COP appears to have three arguments in favour of including the comma Johanneum in the Bible. 1) It is found in the KJV. 2) It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. 3) Ellen White says to believe in the Bible the way it is.
I shall approach each of these arguments separately. 1) It is found in the KJV. Against this I propose that the Received Text upon which the KJV stands included the text as noted above, against the will of Erasmus and on evidence supplied and obviously forged by papal representatives. The KJV is therefore not reliable in this matter. 2) It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Against this argument I propose that the text of the Bible is not to be established upon the basis of what doctrines happen to appeal to us or not appeal to us. The text of the Bible is a historical phenomenon, susceptible to examination in the thousands of ancient manuscripts available to us. We have to accept the evidence of the existing manuscripts, not the evidence of what doctrines we appreciate. 3) Ellen White says to believe in the Bible the way it is. Against this argument I propose that to assume that Ellen White is referring to the KJV as the Bible that we should believe as it is, is to presume too much. Ellen White actually quotes at least one other translation of the Bible, thus showing that she did not specifically prefer the KJV. It may not be too much to assume that when Ellen White refers to the Bible that we should accept as it is, she is referring to the body of Biblical manuscripts in the original languages which God has been pleased to preserve for us. If that assumption is true, then the evidence of those manuscripts overwhelmingly comes down against the inclusion of the comma Johanneum.
I still have my hackles up. I await a courteous and competent rebuttal or an admission that 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is spurious.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B:
Brother Thomas, maybe my eyes on this are dim but I did not read into brother Cop's response any hostility. He posed a question to what he perceived as an attack on the Trinity. I don't have the links handy but I do believe there are already a couple of discussions on the trinity so please let's not get side-tracked with that here. The real discussion here is the legitimacy of mentioned text.You made me stretch my knowledge of the english language today. I had never seen the word "obscurantism" before. I do not see any evidence of anyone trying to hide information.
In my eyes brother Cop's second post was just a simple word of caution and nothing more. He can speak for himself but I did not read it like you did.
Brother Thomas I appreciate your post and your concern over 1 John 5:7. The Bible is truth and will survive examination. However, in this examination I think it wise to follow the counsel that brother Cop posted.
Let all of us strive to esteem others better than ourselves.
[This message has been edited by Jim B (edited 04-10-2007).]
-
Personally, I would not think that Ellen White would suggest we take the Bible as it is, about anything she herself did not have. I hear that she used different translations in her studys. But I don't think one of them was the original.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
-
Maybe there is nothing bad about the text. I'm not saying one way or the other, because I don't feel qualified to say. It just doesn't belong in the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
Brother Thomas,
I thank you so much for explaining yourself more fully and your stand. We often deal with people here that do want to teach what is not correct and we are aware of these things quite actively. This time I jumped the gun and I am glad that you do uphold the three in one doctrine. That was important for me to know. But as you say, it was not the issue of the question asked or the answer given.I did not see brother Cops post as hostile either. But rather a warning, which it does not hurt any of us to re-read now in then when we get into discussions.
Since you did not bring up the discussion of the Trinity in any form here, but it may have me that done so, let us continue with the discussion at hand. Why was it added later?
Brother Thomas, I don't believe in adding to the Bible at a later date. But what about this text makes it so bad that one would complain about it so. It is supported in the Bible. Or is it purely the idea that it was added later.... opening up thoughts of "what else could have been added or taken away"?
-
It is absolutely spurious. It has taken me a little while to gather this information as one of our members referred me to a couple of sermons - I had to listen to them as it dealt specifically with this one text - 1John 5:7. We are all learning here. Much, if not most of this is new to some of our members, so patience is a virtue while we come up to speed.
Below are rough notes from a sermon from Ron duPreez from Audio Verse. It is entitled: The Battle About the Bible – Versions – Diversions or Perversions. He speaks of various Bible translations, of which the KJ is one – Thomas is quite correct in his statement that the KJ is a translation of The Bible. He is also correct in saying the text in question is spurious – added later on – it is not a part of the original Greek manuscripts. We do need to know our history.
www.//audioverse.org/downloadsermon/dl/advent-hope/]www.//audioverse.org/downloadsermon/dl/advent-hope/]www.//audiov erse.org/downloadsermon/dl/advent-hope/
20060603-1000-Ron_duPreez-The_Babble_About_the_Bible_-
_Versions_-_Diversions_-_or_Perversions.mp3[/URL]
A quick comparison of popular verses …
KJV - John 7:8 “I am not yet going”
– other versions leave out “yet”
KJV - Rev. 22:14 Blessed are those who DO His commandments
NIV who wash their robes
KJV - Luke 23:42 – “Lord remember me”
NIV – “Jesus, remember me” - the word “Lord” is not there – denies the divinity of Christ
KJV - 2Tim 3:16 – “God was manifested in the flesh”
-other versions “He appeared in the body…” – denies the divinity of Christ
Constantine Fishendorf (spelling?) in 1844
-discovered some manuscripts – Codex Sinaiticus – from Mt. Sinai
Now the NT had two different sets of manuscripts – what to do?
Which Bibles then are the best to use? Focus on the genuine. Discover the originals.
Additional help from SOP – EGW –
Ancient church fathers used the manuscripts behind the KJV. Those who push KJV only ignore Ellen White. She used 10 different marginal references from other translations. She quoted 10,000 Bible passages. Five hundred times she referred to other translations – 27 OT; 22 NT. Ellen White did not say KJV only.
How did she use the Bible translations?
KJV - Rev. 22:14 Blessed are those who DO His commandments
-others say: who wash their robes
She never used a version other than KJV on this verse
Luke 23:42 – “Lord remember me
NIV – Jesus, remember me - the word Lord is not there
Desire of Ages – “Lord, remember me” – she used the KJV because it rightly places Jesus as Lord
2Tim 3:16 – “God was manifested in the flesh”
-other versions “He appeared in the body” – denying the divinity of Jesus
-EGW never used a text from other translations that denied the divinity of Jesus
Ellen White used translations in the following three ways:
1. She used them when they said in a clearer way what was already in the KJV
2. She used new translations when they said more correctly what was said in the KJV
3. She used it for concepts – it brings out more correctly and clearly more concepts – i.e. the Divinity of Christ; keeping the commandments
Use the KJV as your basis – use it as a check against other translations. Use it as your study Bible. Do not throw out other Bible translations.
Lock paraphrases in the closet – it is what the author thinks the Bible says. Do not let children read a paraphrase as it will confuse them later on.
EGW: The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek (textus receptus) Scriptures have been preserved through the ages … by a miracle of God. See EW 220; SD 190; 1SM 15; ML 27, 45.
End of first duPreez presentation
_________________________________________________ ___________
Pastor duPreez then has a question and answer period. These are notes taken from that session that deal directly with the text 1John 5:7 – I did not bother with taking notes on the balance of his questions – you can quickly download to listen to more. Here is the link:
http://www.audioverse.org/downloadsermon/dl/
advent-hope/20060603-1700-
Ron_duPreez-Bible_Translations_Question_
and_Answer_Session.mp3
Question on EGW statements: A divine hand has preserved its purity through all the ages. In 1881 and 1884 she made these statements. At this point only the KJV was available to her.
In 1903 and 1913, when other Bible translations were available to her she stated this again. In 1899, a year after she published the Desire of Ages – she had a vision of the Angel – to teach the divinity of Jesus – they all support textus receptus.
1John 5:7 – KJV – a verse to prove the Godhead, typically. [quoted]. The NIV says “For there are three that testify.” Ellen White believed in the Godhead but never, in her 10,000 Scripture quotes, quoted 1John 5:7. Divine inspiration! The scholars at her time did not know this one text has no early Greek manuscript text to support it. It is spurious – added in later. The Spirit led her not to use it to prove the Godhead. She used other texts.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 04-10-2007).]
-
Thomas, dearest: We do appear as incompetent Bible students at one time or another, but we are doing our best with what we know. When we learn better, we do better. Thank you for your kind patience.
We are simple people attempting to understand holy things. Be patient with us.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 04-10-2007).]
-
Here is a short statement from the EGW Estate which verifies Pastor duPreez answers to questions.
"God had faithful witnesses to whom He committed the truth, and who preserved the Word of God. The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been preserved through the ages by a miracle of God." Letter 32, 1899.
Mrs. White's Use of the Revised Versions
As noted earlier, Mrs. White occasionally used the Revised Version renderings, also the marginal reading of texts, in nearly all of her books published after 1885, the year of the appearance of the complete English Revised Version.
In The Great Controversy, published in 1888, seven texts from the newly issued revision were employed, and she also used the marginal rendering of eight other texts. The proportion of Revised Version and marginal rendering of texts is very small when we consider that there are more than 850 scriptures quoted in The Great Controversy, or an average of a little more than one scripture text to a page, whereas there is approximately one Revised Version rendering and one marginal rendering for each one hundred pages.
In 1901 the American Revised Version came from the press, and from that time forward we find that Mrs. White occasionally employed both the English Revised and the American Revised versions.
In 1911, when The Great Controversy was reset, Mrs. White retained six of the seven texts previously quoted from the English Revised Version. For the other text she substituted the American Revised rendering. The eight marginal renderings were used as in the earlier edition.
In the publication of The Ministry of Healing (1905) Mrs. White employed eight texts from the English Revised Version, 55 from the American Revised Version, two from Leeser, and four from Noyes, in addition to seven marginal renderings.
Other volumes in which Revised Version texts frequently appear are Patriarchs and Prophets (1890); Steps to Christ (1892); Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896); The Desire of Ages (1898); Education (1903); and Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (1904).
The E. G. White books using a few Revised Version or marginal renderings are Christ's Object Lessons (1900); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7 (1902); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9 (1909); The Acts of the Apostles (1911); Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (1913); Gospel Workers (1915); and Prophets and Kings (1917).
Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) also contains two renderings from the Bernard translation, and at least one from the Boothroyd Version. Education (1903) contains at least one rendering from the Rotherham translation.
In the five volumes of the Conflict of the Ages Series, we find the revised versions quoted. As might be expected, those volumes that enter into an exposition of Bible truth dealing with points of doctrine or the teachings of Christ, contain more texts quoted from the revised versions than do volumes of counsel to the church and those presenting largely historical description. In the three-volume Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White use of revised versions is indicated in the Scripture Index.
As to Mrs. White's attitude toward the revisions of 1885 and 1901, and as to her own use of these in preaching and writing, her son, W. C. White, who was closely associated with her in her public ministry and in the preparation and publication of her books, wrote in 1931:
"I do not know of anything in the E. G. White writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister White's conversations, that would intimate that she felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised Version. . . .
"When the first revision was published, I purchased a good copy and gave it to Mother. She referred to it occasionally, but never used it in her preaching. Later on, as manuscripts were prepared for her new books and for revised editions of books already in print, Sister White's attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version. In other cases she instructed us to adhere to the Authorized Version.
"When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable. Sister White gave the matter deliberate consideration, and instructed us to use the Revised Version. When you study these passages you will find that in a number of places where the Revised Version is largely used, the Authorized Version is used where translation seems to be better.
"We cannot find in any of Sister White's writings, nor do I find in my memory, any condemnation of the American Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. Sister White's reasons for not using the A.R.V. in the pulpit are as follows:
"'There are many persons in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version, and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker.'
"She did not advise me in a positive way not to use the A.R.V., but she intimated to me quite clearly that it would be better not to do so, as the use of the different wording brought perplexity to the older members of the congregation." White Estate DF 579; Ministry, April, 1947, pp. 17, 18.
The extracts quoted above reveal the position of Ellen White on such questions as the transmission of the Sacred Text, the union of the divine and the human in the written record of God's revelation to man, and also as to her relation to the various translations of the Holy Scriptures.
December 9, 1953
Ellen G. White Estate
Washington, D. C.
Revised May, 1991
-
Brother Thomas, my apologies for having missed your answer to my question. Having responded to me on the same day, I missed your post. One of the dangers in trying to stay abreast of all that is being posted in all forums. Our new software will show who has made the last post, thus revealing at a glance that there are new posts in a particular forum and thread.
Even if I had seen your post, I am not sure that I would have responded quickly. The information is such that I would have had to give much thought to a reply. Having the luxury of reading all that has been posted now, I can see exactly what you meant and also that we have indeed been here before with Domingo's posts (No one took exception with him when he posted this information).
As Sister Sybil has said, please forgive our rush to defend Scripture. We are used to having to defend the Word of God against many who are not as you are. Communications is difficult at the best of times. The subject is not an easy one for most of us. The teaching has been lacking in the church and therefore we are not as educated on this subject as we ought to be. As I have stated from the beginning of this thread, I did not study my way into the KJV, the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the NIV was leading me away from the truth. I then changed to the KJV because it was not authored by Babylon. Just a little bit of common sense brought out by the Holy Spirit.
Being content with my KJV I did not feel the need to study the matter furhter. Now that we have opportunity and because many have not seen the need to refrain from many of the modern "Bibles", it is good that we become better educated on the subject.
Often I considered the problem for those who do not read English and need a good translation. I could not offer any suggestions. It revealed to me that the KJV was not the Bible, but as you have said, it is a translation. I know there are some errors in the KJV and I know that many reading in other languages are reading mistakes in translation. So, I agree with you in regards to Ellen White's comments on trusting in the Bible. It is the truth that we are to follow. This is the reason why this discussion is so important. We are not to use our thoughts to know God, but our Bibles are to reveal God, His ways, and the plan of salvation. All prophets are to be tested by the Bible. Therefore, we need to have faith in the Bible. And, we need to do all that we can to understand the translation we are studying from. Where there are problems, we need to identify them and explain why they are problems.
Those using the KJV may have a problem here, but they ought not. If they will just stop and consider the plight of the Turk who does not have a translation that is as good as the KJV. How are they to view their Bible? Are we to think that there are no errors in the translations? We know better. I say this having been blessed by having faith in my KJV. Until I changed over, my faith was in my NIV, and this was not a good thing. God will work with us as we look to Him and study to show ourselves approved.
In further defense of your position, I want to repost something that I posted in this thread early on. It is an inspired statement from the Great Controversy.
"In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen." GC 1888.
There always has been "errors" in different "versions" of the Bible. We now ought to take advantage of the times in which we live to weed out these errors as best we can. I have at least one that bothers me and that I know is an error or at least is very misleading. The new translations have taken advantage of the KJV wording and furthered their false gospels.
Again, our apologies. Your explanation as to what you meant clearly reveal that you were not attacking the doctrine of the "godhead". We have had our hands full regarding that subject and our minds have been exercised to protect the godhead from those who have other ideas regarding the divinity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Thank you for your faithfulness to the truth.
-
Amen, my thoughts also Brother Thomas. :)
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
-
What a wealth of beautiful and extremely useful material! I apologize for my impatience!
It seems that the example of Ellen White really answers the translation question. She used every available translation or version on occasion, with thoughtful comparison to the KJV. She used the KJV from the pulpit because of its familiarity. Personally, I think the diminishing of familiarity with the KJV is unfortunate.
Ellen White's remarks on the Received Text of 1516 are appropriate indeed. That text was far superior to what was earlier known in Western Christianity, but it was far from perfect. Her remarks take both matters into account. The comma Johanneum of 1John 5:7 was only added to the Received Text in 1522. The remarks of Ellen White quoted by Sister Sybil and Brother Richard appear to me to reinforce the validity of Ellen White's own claim to inspiration. She was able to step around this knotty issue better than the most highly trained Biblical scholar.
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
Amen, my thoughts also Brother Thomas. :)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
It seems that the example of Ellen White really answers the translation question. She used every available translation or version on occasion, with thoughtful comparison to the KJV. She used the KJV from the pulpit because of its familiarity. Personally, I think the diminishing of familiarity with the KJV is unfortunate.
Ellen White's remarks on the Received Text of 1516 are appropriate indeed. That text was far superior to what was earlier known in Western Christianity, but it was far from perfect. Her remarks take both matters into account. The comma Johanneum of 1John 5:7 was only added to the Received Text in 1522. The remarks of Ellen White quoted by Sister Sybil and Brother Richard appear to me to reinforce the validity of Ellen White's own claim to inspiration. She was able to step around this knotty issue better than the most highly trained Biblical scholar.
Amen! It is an evidence of her divine guidance.
quote:
I apologize for my impatience!
It is difficult when we are misunderstood. God is preparing us for the difficult days that we are entering. He is working on my character, your character dear brother, and all who will share His company for eternity. The only thing we shall take with us to heaven is our character and it must be like His! We all need to be more patient with each other and especially to those who hurt us. We are to be His witnesses on this earth. This is our privilege to give Jesus His reward for His suffering on the cross. He lives to see us reflect Him. :)
-
I erred greatly by not reading this thread from the first post through to the last. Domingo did, in fact - as Thomas and Richard said, present the facts about our text and it went unmentioned, untouched for over four years.
Such happens with a revived topic and aging memories ... I will try not to repeat an unacquaintance with what has gone before.
On the other hand, it is thrilling to be learning in the vineyard of the Lord. For one to rekindle a fire that can bring new light to the members is a blessing indeed.
There is still much to learn of the Bible translations in our hands. And even greater to know how it has been preserved "through the ages" through nothing less than acts of God.
------------------
Sybil
"In times like these, we have a Savior!"
-
It is interesting that I had missed this topic along the way here at the Bread of Life.
I am currently reading a very interesting book regarding the history starting from the Revised Version to the New International Version of current use.
There is no question from what I am reading that the background of the first revision to the current one today is filled with error and can set one down path wrong paths of understanding God's Word.
There is no question in my mind that this situation of revisions should be a concern of all of us.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
-
Walter Julius Veith is a scientist, author and speaker known for his work in nutrition, creationism and other Christian topics. He studied zoology at the University of Stellenbosch and obtained his doctorate in zoology from the University of Cape Town in 1979. We have linked to his web site Amazing Discoveries since June 2001.
For some additional information on the differences in the modern "bibles" and the KJV we present a link to an hour long lecture by Dr. Veith. Battle of the Bibles video streaming broad band or download.
-
I do not know if anyone has posted this info previously or not, but there is a very good source of knowledge on where the different versions came from. There are several books that compare the KJV and the Textus Receptus with the RV and the Roman Catholic manuscripts that are its source. All the new versions today are also based on these same corrupt Roman manuscripts.
These books are written by Benjamin G. Wilkerson who was the Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College. Washington Missionary later became our seminary at Andrews University. These books are 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated' and 'Answers To Objections to Our Authorized Bible'.
This man was a SDA scholar who wrote many books about the Scriptures and of the history of Christianity. Sadly, today SDA printing houses do not reprint his books. They are being printed by the publishing houses of other denominations.
------------------
"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave" - Gen. Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson
[This message has been edited by Cop (edited 09-17-2007).]
-
An HTML version of Wilkerson's book can be found here: http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm (http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm)
It can be downloaded here: http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=218 (http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=218)
Answers to objections this work: http://www.temcat.com/Answers2Objections/Answers-TOC.htm (http://www.temcat.com/Answers2Objections/Answers-TOC.htm)
-
We just watched a video of Veith's "Changing the Word," and though I had heard and read some things about the changes, I was truly shocked when I watched his presentation. He had three people come up and compare texts from three versions. They read from the KJV first, then from the other two versions, the RSV and the NIV, the last two people would say, "That verse is just not here." The only way one could grasp it all (or even most of it) would be to pause the DVD and write it all down.
Yes, it was amazing!!
-
Since our doctrines, particularly the Investigative Judgment and 2300-Day Prophecy cannot be taught from the NIV, our people should be made aware of the dangers of this Romanized Bible being foisted upon them. ... If we are to adopt the NIV as a standard for use in the pulpit and in our schools, then we might as well give up being Seventh-day Adventists and join the ecumenical movement back to Rome.
Those are pretty strong words, considering that the first Bible I "really" read was the NIV, and I have taught 1844 and the IJ using it.
Personally, I don't like the NIV. But I doubt that my faith is founded on a particular translation, or that the controversy over the disputed 5% of the NT manuscripts will cause me to falter.
If one's faith can be torn down or his distinctive doctrines lost by using a different version of the Bible, I suggest he study more to get on solid footing. Satan, who is sneaky enough to threaten the very elect, will have much more subtle and dangerous tricks up his sleeve.
-
I don't know who wrote the preface, but it was not Wilkerson. Wilkerson's work was written in the 30's, forty or so years in advance of the NIV. Though written to address the Revised Version, many of his concerns still apply due to the reliance that many modern translations have on the same manuscripts.
Read beyond the preface. I think you'll find it interesting reading.
-
I've read the book. It wasn't the best scholarly argument for the Textus Receptus, but I didn't have a problem with it.
As I was reading the section on the Waldenses, I found it strangely familiar. After a couple of pages, I looked in my GC and there it was. Pretty sneaky, I thought. ;)
In any case, I generally stay away from the UBS text. I prefer the Majority Text, but the TR works also. That's why I use the NKJV.
-
Since our doctrines, particularly the Investigative Judgment and 2300-Day Prophecy cannot be taught from the NIV, our people should be made aware of the dangers of this Romanized Bible being foisted upon them. ... If we are to adopt the NIV as a standard for use in the pulpit and in our schools, then we might as well give up being Seventh-day Adventists and join the ecumenical movement back to Rome.
Those are pretty strong words, considering that the first Bible I "really" read was the NIV, and I have taught 1844 and the IJ using it.
Personally, I don't like the NIV. But I doubt that my faith is founded on a particular translation, or that the controversy over the disputed 5% of the NT manuscripts will cause me to falter.
If one's faith can be torn down or his distinctive doctrines lost by using a different version of the Bible, I suggest he study more to get on solid footing. Satan, who is sneaky enough to threaten the very elect, will have much more subtle and dangerous tricks up his sleeve.
Have you seen "The Battle of the Bibles," and "Changing the Word?" Both are part of Dr. Walter Veith's Total Onslaught series. The give a very interesting perspective regarding the various translations of the Bible.
My Sabbath School class is learning that the NIV is not very useful to them. Too much confusion; too many missing texts; too many misleading passages. Most of them use the KJV now, not because I talked them into it, but because they have found it to be more reliable.
-
I've found that the KJV is also easier to memorize.
-
I've found that the KJV is also easier to memorize.
No question about it; and it's because of the poetic nature of the translation. Trying to memorize from the NIV or the other newer translations is like trying to memorize lines form a newspaper article. Much of the Old Testament was written in poetic style so the Hebrews could more easily commit it to memory, since there were few copies and they were expensive. This was also true in 1611. Not many could afford a Bible, and they weren't as easily produced as they are now. Paper was made from cotton rags. Type had to be set by hand. I am so thankful that the KJV translators were able to produce a translation that lent itself to easy memorization. I'm also glad that this amazing translation had been updated as necessary. Most of us would be hard pressed to read an original copy of the Bible published in 1611. I have a copy published in 1639, and it is a challenge to read. Along with the Gothic script, which most of us aren't used to, spelling had not been standardized in the English language, yet. Some think that it is now too difficult for the modern generation to understand. Nonsense! My teenagers both use the KJV--their choice. I don't hear any complaints, only the occasional question as to what something means.
-
Memorization becomes more difficult when a church is using different Bibles to read in church or in the home. I stumble with some verses still after giving up my NIV almost twenty years ago. I learned some from that version and today I amalgamate some verses from both the KJV and the NIV. :(
My daughter learned to read from the KJV. It was not a problem for her at an early age. I understand the difficulty for many of us because I complained vociferously about the KJV when I first became a Christian. But, I have repented over and over.
-
Have you seen "The Battle of the Bibles," and "Changing the Word?" Both are part of Dr. Walter Veith's Total Onslaught series. The give a very interesting perspective regarding the various translations of the Bible.
I have not. But I have read a few books on the topic. Does he address both the controversy over the manuscripts and the the translations?
I've seen quite a few decent ones that argue for the Textus Receptus, but I haven't seen a decent one yet that argues for the KJV. Every one I've seen has this basic argument: The KJV is the best because I like it the best.
Most of them use the KJV now, not because I talked them into it, but because they have found it to be more reliable.
Why do they prefer that over the NKJV, or some other translation based on the TR? I find the YLT useful in some cases.
-
We just watched a video of Veith's "Changing the Word," and though I had heard and read some things about the changes, I was truly shocked when I watched his presentation. He had three people come up and compare texts from three versions. They read from the KJV first, then from the other two versions, the RSV and the NIV, the last two people would say, "That verse is just not here." The only way one could grasp it all (or even most of it) would be to pause the DVD and write it all down.
Yes, it was amazing!!
Yes, it is, Dora. Get this:
Romans 8:1
KJV: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
NKJV: There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
NEB: The conclusion of the matter is this: there is no condemnation for those who are united with Christ Jesus.
NIV: Therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
RSV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Weymouth: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
This little comparison does not acquit the NKJV for all its omissions and changes, but it does show how many who use other versions on this particular text could be taught "just believe on Jesus and be saved" as well as "saved in their sins" teaching. These are rampant among most churches and coming into ours as well.
The Veith DVD (thank you, Dora) on this subject is incredibly enlightening.
He points out the systematic downplaying of Jesus' divinity in most all modern translations; the atonement; Jesus' High Priesthood and many other things relative to salvation - but primarily taking Jesus out of the spotlight of being Savior, Redeemer, in the flesh, High Priest and Advocate, Judge.
-
Richard, look at the post on Romans 8:1. Easy to see if someone is using a modern version, the 2nd half of the text just does not exist.
Amazing! Wah-la - a false gospel!
-
No outward observances can take the place of simple faith and entire renunciation of self. But no man can empty himself of self. We can only consent for Christ to accomplish the work. Then the language of the soul will be, Lord, take my heart; for I cannot give it. It is Thy property. Keep it pure, for I cannot keep it for Thee. Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self. Mold me, fashion me, raise me into a pure and holy atmosphere, where the rich current of Thy love can flow through my soul. {COL 159.3}
It is not only at the beginning of the Christian life that this renunciation of self is to be made. At every advance step heavenward it is to be renewed. All our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves. Therefore there needs to be a continual reaching out of the heart after God, a continual, earnest, heartbreaking confession of sin and humbling of the soul before Him. Only by constant renunciation of self and dependence on Christ can we walk safely. {COL 159.4}
-
Changing the Word – Parts 1 through 3
Total Onslaught
Walter J. Veith
Notes from:
How theology is changed when using modern versions
Which Bible Can We Trust?
Les Garrett, Cluedram Centre Press, 1982 says:
Number of verses affected:
New American Standard – 909
Revised Version – 788
New World Translation 767
NIV – 695
Good News – 614
Amplified – 484
Douay – 421
Old Jehovah’s Witnesses – 129
NKJV ignored the textus recepticus 1200 times
Brief overview of subtle changes from KJV textus recepticus
Jehovah’s Witness’ Bible was the first changed
· Matthew 16:3 left out
· Mark 9:46 left out
· Mark 16:9-20 left out
· John 1:1 – word was a god
· John 8:1-11 – left out
· Acts 8:37 – left out
· 1 John 5:7 – left out
NIV
· 2 Samuel 21:19
· 2 Sam 23:5
· Hosea 11:12
· Matthew 20:22, 23 – left out phrases
· Matthew 25:13 – left out 2nd half
· Matthew 24:36 – added “nor the son”
· Mark 2:17 – left off 2nd half – “to repentance”
· Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
· Mark 10:24 – left off “that trust in riches” yet says how hard it is for “the rich to enter the kingdom of God”
· Luke 4:4 – left out “but by every word of God”
· Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save
· Revelation 14:5 - left out “before the throne of God”
· Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
· Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
· Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “Paul and Barnabas”
· Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” - implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
· 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone. Changes the doctrine of Atonement
· 1 Peter 1:22 – “through the Spirit” is missing – no indwelling power of God
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “in view of” His appearing and his kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
· Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
· John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
· John 2:11 – miraculous signs – not “miracles” performed by Jesus
· Matthew 18:2, 3 – left out “be converted”
· Hebrews 11:3 – “formed at God’s command” not by “the Word” of God.
· Hebrews 1:2 – “through whom” not “by whom” – spiritualizes creation
· Ephesians 3:9 – left out “all things by Jesus Christ”
· Colossians 1:14 – leaves out “through His blood” – denies the atonement, shedding of blood
· 2 Thessalonians 2:2 – “has already come” – not “at hand”
· Mark 7:19 – declares all foods clean
· John 9:4 – “I” is changed to “we” must work. Jesus is the only one who can do this work – not “we”
· 1 Corinthians 11:29 – leaves out “unworthily” and the “Lord’s” body. Changes the idea of the text to say without discerning “the body of the Lord.” Transubstantiation.
· James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another” Makes man a confessor to man
· Hebrews 10:21 – having “a great priest” not “an high priest” – denies Jesus High priesthood. Implies there can be other priests or a priesthood for confessionals other than Jesus.
· Acts 15:23 – Church government is changed. A comma changed the priesthood apart from the brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it is issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, AND the brethren.
· Hebrews 9:27 – judgment at death
· Luke 1:72 – says Christ came to show to our dead fathers the mercy they need now. Praying for the dead – they needed mercy after death.
· 1 Peter 4:6 – gospel was preached “even to those who are now dead”
· Acts 24:15 – “of the dead” left out
· Job 26:5 – dead are “in deep anguish” beneath the waters and all that live in them. Purgatory teaching
· 2 Peter 2:9 – “while continuing their punishment” – everlasting hell
· FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
· 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
· Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory” – Jesus has only the glory God gives him – not His own
· Proverbs 8:22 – His eternal pre-existence is denied – “brought me forth as the first of his works” Says Jesus was a created being.
· Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
· Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
· Matthew 13:51 – “Lord” is left out. Everywhere in the KJV where Jesus is referred to as “Lord” – it has been removed in the NIV.
· Matthew 27:35 – “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture” did they cast lots, is removed.
· Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
· 1 John 4:3 – “Christ is come in the flesh” is removed.
· Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
· Luke 11:2 – “Our Father, which art in heaven” “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth” are removed. Any father can be prayed to in this version
· Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
· John 16:16 – reworded verse so that it appears as if Jesus is playing game of hide and seek. Left out is “because I go to the Father.”
· Acts 9:29 – “the name of the Lord Jesus” is removed
· Acts 22:16 – “calling on the name of the Lord” is removed
· Romans 1:3 – “Jesus Christ our Lord” is removed
· 1 Timothy 3:16 – mystery of godliness. Says “he” appeared in a body, not “God” appeared in the flesh.
· 1 John 5:7 – Godhead removed saying “for there are three that testify:” without naming them as does the KJV
· Revelation 5:14 – removed “him that liveth for ever and ever”
· Matthew 17:21 – missing
· Matthew 18:11 – missing
· Matthew 23:14 – missing
· Mark 7:16 – missing
· Mark 9:44 – missing
· Mark 9:46 – missing
· Mark 11:26 – missing
· Romans 8:1 – missing 2nd half of verse. “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus period
· 1 Timothy 3:16 – “He was” manifest in the flesh – not “God was”
RSV
· Matthew 18:11 – left out
· Matthew 5:44 – left off portion of full text
· Matthew 20:16 – left off 2nd half of text
· Matthew 25:13 – left out 2nd half
· Mark 2:17 – left off 2nd half – “to repentance”
· Mark 6:11 – left off 2nd half – more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment
· Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
· Mark 10:24 – left off “that trust in riches”
· Luke 2:14 – changed 2nd half – “peace among men with whom he is pleased”
· Luke 4:4 – left out “but by every word of God”
· Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save
· Luke 22:43, 44 – missing
· John 10:14 – changed to “my own know me”
· Acts 28:29 – missing
· 1 Corinthians 10:28 – left out “for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”
· Revelation 14:5 - left out “before the throne of God”
· Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
· Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
· Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “they”
· Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” - implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
· 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “for Christ our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone. Changes doctrine of atonement
· 1 Peter 1:22 – “through the Spirit” is missing – no indwelling power of God but adding “your obedience”
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “by” His appearing and His kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
· Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
· John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
· John 2:11 – “sign” not miracle of Jesus
· Matthew 18:2, 3 – left out “be converted”
· John 1: 3, 4 – the margin says “was life in Him”
· Hebrews 11:3 – the margin “that the ages have been framed” – evolutionary rather than literal creation week. Hort’s commentary on this: “The ages, the universe under the aspect of time have been formed by the Word of God. Included harmonious unfolding … evolution in orderly succession.”
· Colossians 1:15, 16 – changed “by Him all things were created” and said “in Him” all things were created.
· Hebrews 1:2 – “through whom” not “by whom” He created “the ages” – spiritualizes creation and makes it evolutionary at the same time
· Colossians 1:14 – leaves out “through His blood” – denies the atonement, shedding of blood
· Matthew 24:3 – leaves out “thy coming” and “the end of the world” – says instead – “of thy presence” (margin) and “the consummation of the age.” Doctrine of the 2nd coming of Christ radically changed. Evolution again included
· Philippians 3:20, 21 – change denied at the 2nd coming, but rather can occur at any time before His coming, or be continuous – it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues. Spiritualizes away the 2nd coming
· 2 Thessalonians 2:2 – “now present” – not “at hand”
· Titus 2:13 – by changing the adjective “glorious” to the noun “glory,” the revisers have removed the 2nd coming of Christ from this text. Now, it is not He that comes but His glory.
· Revelation 1:7 - “shall mourn OVER Him” not “because of Him” Denies judgment. Spiritualizes away judgment through terrible expectation of vengeance. Most of the revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of Jesus before the restitution of all things which the KJV rendering of this passage teaches.
· Mark 7:19 – says Jesus declares all foods clean
· Luke 22:44, 45 – “while the sun’s light failed”
· 1 Corinthians 7:5 – leaves out “fasting”
· John 9:4 – “I” is changed to “we” must work. Jesus is the only one who can do this work – not “we”
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing changed to “by” His appearing
· 1 Corinthians 11:29 – leaves out “unworthily” and the “Lord’s” body
· James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another” Makes man a confessor to man
· Hebrews 10:21 – having “a great priest” not “an high priest” – denies Jesus High priesthood. Implies there can be other priests or a priesthood for confessionals other than Jesus.
· Acts 15:23 – Church government is changed. A comma changed the priesthood apart from the brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it is issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, AND the brethren
· Hebrews 9:27 – judgment at death – or purgatory
· Luke 1:72 – says Christ came to show to our dead fathers the mercy they need now. Praying for the dead.
· 1 Peter 4:6 – gospel was preached “even to the dead”
· Acts 24:15 – “of the dead” left out
· Job 26:5 – the deceased “tremble beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof”
· Revelation 13:8 – teaches the different regions of the conscious dead, as RCC teaches.
· 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
· 1 Corinthians 11:24 – referencing the mass – leaves out “take eat” and “broken” for you
· John 7:8 – left out “go not up YET” – but instead says “I’m not going” – but we know He did go. This version renders Jesus a liar.
· FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
· Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory” Jesus has only the glory God gives him – not His own
· Isaiah 7:14 “a young woman” not “a virgin” A virgin conceiving is a “sign” otherwise any young woman could conceive
· Psalm 45:6 – “your divine throne” and not “thy throne, O God” which Hebrews 1:8 refers to. The name of God is in Psalms reduced to the adjective “divine” – so when quoted in Hebrews it is made to apply to the Son.
· Proverbs 8:22 – His eternal pre-existence is denied – “created me” at the beginning
· Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
· Micah 5:2 – “whose origin” is from old and not “whose goings forth have been” from old, from everlasting
· Matthew 1:25 – miraculous birth obscured – removed “her firstborn” son.
· Matthew 1:16 – Joseph as “the father of Jesus” KJV calls Joseph the husband of Mary
· Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
· Matthew 13:51 – “Lord” is left out
· Matthew 19:16, 17 – “teacher” is substituted for “Good Master” and the phrase is reworded, “why do you ask me about what is good” instead of “why callest thou me good?”
· Matthew 27:35 – “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture” did they cast lots, is removed.
· Matthew 2:15 – Out of Egypt “did” I call my son instead of “have I called” With this being such, Hosea 11:1 is not a fulfillment of prophecy.
· Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
· Mark 15:28 – missing. It is a fulfillment of prophecy in the KJV, thus omitted
· 1 John 4:3 – “Christ is come in the flesh” is removed.
· Mark 16:9-20 – post resurrection appearances are omitted, missing altogether
· Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
· Luke 11:2 – “Our Father, which art in heaven” “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth” are removed. Any father can be prayed to in this version
· Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
· Luke 24:40 – post resurrection appearances omitted altogether
· John 3:13 – rightful place of Son of Man in heaven denied. Removed is “which is in heaven”
· John 6:33 – “is THAT which comes down from heaven” instead of “he” which comes down
· John 6:47 – removed is “believeth on me” – instead it is just “he who believes” has eternal life. This dramatically changes theology
· John 16:16 – reworded verse so that it appears as if Jesus is playing game of hide and seek. Left out is “because I go to the Father.”
· John 16:23 – Prayer to the Father in the name of the Son discountenanced. “he will give it to you in my name” rather than “ask the Father in my name”
· Acts 2:30 – “he would set one of his descendants” upon his throne instead of “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”
· Acts 8:36, 37 – Divine Sonship omitted. Verse 37 omitted altogether
· Acts 22:16 – “calling on the name of the Lord” is removed
· Romans 1:3 – “Jesus Christ our Lord” is removed
· Romans 9:5 – deity of Christ eliminated. “… is THE Christ” vs. KJV “ … flesh Christ came, WHO is over all”
· Romans 14:10 – “seat of God” vs. “judgment seat of Christ” in KJV which exalts Jesus as God and judge.
· 1 Corinthians 15:47 – pre-existence of the Son as Lord in heaven discredited. “the Lord” is omitted
· 1 Timothy 3:16 – mystery of godliness. Says “he” was manifested – not “God was manifested” in the flesh
· 1 Peter 4:14 – omits “on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.”
· Revelation 1:11 – removed “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest …”
· Revelation 5:14 – removed “him that liveth for ever and ever”
· Matthew 17:21 – missing
· Matthew 18:11 – missing
· Matthew 23:14 – missing
· Mark 7:16 – missing
· Mark 9:44 – missing
· Mark 9:46 – missing
· Mark 11:26 – missing
· Romans 8:1 – missing 2nd half of verse. “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus period
· 1 Timothy 3:16 - “He was” manifest in the flesh – not “God was”
ASV
· Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
· 2 Timothy 3:16 – “is also profitable for teaching”
· Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
· Philippians 3:20, 21 - change denied at the 2nd coming, but rather can occur at any time before His coming, or be continuous – it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues. Spiritualizes away the 2nd coming
· Revelation 1:7 - “shall mourn OVER Him” not “because of Him” Denies judgment through terrible expectation of vengeance. Spiritualizes away judgment. Most of the revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of Jesus before the restitution of all things which the KJV rendering of this passage teaches.
· FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
· 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
· Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory”
· Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
· Matthew 2:15 – Out of Egypt “did” I call my son instead of “have I called” With this being such, Hosea 11:1 is not a fulfillment of prophecy.
· Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
·
NASV
· Job 19:26 Ghost theology – “without my flesh” I shall see God. KJV says “in my flesh” I shall see God
· Luke 24:51, 52 – Miraculous Ascension obscured – removed “and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him.”
Douay
· Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
· Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “they”
· Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” – implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
· 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone.
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “by” His coming and His kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
· Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
· John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
· Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
· Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
· Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
Moffat
· Luke 23:44, 45 – “owing to an eclipse of the sun”
-
I know some time ago, we discussed about different versions of the Bible.
I came across an interesting web site that you might want to take a look at it.
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
Won
-
Interesting site... but only for the flawed reasoning. E.g. Replacing Hell with Hades and Sheol, isnt a problem at all, but that site makes it one. I believe sites like these are done by persons who are passionate indeed, but who don't have adequate understanding of translations.
E.g this is the person's reasoning
How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!
If we were to take this man's reasoning; then the books of the new testament should all be seen as Mythological writing... as the books were written in Greek, Hades is just the original Greek for what was translated as Hell...
The Symbols are quite interesting, but I do not believe we can associate a publishers symbol with that of the text. NKJV's are sold with the Nelson Bible(who owns the copy right) emblem as well, and with other societies... I just don't see why we are making an issue of a non-issue.
-
I only took a moment to see what the site had to say and I liked this. I think important that we understand.
Among the first changes that greets the reader of the NKJV is the removal of the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you,. . .These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ." (p.2648) And yet the 1611 King James was published 400 years later in the 17th century!
So why are they there?
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate!
By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!
-
Richard I understand, the love we as Adventist have for the KJV. However, it is sites like this one that distracts from the good the NKJV actually does. It is still in keeping with the original meaning of the Word. This particular site is in fact using half baked ideas/facts as truth.
Please the understanding of Hell for instance helps us to be able to understand the true meaning of the words, especially considering the state of dead.
We should not be considering one particular translations as the be all end all, considering some things that were added to the KJV by copyist's such as 1 John 5: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
As long as the Translation considers the original meaning, is reverend and does not omit or add, that is what we should look for.
Furthermore, the NKJV is more understandable to the contemporary reader. Thus being able to bring the Word to the ‘common’ person(in a respectful manner). Should we do what the church did in the middle ages and withhold the word from common understanding. As far as I can remember, Luther Translated the Bible into the common vernacular… It was not merely a translation; form one language to another, but was a paradigm shift. By being able to understand, and read for themselves the Word of God; the common man can get to really know Christ, and understand the Bible, by being able to do proper Bible Study.
Maybe before we attack a good translation, we should consider the advantage of being able to read such a translation. Besides, maybe people should consider that the Bible is not only translated into English, and that even those people who don't consider English as their first language, still need to do Bible Study in English... Would we want to keep the Word of God, and a Thorough understanding of the Word from them, because we only want to consider a translation we prefer as the be all end all.
-
If the NKJ is a good translation, then you are certainly right. There are those who need a simple English translation to begin with. We have a thread in the Bread of Life Forum that we will merge this topic into since it is now duplicating what the other topic does and is in an open forum.
The question is.....is the JKJ a good translation?
-
It is not only whether the NKJV is a good translation, but is the KJV indeed the Best(for thorough Bible understanding).
I have found using a number of translations actually assist in Bible study, including the literal translations and of course the concordance, Strongs dictionary and so-on. We should be careful of knocking translations that have been keeping true to the Word of God. The original post was about a site that was referred to as worth looking at, but the reasoning on that site was flawed, and we should not subscribe to flawed hear-say internet propoganda... I always ask the question, what is the motive of the person writing the article, is it edifying and is it true...
-
You will find that the discussion regarding Bible translations has centered on the blessing of having the KJV because of the trouble with the NIV and other modern translations. So, the real issue for most of us involved in this discussion is the credibility of the NKJV. I will merge this topic with the other and we can look and see what has been said about the NKJV.
There are some who have difficulty with reading and would benfit from a modern translation to get them going in Scripture. But, I have yet to find a modern translation that is good. If the NKJV is good then let us hear about it. It would be a blessing and a surprise.
-
It would seem that the first question to ask regarding the NKJV is which manuscript is it translated from. I would assume it is from the same as the KJV. But, I have learned that my reasoning is not sufficient for such things. It may be that the NKJV has amalgamated its translation? Just asking?
-
The first question to ask is, why was it deemed important by some scholars to update the KJV... Why did they not just go for a totally new translation, such as the NIV.
The answer. 1)Copyright 2) Too remain faithfull to the original, well loved Bible, but to bring to understanding for modern readers.
Then yet again, the questions about the website remains, why are we entertaining internet rumours and conspiracy theories, rather than investigatinghe matter, why are we not wrestling with the facts, and why are we not quoting reputable sources.
To answer your question Richard
According to the preface of the New King James Version (p. v-vi), the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Bomberg edition of 1524-25 (The Bomberg edition of 1524-25 was used for the King James Version). Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Asher text (known as the Masoretic Text). However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV.
The New King James Version also uses the Received Text for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had used. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence." New King James Version. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 09, 2008, from Answers.com Web site: http://www.answers.com/topic/new-king-james-version
I do have a number of translations, as this I have found is of great use, especially when preparing a Sermon, or doing Bible study.
-
Brother aerasmus, if you haven't already done so, it might be useful for you to view Dr. Walter Veith's presentations, "The Battle of the Bibles," and "Changing the Word." Both are part of the Total Onslaught series, and are available from Amazing Discoveries. I have liked the NKJV myself, but I use it with caution because I know there some problems with it. When I preach I always use the KJV. When I study I use the KJV as a base and then compare versions and commentaries, along with the SOP.
-
These notes are from that DVD, Changing the Word, posted on February 15, 2008.
Changing the Word – Parts 1 through 3
Total Onslaught
Walter J. Veith
Notes from:
How theology is changed when using modern versions
Which Bible Can We Trust?
Les Garrett, Cluedram Centre Press, 1982 says:
Number of verses affected:
New American Standard – 909
Revised Version – 788
New World Translation 767
NIV – 695
Good News – 614
Amplified – 484
Douay – 421
Old Jehovah’s Witnesses – 129
NKJV ignored the textus recepticus 1200 times
Brief overview of subtle changes from KJV textus recepticus
Jehovah’s Witness’ Bible was the first changed
· Matthew 16:3 left out
· Mark 9:46 left out
· Mark 16:9-20 left out
· John 1:1 – word was a god
· John 8:1-11 – left out
· Acts 8:37 – left out
· 1 John 5:7 – left out
NIV
· 2 Samuel 21:19
· 2 Sam 23:5
· Hosea 11:12
· Matthew 20:22, 23 – left out phrases
· Matthew 25:13 – left out 2nd half
· Matthew 24:36 – added “nor the son”
· Mark 2:17 – left off 2nd half – “to repentance”
· Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
· Mark 10:24 – left off “that trust in riches” yet says how hard it is for “the rich to enter the kingdom of God”
· Luke 4:4 – left out “but by every word of God”
· Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save
· Revelation 14:5 - left out “before the throne of God”
· Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
· Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
· Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “Paul and Barnabas”
· Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” - implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
· 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone. Changes the doctrine of Atonement
· 1 Peter 1:22 – “through the Spirit” is missing – no indwelling power of God
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “in view of” His appearing and his kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
· Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
· John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
· John 2:11 – miraculous signs – not “miracles” performed by Jesus
· Matthew 18:2, 3 – left out “be converted”
· Hebrews 11:3 – “formed at God’s command” not by “the Word” of God.
· Hebrews 1:2 – “through whom” not “by whom” – spiritualizes creation
· Ephesians 3:9 – left out “all things by Jesus Christ”
· Colossians 1:14 – leaves out “through His blood” – denies the atonement, shedding of blood
· 2 Thessalonians 2:2 – “has already come” – not “at hand”
· Mark 7:19 – declares all foods clean
· John 9:4 – “I” is changed to “we” must work. Jesus is the only one who can do this work – not “we”
· 1 Corinthians 11:29 – leaves out “unworthily” and the “Lord’s” body. Changes the idea of the text to say without discerning “the body of the Lord.” Transubstantiation.
· James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another” Makes man a confessor to man
· Hebrews 10:21 – having “a great priest” not “an high priest” – denies Jesus High priesthood. Implies there can be other priests or a priesthood for confessionals other than Jesus.
· Acts 15:23 – Church government is changed. A comma changed the priesthood apart from the brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it is issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, AND the brethren.
· Hebrews 9:27 – judgment at death
· Luke 1:72 – says Christ came to show to our dead fathers the mercy they need now. Praying for the dead – they needed mercy after death.
· 1 Peter 4:6 – gospel was preached “even to those who are now dead”
· Acts 24:15 – “of the dead” left out
· Job 26:5 – dead are “in deep anguish” beneath the waters and all that live in them. Purgatory teaching
· 2 Peter 2:9 – “while continuing their punishment” – everlasting hell
· FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
· 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
· Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory” – Jesus has only the glory God gives him – not His own
· Proverbs 8:22 – His eternal pre-existence is denied – “brought me forth as the first of his works” Says Jesus was a created being.
· Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
· Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
· Matthew 13:51 – “Lord” is left out. Everywhere in the KJV where Jesus is referred to as “Lord” – it has been removed in the NIV.
· Matthew 27:35 – “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture” did they cast lots, is removed.
· Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
· 1 John 4:3 – “Christ is come in the flesh” is removed.
· Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
· Luke 11:2 – “Our Father, which art in heaven” “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth” are removed. Any father can be prayed to in this version
· Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
· John 16:16 – reworded verse so that it appears as if Jesus is playing game of hide and seek. Left out is “because I go to the Father.”
· Acts 9:29 – “the name of the Lord Jesus” is removed
· Acts 22:16 – “calling on the name of the Lord” is removed
· Romans 1:3 – “Jesus Christ our Lord” is removed
· 1 Timothy 3:16 – mystery of godliness. Says “he” appeared in a body, not “God” appeared in the flesh.
· 1 John 5:7 – Godhead removed saying “for there are three that testify:” without naming them as does the KJV
· Revelation 5:14 – removed “him that liveth for ever and ever”
· Matthew 17:21 – missing
· Matthew 18:11 – missing
· Matthew 23:14 – missing
· Mark 7:16 – missing
· Mark 9:44 – missing
· Mark 9:46 – missing
· Mark 11:26 – missing
· Romans 8:1 – missing 2nd half of verse. “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus period
· 1 Timothy 3:16 – “He was” manifest in the flesh – not “God was”
RSV
· Matthew 18:11 – left out
· Matthew 5:44 – left off portion of full text
· Matthew 20:16 – left off 2nd half of text
· Matthew 25:13 – left out 2nd half
· Mark 2:17 – left off 2nd half – “to repentance”
· Mark 6:11 – left off 2nd half – more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment
· Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
· Mark 10:24 – left off “that trust in riches”
· Luke 2:14 – changed 2nd half – “peace among men with whom he is pleased”
· Luke 4:4 – left out “but by every word of God”
· Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save
· Luke 22:43, 44 – missing
· John 10:14 – changed to “my own know me”
· Acts 28:29 – missing
· 1 Corinthians 10:28 – left out “for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”
· Revelation 14:5 - left out “before the throne of God”
· Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
· Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
· Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “they”
· Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” - implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
· 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “for Christ our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone. Changes doctrine of atonement
· 1 Peter 1:22 – “through the Spirit” is missing – no indwelling power of God but adding “your obedience”
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “by” His appearing and His kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
· Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
· John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
· John 2:11 – “sign” not miracle of Jesus
· Matthew 18:2, 3 – left out “be converted”
· John 1: 3, 4 – the margin says “was life in Him”
· Hebrews 11:3 – the margin “that the ages have been framed” – evolutionary rather than literal creation week. Hort’s commentary on this: “The ages, the universe under the aspect of time have been formed by the Word of God. Included harmonious unfolding … evolution in orderly succession.”
· Colossians 1:15, 16 – changed “by Him all things were created” and said “in Him” all things were created.
· Hebrews 1:2 – “through whom” not “by whom” He created “the ages” – spiritualizes creation and makes it evolutionary at the same time
· Colossians 1:14 – leaves out “through His blood” – denies the atonement, shedding of blood
· Matthew 24:3 – leaves out “thy coming” and “the end of the world” – says instead – “of thy presence” (margin) and “the consummation of the age.” Doctrine of the 2nd coming of Christ radically changed. Evolution again included
· Philippians 3:20, 21 – change denied at the 2nd coming, but rather can occur at any time before His coming, or be continuous – it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues. Spiritualizes away the 2nd coming
· 2 Thessalonians 2:2 – “now present” – not “at hand”
· Titus 2:13 – by changing the adjective “glorious” to the noun “glory,” the revisers have removed the 2nd coming of Christ from this text. Now, it is not He that comes but His glory.
· Revelation 1:7 - “shall mourn OVER Him” not “because of Him” Denies judgment. Spiritualizes away judgment through terrible expectation of vengeance. Most of the revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of Jesus before the restitution of all things which the KJV rendering of this passage teaches.
· Mark 7:19 – says Jesus declares all foods clean
· Luke 22:44, 45 – “while the sun’s light failed”
· 1 Corinthians 7:5 – leaves out “fasting”
· John 9:4 – “I” is changed to “we” must work. Jesus is the only one who can do this work – not “we”
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing changed to “by” His appearing
· 1 Corinthians 11:29 – leaves out “unworthily” and the “Lord’s” body
· James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another” Makes man a confessor to man
· Hebrews 10:21 – having “a great priest” not “an high priest” – denies Jesus High priesthood. Implies there can be other priests or a priesthood for confessionals other than Jesus.
· Acts 15:23 – Church government is changed. A comma changed the priesthood apart from the brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it is issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, AND the brethren
· Hebrews 9:27 – judgment at death – or purgatory
· Luke 1:72 – says Christ came to show to our dead fathers the mercy they need now. Praying for the dead.
· 1 Peter 4:6 – gospel was preached “even to the dead”
· Acts 24:15 – “of the dead” left out
· Job 26:5 – the deceased “tremble beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof”
· Revelation 13:8 – teaches the different regions of the conscious dead, as RCC teaches.
· 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
· 1 Corinthians 11:24 – referencing the mass – leaves out “take eat” and “broken” for you
· John 7:8 – left out “go not up YET” – but instead says “I’m not going” – but we know He did go. This version renders Jesus a liar.
· FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
· Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory” Jesus has only the glory God gives him – not His own
· Isaiah 7:14 “a young woman” not “a virgin” A virgin conceiving is a “sign” otherwise any young woman could conceive
· Psalm 45:6 – “your divine throne” and not “thy throne, O God” which Hebrews 1:8 refers to. The name of God is in Psalms reduced to the adjective “divine” – so when quoted in Hebrews it is made to apply to the Son.
· Proverbs 8:22 – His eternal pre-existence is denied – “created me” at the beginning
· Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
· Micah 5:2 – “whose origin” is from old and not “whose goings forth have been” from old, from everlasting
· Matthew 1:25 – miraculous birth obscured – removed “her firstborn” son.
· Matthew 1:16 – Joseph as “the father of Jesus” KJV calls Joseph the husband of Mary
· Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
· Matthew 13:51 – “Lord” is left out
· Matthew 19:16, 17 – “teacher” is substituted for “Good Master” and the phrase is reworded, “why do you ask me about what is good” instead of “why callest thou me good?”
· Matthew 27:35 – “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture” did they cast lots, is removed.
· Matthew 2:15 – Out of Egypt “did” I call my son instead of “have I called” With this being such, Hosea 11:1 is not a fulfillment of prophecy.
· Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
· Mark 15:28 – missing. It is a fulfillment of prophecy in the KJV, thus omitted
· 1 John 4:3 – “Christ is come in the flesh” is removed.
· Mark 16:9-20 – post resurrection appearances are omitted, missing altogether
· Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
· Luke 11:2 – “Our Father, which art in heaven” “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth” are removed. Any father can be prayed to in this version
· Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
· Luke 24:40 – post resurrection appearances omitted altogether
· John 3:13 – rightful place of Son of Man in heaven denied. Removed is “which is in heaven”
· John 6:33 – “is THAT which comes down from heaven” instead of “he” which comes down
· John 6:47 – removed is “believeth on me” – instead it is just “he who believes” has eternal life. This dramatically changes theology
· John 16:16 – reworded verse so that it appears as if Jesus is playing game of hide and seek. Left out is “because I go to the Father.”
· John 16:23 – Prayer to the Father in the name of the Son discountenanced. “he will give it to you in my name” rather than “ask the Father in my name”
· Acts 2:30 – “he would set one of his descendants” upon his throne instead of “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”
· Acts 8:36, 37 – Divine Sonship omitted. Verse 37 omitted altogether
· Acts 22:16 – “calling on the name of the Lord” is removed
· Romans 1:3 – “Jesus Christ our Lord” is removed
· Romans 9:5 – deity of Christ eliminated. “… is THE Christ” vs. KJV “ … flesh Christ came, WHO is over all”
· Romans 14:10 – “seat of God” vs. “judgment seat of Christ” in KJV which exalts Jesus as God and judge.
· 1 Corinthians 15:47 – pre-existence of the Son as Lord in heaven discredited. “the Lord” is omitted
· 1 Timothy 3:16 – mystery of godliness. Says “he” was manifested – not “God was manifested” in the flesh
· 1 Peter 4:14 – omits “on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.”
· Revelation 1:11 – removed “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest …”
· Revelation 5:14 – removed “him that liveth for ever and ever”
· Matthew 17:21 – missing
· Matthew 18:11 – missing
· Matthew 23:14 – missing
· Mark 7:16 – missing
· Mark 9:44 – missing
· Mark 9:46 – missing
· Mark 11:26 – missing
· Romans 8:1 – missing 2nd half of verse. “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus period
· 1 Timothy 3:16 - “He was” manifest in the flesh – not “God was”
ASV
· Mark 10:21 – left off “take up the cross”
· 2 Timothy 3:16 – “is also profitable for teaching”
· Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”
· Philippians 3:20, 21 - change denied at the 2nd coming, but rather can occur at any time before His coming, or be continuous – it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues. Spiritualizes away the 2nd coming
· Revelation 1:7 - “shall mourn OVER Him” not “because of Him” Denies judgment through terrible expectation of vengeance. Spiritualizes away judgment. Most of the revisers did not believe there would be a personal return of Jesus before the restitution of all things which the KJV rendering of this passage teaches.
· FOLLOWING TEXTS ARE A DENIAL OF JESUS DIVINITY
· 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4 – “he hath been raised on the third day” denies his divine power to raise – that He is inferior
· Titus 2:13 – deity of Christ removed – “appearing of the glory”
· Daniel 3:25 – Jesus described as “son of the gods”
· Matthew 2:15 – Out of Egypt “did” I call my son instead of “have I called” With this being such, Hosea 11:1 is not a fulfillment of prophecy.
· Mark 15:3 – “but he answered nothing” is removed. Again in the KJV it is a fulfillment of prophecy
·
NASV
· Job 19:26 Ghost theology – “without my flesh” I shall see God. KJV says “in my flesh” I shall see God
· Luke 24:51, 52 – Miraculous Ascension obscured – removed “and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him.”
Douay
· Luke 4:8 – leaves out “get thee behind Me Satan”
· Acts 13:42 – subtle change for meaning of Sabbath – taking the Jews out replacing “they”
· Acts 16:7 – added “but the Spirit of Jesus” – implies that the Spirit is in control of Jesus
· 1 Corinthians 5:7 – “for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” “for us” is missing. Exclusivity of Jesus is gone.
· 2 Timothy 4:1 – “at” His appearing is changed to “by” His coming and His kingdom, implying the judgment could take place at any indefinite period
· Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
· John 5:39 – No longer “Search the Scriptures” – a command, yet a statement saying “you search the scriptures … “
· Luke 2:33 – denies God as father of Jesus
· Matthew 6:13 – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” is omitted.
· Luke 11:2-4 – in addition to the above, “deliver us from evil” is removed
Moffat
· Luke 23:44, 45 – “owing to an eclipse of the sun”
-
Brother aerasmus, you seem to discredit the web site I quoted. I think, it is worthwhile to look at the evidences shown at the site. I have looked at most of them. The modern versions either omitted or placed different words from KJV. Some cases the entire verses were omitted from the new versions. How important are these verses? I do not know, however, the meaning seemed to change quiet differently than original KJV statement.
You have quoted a statement from the Wikipedia. The wikipedia is not trustworthy. Any one can go in there place one's own definition or edit. There are some true statements in wikipedia but, I would not use this source as the accurate one.
Won
-
Friends, You have to realise that in the past 406 years since work started on the Authorised Version(Which included the Apocrypha) there has been quite a number of new(in fact older) manuscripts discovered, thus, quite a number of modern translations have actually tried to be closer to the original text. If an older manuscript is found, it tends to have more weight.
But lets first of all deal with Won's objection...You may also write to Thomas Nelson Inc the copyright holders for further info. but here is wording from the Preface
The Old Testament Text
The Hebrew Bible has come down to us through the scrupulous care of ancient scribes who copied the original text in successive generations. By the sixth century A.D. the scribes were succeeded by a group known as the Masoretes, who continued to preserve the sacred Scriptures for another five hundred years in a form known as the Masoretic Text. Babylonia, Palestine, and Tiberias were the main centers of Masoretic activity; but by the tenth century A.D. the Masoretes of Tiberias, led by the family of ben Asher, gained the ascendancy. Through subsequent editions, the ben Asher text became in the twelfth century the only recognized form of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Daniel Bomberg printed the first Rabbinic Bible in 1516—17; that work was followed in 1524—25 by a second edition prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim and also published by Bomberg. The text of ben Chayyim was adopted in most subsequent Hebrew Bibles, including those used by the King James translators. The ben Chayyim text was also used for the first two editions of Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica of 1906 and 1912. In 1937 Paul Kahie published a third edition of Biblia Hebraica. This edition was based on the oldest dated manuscript of the ben Asher text, the Leningrad Manuscript B 19a (A.D. 1008), which Kahie regarded as superior to that used by ben Chayyim.
For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524—25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in footnotes.
The New Testament Text
There is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries, before mechanical printing began about A.D. 1450.
Some variations exist in the spelling of Greek words, in word order, and in similar details. These ordinarily do not show up in translation and do not affect the sense of the text in any way.
Other manuscript differences such as omission or inclusion of a word or a clause, and two paragraphs in the Gospels, should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists among the ancient records. Bible readers may be assured that the most important differences in English New Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation: How literally should the text be rendered? How does the translator view the matter of biblical inspiration? Does the translator adopt a paraphrase when a literal rendering would be quite clear and more to the point? The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue.
The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.
Since the 1 880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.
A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.
Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the Majority Text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation.
In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.
New King James Footnotes
Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in the footnotes.
Important textual variants in the Old Testament are identified in a standard form.
The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as “the best manuscripts omit” or “the most reliable manuscripts read.” Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.
Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:
1. NU-Text These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”
2. M-Text This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “The New Testament Text.” It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.
The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.
Copyright 1997, Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Special thanks to Thomas Nelson for allowing us to reprint this excerpt here for you.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=186191&sp=57319&event=SP57319|220793|57319
-
Friends, I am a Bible Believing Christian, and I believe God has kept His Word in safe hands through the ages, so we will know that His Testimony is True.
Please just understand, that Some things were added by copyist's, most likely as marginals to explain certain things, but unfortunately crept into the KJV. Though they are there, and not in some modern translations, does not mean we should throw the Bible out. It is the Word of God.
I suggest you read a book by Lee Strobel, where he interviews Scholars on these subjects, the book is called : The case for the Real Jesus.
Due to these differences, some so called scholars are attacking the Inspiration of the Word, We need to understand that, though there are some "errors" in the KJV, that the crux of the message stays the same. That the Prophetic applications remain and that we do have a Word which we can really trust.
Just to look at a few other texts
Mark 15: 3. He answered nothing.
Textual evidence attests the omission (cf. p. 146) of these words here in Mark.
[Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. Mk 15:3]
1 John 5:7
In heaven. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of the passage “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” The resultant reading of vs. 7, 8 is as follows: “For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus (see Vol. V, p. 141). It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in Dublin produced such a MS (known as 34), and Erasmus included the passage in his text. It is now believed that the later editions of the Vulgate acquired the passage by the mistake of a scribe who included an exegetical marginal comment in the Bible text that he was copying. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but, in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used. In spite of their appearance in the Vulgate A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture freely admits regarding these words: “It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries” (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1951, p. 1186).
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. 1 Jn 5:8
-
Friends, I am a Bible Believing Christian, and I believe God has kept His Word in safe hands through the ages, so we will know that His Testimony is True.
Amen! We appreciate your testimony, dear brother.
The problem that we have is that our faith rests in the Word, not in man's word. So, it is a bit of a difficulty, especially for those new to the faith. I have no trouble with my Bible. I trust it even though there are a few problem areas. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. The new "bibles" that I have looked at are not consistent. So, if we are to look to the Bible as our source of truth, it becomes very important that the Bible be accurate. The NIV is not.
The question I have for you, Aerasmus, is this; these "scholars" who have translated the new "bibles", who are so highly valued, who are they? Where do they come from? Do they reject Bible truth? If so, why would I trust their work? If they do not reject Bible truth, I assume that some of them are in our church?
-
Richard Call me Andre
We are referring to the NKJV... Which I have given ample proof is consistant with the KJV and is a good translation.
I will address the other issues later, but please acknowledge what I have allready provided. We cannot duck and dive, we have to wrestle and be Bereans :-)
-
Richard I can supply you with the whole list, but it is BIG... How many Adventists were involved with the KJV ;-)
-
One of my cousins settled this issue for me long ago. He said he used the KJV because he wanted Christ's words "just the way He said them." Case closed.
-
When we realize that the NKJV differs from the KJV, we should also realize that this fact proves that the NKJV is wrong JUST AS MUCH as it proves that the KJV is wrong.
The only legitimate method to determine which is correct is to go to the originals - Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and determine what God meant, then compare the translations to see if they convey the same meaning. But without going to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, it's all just a bunch of blah blah.
If someone wants the KJV, go for it. But don't presume to say any other translation is bad unless you're willing to put on your scholar hat and dig into the original manuscripts. Anything short is just rhetoric. I prefer to leave that with the politicians.
-
I suggest you read a book by Lee Strobel, where he interviews Scholars on these subjects, the book is called : The case for the Real Jesus.
I have more confidence in Dr. Veith's studies than I do Lee Strobel's. Veith is a PhD professor and scientist; Strobel is a newspaper reporter. That doesn't mean he can't arrive at truth, but based on what I've seen, I have more confidence in Dr. Veith when it comes to Scripture. I've read some of Strobel's material and heard him on the radio many times. He is a good Christian apologist, but can't always be relied upon--makes the same mistakes in exegesis that most evangelicals make. I take it you are not familiar with Dr. Veith's material. It's well worth viewing, if you have an open mind.
-
When we realize that the NKJV differs from the KJV, we should also realize that this fact proves that the NKJV is wrong JUST AS MUCH as it proves that the KJV is wrong.
The only legitimate method to determine which is correct is to go to the originals - Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and determine what God meant, then compare the translations to see if they convey the same meaning. But without going to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, it's all just a bunch of blah blah.
If someone wants the KJV, go for it. But don't presume to say any other translation is bad unless you're willing to put on your scholar hat and dig into the original manuscripts. Anything short is just rhetoric. I prefer to leave that with the politicians.
Well, most of us are not Greek and Hebrew scholars, and so that is unrealistic, and we are stuck with the English language. Given all the problems with the modern translations, not the least of which are the biases (more abundant than they were 400 years ago, due to the multiplication of heresies), it still makes sense to use the KJV as the default translation. Use as many others as you want for comparison, but if it's way off from the KJV, the eyebrows should be raised.
Dr. Veith has done the homework, and his series is a thorough exposition of how we acquired our English translations. It may interest you to know that my French Bible reads like the KJV, and I don't recall any Frenchmen complaining about it when I was in school over there. My Spanish-speaking friends tell me that the common version they use also reads like the KJV. It is only in English that we have multiplied translations. Most other languages have 1 or 2 at most. I don't think the abundance of translations is a benefit to preaching the gospel. On the contrary, I think it has served to muddy the waters, and open things up for all sorts of aberrant doctrines--which is exactly what the devil likes to see.
-
Richard Call me Andre
We are referring to the NKJV... Which I have given ample proof is consistant with the KJV and is a good translation.
I will address the other issues later, but please acknowledge what I have allready provided. We cannot duck and dive, we have to wrestle and be Bereans :-)
Amen, we must participate in the discussion as difficult as it may be, if we are interested in truth. Brother Andre, I accept your experience and want to better understand your position on this. I have not taken a position on the NKJV because I am not familiar with it. I have on the NIV. It is not from God, but rather is used to lead away from the truth. Yes, it has much truth, but that is how Satan works. He presents much truth with his lies.
As I read your post regarding the history of the NKJV a number of things come to mind. It appears that it is as I thought. Many manuscripts have been used to do the translation. That to my mind would be like me using all of the "bibles" and the KJV to try and understand what is truth. It does not work. If we rely upon error to form our principles, then we will have error in our results. There is a discussion of the original manuscripts used by various translations. Have you read through this? And do you disagree? I am not trying to over simplify this subject, but I do believe that Satan has a hand in what is being presented today as God's Word. Do you?
-
I will add only this as one line of reasoning is always brought up whenever the Bible versions are discussed. The age of a manuscript is no proof of its accuracy.
-
I suggest you read a book by Lee Strobel, where he interviews Scholars on these subjects, the book is called : The case for the Real Jesus.
I have more confidence in Dr. Veith's studies than I do Lee Strobel's. Veith is a PhD professor and scientist; Strobel is a newspaper reporter. That doesn't mean he can't arrive at truth, but based on what I've seen, I have more confidence in Dr. Veith when it comes to Scripture. I've read some of Strobel's material and heard him on the radio many times. He is a good Christian apologist, but can't always be relied upon--makes the same mistakes in exegesis that most evangelicals make. I take it you are not familiar with Dr. Veith's material. It's well worth viewing, if you have an open mind.
Thank you for your valued contribution, I am based in the Basin Veith is from, I have attended his Lectures and He is a great guy.
He has his PHD in Biology not Theology!
Lee Strobel interviewed Men of Note. Such as Prof D Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. - Here is a short Bio
"Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.
His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
So as you can see when it comes to the Textual issues, he should know his stuff. Friends, the reason for me debating this point, is that we should not be blinded by tradition, but should realise that the Biblical text in its original is what we should hold to. The KJV was not the original. It was and is a great version(especially for memorising, as it is written in prose) But the KJV is not the Be all end all
-
One of my cousins settled this issue for me long ago. He said he used the KJV because he wanted Christ's words "just the way He said them." Case closed.
I am sorry that is not a valid argument for people who really want to wrestle with the text and get to know the Bible and of course by inferrence the God of the Bible.
If we take the original text's then we get closer to Christ's exact words... Remember, not even Paul or Luke or Matthew actually quoted even the written word of the Day word for word. The Holy Spirit Inspired... The KJV as mentioned is a good translation, but it is not the original... Why are we trying to keep the Bible from the average reader out there who would struggle with the English in KJV?
The NKJV, is a fair translation, as mentioned, and it keeps true to the ideals set by KJV...It even includes the same mistakes as earlier pointed to(which our own Commentary has acknowledged) but we should not be too concerned by the translation mistakes...Be confident in the Inspired Word,but dont be scared to test it... Believe you me it will stand, because it is Inspired by the One true God.
-
I will add only this as one line of reasoning is always brought up whenever the Bible versions are discussed. The age of a manuscript is no proof of its accuracy.
The age does give us a look at what was written closer to that period. We as Christians actually argue for the age of the Gospels, as contributory proof to their authenticity...no time for legend and hear-say to have crept in
-
Prof. Wallace does have a great look at the history of the Bible. This is for all of us to look at, in this he does confirm that the NKJV is very close to the KJV and does give us a great overview... It can all be read at this link http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=117 He actually does note that the KJV is a great work, not the most acurate, but as a literary work, unsurpassed, and I tend to agree with him... but friends, the issue is with the fact that internet rumours and hear-say are taken as fact. and we should be careful, because some people when they find out the truth on some mistakes in the KJV, and was taught that the KJV is be all end all...those one's might lose their faith, because of others trying to force tradition... Even though we all love the KJV, we should realise that there are mistakes... Not that these translation mistakes takes anything away from the Inspiration of the Bible!
But his conclusion was something that made me sit up... please allow me to quote.
Final conclusion: Even with the proliferation of Bibles today, Christians are reading their Bibles less and less. I believe the evangelical church has only 50 years of life left. 50 years left of evangelicalism because of marginalization of the Word of God. We need another Reformation! The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.’ His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized. Or, as Erasmus remarked, “When you read the Greek New Testament, you can see the face of Jesus more clearly than if you were one of his disciples”! A bit of hyperbole, but the point is worth underscoring: The God we worship today no longer resembles the God of the Bible. Unless we return to him through a reading and digesting of the scriptures—through a commitment to the text, the evangelical church will become irrelevant, useless, dead.
-
Richard Call me Andre
We are referring to the NKJV... Which I have given ample proof is consistant with the KJV and is a good translation.
I will address the other issues later, but please acknowledge what I have allready provided. We cannot duck and dive, we have to wrestle and be Bereans :-)
Amen, we must participate in the discussion as difficult as it may be, if we are interested in truth. Brother Andre, I accept your experience and want to better understand your position on this. I have not taken a position on the NKJV because I am not familiar with it. I have on the NIV. It is not from God, but rather is used to lead away from the truth. Yes, it has much truth, but that is how Satan works. He presents much truth with his lies.
As I read your post regarding the history of the NKJV a number of things come to mind. It appears that it is as I thought. Many manuscripts have been used to do the translation. That to my mind would be like me using all of the "bibles" and the KJV to try and understand what is truth. It does not work. If we rely upon error to form our principles, then we will have error in our results. There is a discussion of the original manuscripts used by various translations. Have you read through this? And do you disagree? I am not trying to over simplify this subject, but I do believe that Satan has a hand in what is being presented today as God's Word. Do you?
Brother Richard,
I am glad that you want to study this for yourself. We as Seventh-Day Adventist's believe that Religion is progressive... we should also consider that when we study the text in the Bible, and as we receive greater light on what a particular verse might have meant by looking at a number of reputable sources, we can get closer to the original meaning of Inspiration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should discard the KJV, heaven forbid, I own a number, and I prefer it as my study Bible... However, The NKJV really helps to put the KJV in perspective... Just like the NASB the Revised Version and so on helps us to grapple with the text... I believe in expository preaching, and this helps us to be able to do just that.
The accusations against the NKJV are unwarranted, I have shown that the Translators have tried to modernise the language, so that we as contemporary readers can fully understand. In some cases they have not used the Erasmus, but they used older texts. and Have pointed out where there are differences with KJV.
I have a number of Computer programmes as you can well imagine, and I have the Greek, Hebrew, LXX and so on. All of this helps me with my studies.
By the by, which version of the OT did Mathew quote from?
-
Richard I can supply you with the whole list, but it is BIG... How many Adventists were involved with the KJV ;-)
Brother Andre, a little logic will improve this argument. There were no Seventh-day Adventists when the KJV was translated. To remain faithful to the principle being illustrated you will have to say that none of God's faithful were involved in the translation of the KJV and in fact it was done mainly by Roman Catholics. I would find that hard to believe. Could heathen do the translation? I guess so. God can use the rocks to cry out if no one else will. But, generally, God has a people He works through. That is how I know that my church is His church.
I understand that most of God's converted Christians are outside of His church, but I also understand that those who stand on vantage ground have been given time and resources to study their Bibles. Many of them have come face to face with the truths for this day and rejected them. I am not talking about the church member, but the pastors, bishops, cardinals, rabbis, etc. The leadership of Babylon, the "teachers" have had opportunity to know the truth. They have instead developed a false gospel and now translate their own "bibles". Does the NKJV fits into this deception? I don't know. I would think that it does because of who translated it. But, again, I have not stated a position on this. For me, the KJV is very good. I am not biased. Give me a modern translation and I will give it to many that have a difficulty reading the KJV. But, I will keep the KJV for teaching and study. I would use a modern translation for study along side of the KJV if it were faithful to the truth. So far I have not seen one.
Where I begin is slightly different than you, I think. The reason why I know the NIV is a counterfeit is because I studied the true. You may say that my Bible, the KJV is faulty, but I say, that I cheated. I began my Christian experience with the NIV. I was confused, but there were absolute truths that I knew to be true in the "bible". The teachers in our church and other churches along with the NIV were misleading me. Jesus heard my prayer. He gave me an anchor besides the truth I had seen in the NIV. In that anchor there was no error of significance and it was in my language. There was nothing hard to understand. It agreed with all that I knew to be true in the NIV. But, the NIV presented things contrary to what I knew to be truth, significant truth. So, I bought a KJV as much as I disdained Old English. I had been buying NIVs for my friends with the encouragement that they would not have to learn a foreign language to understand God's Word. I now have repented of this mistake and every chance I get I repent publicly in order to remove any reproach I brought upon the KJV.
What was that anchor that kept me grounded to the true gospel? It was The Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy, Mt. of Blessings, Ministry of Healing and a hundred thousand other pages of inspiration. I have read most all of it, prayerfully. Now, you look to the "experts" outside of our faith for proof of truth, but I have never done so and never will. That is not an argument against them, but it is a powerful argument that there is no need to go outside of our church for truth. To go to Babylon for truth is to risk serious deception.
What the Spirit of Prophecy did for me is not to define Scripture, but to confirm what I saw as truth in Scripture. Truth is consistent and there was no consistency in the NIV. There is in the KJV. Those difficult passages do not disturb me because I know the gospel of grace. It is written throughout the KJV. One or two passages that seem to be at odds with the whole Book does not concern me. I know in whom I believe and I know His voice when I hear it. It comes through loud and clear from the KJV. Now, I cannot argue about the NKJV because I don't have one. I have seen them in our churches at times. But, I cannot comment on it.
My guess is that if we have a short discussion about the gospel, we may be able to resolve this quickly. Either the gospel is made plain in this book or it is confused as with the NIV. Which is it? Does the NKJV help or hinder God's desire to reveal Himself, His character, and the plan of salvation? I know that I leave JWs with their New World Translation even though I know they have changed it to suit their false teachings. But, as you desire, I want these souls to become grounded as much as possible and if it takes leaving them with a false "bible", then I trust that God will do as He did with me. Show them enough so that they can see the inconsistencies in their "bible". I am working with people that are seeking truth. As such they have help from me and the Holy Spirit to point out the truth as it is in Jesus.
I will take a look at a couple of passages in the NKJV and see how they look. And, I want to agree with our sister who said that because the manuscript is older does not mean it is correct. One of the very masterful things that I believe is not a mistake, but premeditated is the exclusion of the second half of the Romans 8:1. It is purposeful to help the devil with his deceptive "evangelical gospel". On what basis does the NIV leave out the second half of the verse? Does the NKJV leave it also? I don't think it does which is a credit to the work. But, I again cannot discuss the NKJV. I will take a look and share what I find as I have time. Thank you for your kind and courteous arguments. :)
-
Richard, Thank you for your eloquent response, it was logic in nature and to be honest, I appreciate it.
As you and I can clearly agree, there is quite a bit of emotion in this discussion, it is well founded as the KJV is a wonderful Bible.
However, though religion is an emotional issue, one needs to be able to step back sometimes and stare the facts/truth straight in the eye. From that vantage point a clear and prayerful decision can be made.
I have only highlighted two Translation errors within the KJV, as this is sufficient for now. I can of course show more, but my aim has not been and still isn’t to sledge the KJV. I in fact as stated love the KJV, and the NKJV is to me and millions of others a very good attempt to modernise the KJV, even though the mistakes I have mentioned are still found within the KJV(which shows how authentic it is to the original)
I want to paint you a brief picture for illustration purpose:
Let’s say sister s-and-so has been in the Seventh-day Adventist Church all her life, Now she only reads the KJV and has been told by others in her congregation that the other translations are works of the devil etc etc. Now one day Sister so-and-so reads a book by Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman or some of these other enemies of Truth. Sister so-and-so now finds herself reading that the one verse that has sustained her Godhead doctrine 1John 5:7 is in fact not really words from the original, and that the Last verses of Mark was added later on… Sister so-and-so knows the KJV only and has rejected everything else. She goes to someone in the know and he confirms some of these facts to her… What has just happened, Sister so-and-so’s paradigm has just received a major blow, and she does not know how to deal with the situation, as she has never wrestled with the issues… Now our church sister is experiencing a knock which might be a body-blow which if not dealt with correctly might lead to her rejecting the Truth that is contained in the Bible…She might watch a National Geographic Special on the Gospel of Judas or read a book on the Gnostic’s or might be swayed by other so-called Seventh-day Adventist within the Church. Our little sister, might just leave the Remnant, because she did not know about these issues, and she did not have the necessary aptitude or knowledge to be able to handle the objections, we might even see a Paradigm shift in this lady.
Now when it comes to plane Gospel facts, I would rather believe a Child that gives me a simple Thus Saith the Lord.
But when it comes to the textual study of the Bible, the archaeological findings of older/younger manuscripts that have been found, I rather open my ear to the facts laid before me. We have to remember, we use archaeology to vindicate our belief in scripture. The dead sea scrolls has given us the ability to say hey look only about 2%-5% difference can be found from what we have, and this old manuscript(c 100BC) and most of these are literary mistakes. The meaning of the text is not impacted at all.
But lets get back to the reason why I am involved in this debate, a website was linked to that calls the NKJV a work of Satan and so on… This is misleading and would mislead quite a number of people into being like our sister so-and-so, shutting their eyes to what is going on in the world, being blind men leading the blind, as they have not or grappled with the issue.
I have a great concern for our people, and I love you all dearly, though we have not met, I love you because Jesus loves you and you love Him. Thus I would suggest reading the information I have given on this site and the link I have supplied, knowledge is power they say, God’s word is our Wisdom I say. Be Bereans, wrestle and investigate. Oh and one last note for now, don’t sledge a translation on Internet hear-say or on the say so of others who might have an agenda, or who might just be misinformed themselves.
Now I have to get to University. God Bless
-
We love you also, dear brother. I agree with all you say. There is nothing lost in an examination of what is claimed to be truth. How important that we do our best to establish the foundation of our faith. One of the great difficulties we have when coming into such a discussion is the lack of solid information to know who is a reliable source of information. There is not safety in looking at one's credentials. They hold no weight with Christians. As in the days of Jesus, the learned ones are, not all, but almost all are too proud to be of use to God. He bypasses them in favor of the common man such as the disciples he chose. Unlettered they were, yet they were the ones who possessed the truth.
Most who come with the Greek and Hebrew are imposters, never having known God. They come that they may deceive. Not all, but almost all. And, not knowing the language, it is very difficult to translate. Too many think they are "experts" when given a few tools. They are not experts at all and many are used by Satan, even if they are well meaning, to twist the truth to suit their understanding. I appreciate the work done by converted Christians who yielded to the Spirit in their work in translating into many languages of the world. We need them. But, this does not set aside common sense in understanding we have a major difficulty here with most translating that is being done today. The churches are fallen and it is reflected in the work of translating Scripture. Can you see my concern?
-
Richard your concern is duly noted, however, even when I have shown from our own Commentaries that the KJV is not perfect, this bias still remain within the people.
We have to be careful to judge these men that have done the work, and for saying they are deceitful... The nation of Israel did not accept the truth, even before Christ they rejected the Prophets...
The Apostles were not unlettered as you say, even Peter's Greek seems to be quite well written, also that of Matthew. Mark's gospel does not contain the best...
The work done by Erasmus was great, but as mentioned before it was not perfect. Some of the things taken out by the modern translations were things that crept in from the Vulgate, such as 1John 5:7.
A concern to me is that adventist's are clinging to tradition when there is a wealth of knowledge to be obtained by doing comparitive studies.
You should be careful in noting that "most of the Greek and Hebrew Scholars are imposters, never knowing God" Firstly, that is quite a provocative statement to make, as only God knows the heart of these people. Secondly, they deal with an exact science(95%). Thirdly, is the cause being advanced by attacking Translations, and even modernisations such as the NKJV. And this clearly done by rejecting the empirical evidence.
-
I agree that we must take advantage of the light we have. I do not say that all of those bearing the Greek and Hebrew are not converted, I only say that most are. Babylon has fallen and even in our own church many of the "scholars" are in error. :( The disciples were called unlettered in the Bible. We are told that Christ did not go to the "scholars" of His day because they could not be taught. I am sorry if I step on some toes here, but the same exists in the world today. Higher education is not higher education at all. Yes, there are converted Christians in this area, but only a very few, relatively. These schools are leading our youth into perdition, including the seminaries.
While this is pertinent to our discussion because it leaves us with few "experts" to turn to, we do not want to get sidetracked. I am with you in regards to looking at the NKJV. And, if you will, tell us your thoughts on the NIV which I do say is something that needs to be burned.
I have taken time to look at a few verses from the NKJV and am impressed. I will post some of them.
-
Before posting the verses I looked up, let me say in regards to those who are translating, this is a work for Christians, not for unbelievers. While it may be true that unbelievers could do a better job, unbiased, than many professing Christians, they are not the ones to trust with the translation of the Word of God. God has His people and they are to be the vehicle that His Word is to come through.
I recall when preaching in English with the aid of a translator that we were short of one of our faith. The translator selected was a Christian from another faith. He had great difficulty in translating my message. Why? Because he had no knowledge of the doctrines being preached. Translating is not a precise science and even more important is that the Holy Spirit is the One who provides the truth. Those who are not moved by the Spirit or who cannot hear the still small voice, ought not be the ones we trust with translating the Word of God. The Bible is too important to trust to those who are not converted.
-
Well the People that have translated the NKJV were Christians. Just because they are not Seventh-day Adventists dont make them insensitive to the Scriptural issues.
Besides the Bible cannot be translated with Doctrinal Bias, that would be a travesty of note!
As I mentioned earlier this is a highly emotional issue, but if SDA’s carry on in this manner, we are just yet again justifying our Sunday-keeping friends to stick with their traditions… Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, comes to mind
-
I agree that we must take advantage of the light we have. I do not say that all of those bearing the Greek and Hebrew are not converted, I only say that most are. Babylon has fallen and even in our own church many of the "scholars" are in error. :( The disciples were called unlettered in the Bible. We are told that Christ did not go to the "scholars" of His day because they could not be taught. I am sorry if I step on some toes here, but the same exists in the world today. Higher education is not higher education at all. Yes, there are converted Christians in this area, but only a very few, relatively. These schools are leading our youth into perdition, including the seminaries.
While this is pertinent to our discussion because it leaves us with few "experts" to turn to, we do not want to get sidetracked. I am with you in regards to looking at the NKJV. And, if you will, tell us your thoughts on the NIV which I do say is something that needs to be burned.
I have taken time to look at a few verses from the NKJV and am impressed. I will post some of them.
Even though I have the NIV, I don't use it that often, as I prefer the prose of the KJV. I do like the NKJV, which is evident. I do look at these other translations to be able to fully understand the meaning of the text...
Matthew by the by used the LXX when quoting.
-
1 John 3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
Why change "sons" of God? Is there not a basis for this verbage. How about Job 1:6? "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." There was no change made there. Is there a reason why it was changed here and not there?
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
Why change "he shall appear"? Are we not talking about the second coming? Revealed is what takes place today when I behold Jesus. Not a good change.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
This is rather important. Sadly, this plays into the hands of Satan to remove the simple truth that sin is the transgression of the law. Even in our church are those who deceive on the gospel by the confusion of what sin is. Very sad and a very bad change when no change was needed. The KJV was just to the point, an important point.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.
Could have just left this verse alone.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
Very good and very important verse that the NKJV gets just right. Many new "bibles" undo the truth revealed in this verse to make an excuse for sin. They like to change "sin" to "practice sin" thereby changing the truth into a lie.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
Not sure about this. It could be used to say that those who generally do good are righteous which is wrong. Those who do righteousness, keep the law, are righteous is very specific. "Practice" introduces the general habits, not the specifics actions.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
Very good and a very important verse! When it is important in this chapter, the NKJV has done very well.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
A most important verse and it does not lead away from the truth and into the hands of the "evangelical gospel". But, it would have been better to leave the KJV "is born of God" rather than "has been born of God."
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
Again, better to have left "doeth" or change to "does" rather than "practice", but not as important as the verses noted as very important.
Much different than the NIV and other modern translations.
While I am impressed, I am not yet saying this is a good translation. I need more time to look at a few other doctrines and see how the NKJV deals with them.
-
I do look at these other translations to be able to fully understand the meaning of the text...
Are you saying you think all of the other modern translations are good...that they fully understand the meaning of the original text?
-
Well the People that have translated the NKJV were Christians. Just because they are not Seventh-day Adventists dont make them insensitive to the Scriptural issues.
Of course not. But, neither does their positions as translators make them converted. My point being is that they of all people ought to know what truth is. If they don't, they really have no business in translating the Bible. Yes, I understand that there may be some who are ignorant, and innocent, but is it not rather amazing that they could remain blind to truth for so many years since they are not the common man who has not had opportunity to become familiar with doctrine to the degree they have? This has nothing to do with being in our church, for most of the truly converted Christians are outside of our church. There may be some reasons why many remain out of our church. But, I am talking about their beliefs. Their failure to accept the truth and to continue in their churches who have rejected Bible truth. Babylon has fallen and those who do the translations are not ignorant of the issues and neither are they deprived of the Holy Spirit.
Besides the Bible cannot be translated with Doctrinal Bias, that would be a travesty of note!
The Bible "cannot" be translated with doctrinal bias? There have been translations that indeed are doctrinally biased. And, it is a travesty of note! It is an abomination. It is not to be a surprise to those who understand Babylon has fallen. What does it mean to fall if not to do travesty in religious matters? This is not a condemnation of the members of these fallen churches, but it is a reflection of the leadership of the fallen churches.
As I mentioned earlier this is a highly emotional issue, but if SDA’s carry on in this manner, we are just yet again justifying our Sunday-keeping friends to stick with their traditions… Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, comes to mind.
I am sorry, dear brother. When Bible truth is rejected and then modern Bibles are written to support the false gospels being taught, we are not to remain quiet about it. And, we are not to invite Babylon's teachers and her writings into our church. The NIV is one such book that has allowed the "evangelical gospel" entrance into our church, God's church. Again, this is not a blanket condemnation of those in these fallen churches. And, even some in leadership positions may be converted. And, even to those in and out of leadership positions who have rejected Bible truth, they may turn and accept the Word of God and walk in the light of God's love.
You are right in respect to our need of having support for all we believe if we expect to have influence with those who will be looking for where to go when they awaken to their present plight. And, we also need to understand that those who reject Bible truth will take advantage of all that we say that is incorrect. We need to be very careful in respect to how we deal with the truth. As we continue, I have no doubt that since we are jealous for God's truth, that we shall better understand the issues being discussed. :)
-
Besides the Bible cannot be translated with Doctrinal Bias, that would be a travesty of note!
You are apparently unaware of the work of Wescott and Hort, who were involved in the translation of the RSV, a translation with doctrinal bias if ever there was one, and the NIV is strikingly similar. I still mantain that the newer the translation the more likely it is to be doctrinally biased.
-
Besides the Bible cannot be translated with Doctrinal Bias, that would be a travesty of note!
You are apparently unaware of the work of Wescott and Hort, who were involved in the translation of the RSV, a translation with doctrinal bias if ever there was one, and the NIV is strikingly similar. I still mantain that the newer the translation the more likely it is to be doctrinally biased.
Clearly as with all forums, only certain things are looked at, as most of us have our paradigms...
Let me rephrase for Clarity... The Bible SHOULD NOT be translated with doctrinal bias.... And as SDA's we shoul not expect such things.
-
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
This is rather important. Sadly, this plays into the hands of Satan to remove the simple truth that sin is the transgression of the law. Even in our church are those who deceive on the gospel by the confusion of what sin is. Very sad and a very bad change when no change was needed. The KJV was just to the point, an important point.
Lets define Lawlessness... 1: not regulated by or based on law
2 a: not restrained or controlled by law
-
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
This is rather important. Sadly, this plays into the hands of Satan to remove the simple truth that sin is the transgression of the law. Even in our church are those who deceive on the gospel by the confusion of what sin is. Very sad and a very bad change when no change was needed. The KJV was just to the point, an important point.
Lets define Lawlessness... 1: not regulated by or based on law
2 a: not restrained or controlled by law
Brother Andre, this is not an important matter in regards to what they did. But, my question is why did they have to change that which was perfect? They did not. And, by so doing they help to confuse the issue of the gospel. Right now I am dealing with some who do not want to say sin is the transgression of the law, but want to go into another path that would take the ungrounded away from the truth. They begin to use other language including this phrase like it somehow has a different meaning. I am not nitpicking, only saying that in these new translations, especially one that says they appreciate the KJV, why do they need to change something, just to change it. The KJV was perfectly good and perfectly simple. In this case the translators have muddied the waters. Can you agree with me, dear brother?
BTW, do you appreciate my appreciation for what the NKJV did in 1 John 3? :) I am trying. I truly have no bias.
-
Pardon my interruption ... I just found this while looking for something else ...
Matthew 5:17-20 (King James Version)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
******KOREAN Translation of the KJV******
5:17 내 가 율 법 이 나 선 지 자 나 폐 하 러 온 줄 로 생 각 지 말 라 폐 하 러 온 것 이 아 니 요 완 전 케 하 려 함 이 로 다
5:18 진 실 로 너 희 에 게 이 르 노 니 천 지 가 없 어 지 기 전 에 는 율 법 의 일 점 일 획 이 라 도 반 드 시 없 어 지 지 아 니 하 고 다 이 루 리 라
5:19 그 러 므 로 누 구 든 지 이 계 명 중 에 지 극 히 작 은 것 하 나 라 도 버 리 고 또 그 같 이 사 람 을 가 르 치 는 자 는 천 국 에 서 지 극 히 작 다 일 컬 음 을 받 을 것 이 요 누 구 든 지 이 를 행 하 며 가 르 치 는 자 는 천 국 에 서 크 다 일 컬 음 을 받 으 리 라
5:20 내 가 너 희 에 게 이 르 노 니 너 희 의 가 서 기 관 과 바 리 새 인 보 다 더 낫 지 못 하 면 결 단 코 천 국 에 들 어 가 지 못 하 리 라
Not there. Left out.
If we have some Koreans, or those who read Korean or have this translation, please help us verify this information.
-
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
This is rather important. Sadly, this plays into the hands of Satan to remove the simple truth that sin is the transgression of the law. Even in our church are those who deceive on the gospel by the confusion of what sin is. Very sad and a very bad change when no change was needed. The KJV was just to the point, an important point.
Lets define Lawlessness... 1: not regulated by or based on law
2 a: not restrained or controlled by law
Brother Andre, this is not an important matter in regards to what they did. But, my question is why did they have to change that which was perfect? They did not. And, by so doing they help to confuse the issue of the gospel. Right now I am dealing with some who do not want to say sin is the transgression of the law, but want to go into another path that would take the ungrounded away from the truth. They begin to use other language including this phrase like it somehow has a different meaning. I am not nitpicking, only saying that in these new translations, especially one that says they appreciate the KJV, why do they need to change something, just to change it. The KJV was perfectly good and perfectly simple. In this case the translators have muddied the waters. Can you agree with me, dear brother?
BTW, do you appreciate my appreciation for what the NKJV did in 1 John 3? :) I am trying. I truly have no bias.
I can give you a quick reading in how a Literal translation would read it. I do believe this will give insight to why it has been rendered the way it has been. I also do believe that the Crux of the verse is intact. Which is strangely enough how th Apostles quoted the OT, not all word for word, but they made sure they got the jist of the matter.
1Jn 3:4 Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,
Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by J.N. Young, 1862, 1898
Brother Richard, I do believe if you do a few more comparisson's you would find the NKJV a very good source, maybe it might be a better version to give to new Christians, especially younger one's, knowing that firstly the message is the same as the KJV, and that secondly, the people would be able to understand the language much better. This is all about understanding the Bible, and making it available to the masses, without tampering or dumbing down the Word of God.
-
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
This is rather important. Sadly, this plays into the hands of Satan to remove the simple truth that sin is the transgression of the law. Even in our church are those who deceive on the gospel by the confusion of what sin is. Very sad and a very bad change when no change was needed. The KJV was just to the point, an important point.
why did they have to change that which was perfect? They did not...
why do they need to change something, just to change it. The KJV was perfectly good and perfectly simple. In this case the translators have muddied the waters. Can you agree with me, dear brother?
I will have to disagree with you here, Bro Richard. The NKJV "changes" it because it is what the Greek says. It is what John wrote.
"a" = without (e.g. amoral, asynchronous)
"nomos" = law
"anomia" = without law -> lawlessness
Anomia is found 15 times in the NT, 2 times in 1Jn 3:4. Of the 13 other times, the KJV translates it as "iniquity" 12 times, and "unrighteousness" once. Only in the last part of 1Jn 3:4 is it translated "transgression of the law." Interesting, huh?
The first part of 1Jn 3:4 is even more interesting.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law."
Putting in some of the Greek, we see this: Whosoever poieo sin poieo also the law.
What is poieo? Of the hundreds of times it is found in the NT, here's how the KJV translates it: do 357, make 113, bring forth 14, commit 9, cause 9, work 8, show 5, bear 4, keep 4, fulfil 3, deal 2, perform 2, not tr 3, misc 43, vr do 3. We see that the KJV, in this verse, translates it as "do" the first time, and "transgresseth" the second time.
Does anyone think it strange that the two occurrences of poieo in 1Jn 3:4 are translated as opposite of each other? I do. And looking at how it is translated the vast majority of the time, I see no reason why it should be translated as "transgresseth" in the verse. Until you look at the Greek hiding under "the law."
Under there, you will find our old friend anomia. It turns out that instead of "the law," John was saying just the opposite - without law, lawlessness. With that clarification, we see that John did not use the same word, poieo, in opposite ways in the same breath.
So now, here's what we have: Whoever does sin does also anomia - lawlessness. And that's what the NKJV has.
So where does our beloved "transgression of the law" come from? It is an interpretation, not a translation. And the NKJV, at least in this case, restores the verse to what it says, not what the translators think it means.
BTW, if anyone suspects that Westcott and Hort had something to do with this, they did not. You can find this in the Textus Receptus.
BTW2, 1Jn 3:4 is used by some to assert that "transgression of the law" only means a willful violation of a known command. But the fact is that the Greek makes sin much more objective than that. Sin is not defined by what we willfully do, but by what God says. Anomia - without law, lawless - makes that clearer. And a little analysis of what transgress means - crossing over - shows that even the English carries the same meaning. But some people like to read the Bible based on what they believe, rather than basing their beliefs on how the Bible reads.
BTW3, 1Jn 3:4, when seen in the Greek, removes much of the excuse for committing hamartia - missing the mark. It says, "hamartia is anomia." Yes, missing the mark is also against the law.
Was the KJV "just to the point"? I don't think so. That rendering can be, and has been, and will be, used to teach that sin is defined by what man does or does not intend to do - a man-centered heresy. OTOH, the NKJV makes it clearer that sin is defined by what God commands in His law - a God-centered truth.
So why the change from the KJV to the NKJV rendering? Because it was not perfect. Now, it is more perfect.
Caveat: All that is from a non-expert, so get your salt shakers out. ;)
-
mimi'
I am not sure with what you want to help. If you want to know if 5:20 translation into Korean is complete, it is a complete sentence. How do you type the Korean in your computer? I was born and raised in Korea and finished college in Korea, but it has been a long, long time since I read a Korean Bible, however, I was able to read and understand what you have written.
Won
-
I want to verify if those texts are in the Korean Bible or not. We have been told they are not. I want verification, if we can get it.
Thank you, Won.
-
Brother Richard, I do believe if you do a few more comparisson's you would find the NKJV a very good source, maybe it might be a better version to give to new Christians, especially younger one's, knowing that firstly the message is the same as the KJV, and that secondly, the people would be able to understand the language much better. This is all about understanding the Bible, and making it available to the masses, without tampering or dumbing down the Word of God.
Amen. I will look at more. How does the NKJV do with the sanctuary message?
-
When we realize that the NKJV differs from the KJV, we should also realize that this fact proves that the NKJV is wrong JUST AS MUCH as it proves that the KJV is wrong.
The only legitimate method to determine which is correct is to go to the originals - Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and determine what God meant, then compare the translations to see if they convey the same meaning. But without going to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, it's all just a bunch of blah blah.
If someone wants the KJV, go for it. But don't presume to say any other translation is bad unless you're willing to put on your scholar hat and dig into the original manuscripts. Anything short is just rhetoric. I prefer to leave that with the politicians.
Well, most of us are not Greek and Hebrew scholars, and so that is unrealistic, and we are stuck with the English language.
What that means is that for most of us, it is unwise to sit in the judge's seat to determine the quality of translations with any degree of confidence. If we know only English, and not the originals, then we are in no position to determine if the English translation was faithful to the authors' original text. It is easy to see that to judge the quality of a translation, an absolute bare minimum requirement is that one know both the original language and the language into which the book is translated. Without meeting that requirement, we're just basing our judgment on our personal biases.
Given all the problems with the modern translations, not the least of which are the biases (more abundant than they were 400 years ago, due to the multiplication of heresies), it still makes sense to use the KJV as the default translation.
In that case, Wycliffe's version would be better than the KJV.
Use as many others as you want for comparison, but if it's way off from the KJV, the eyebrows should be raised.
Considering the ~95% agreement among the differing NT manuscripts, I would say that eyebrows should rise if any translation is way off from any of the others.
-
Considering the ~95% agreement among the differing NT manuscripts, I would say that eyebrows should rise if any translation is way off from any of the others.
That appears to be faulty reasoning, dear brother. If I gave you a dinner that was of the same measure, you might not live through the night. Now, if this is so with our physical life, ought not we be just as much or even more concerned about our spiritual life? If you take in 5% of your daily study that is very well placed lies, I fear for your ultimate end.
This is just what has happened and it is proving deadly for very many. They pick and choose what they like from the Bible and itching ears like the smooth things. Satan has been planning for this day. He has prepared for these poor souls, smooth lies that are not consistent with the rest of the Word of God, but this is no matter to the ones who do not want their sins reproved. You take the "bibles" with the 5% lies and try to use your human reasoning to translate from a language you to not understand on a word by word basis and you will lose in the end. The KJV is a very good Bible. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation in the things that matter. There are very few difficulties that have a material importance on the gospel truth. Not so with many of the new "bibles".
Brother Andre has presented some good information on the NKJV and I am studying this out without bias. All are asked to help in this matter. Is the NKJV corrupted in major verses? I don't know. I have gone to important verses that the NIV has changed and the NKJV has not. So, I am going to continue look at it. If others have already done this, then please save me the time and point out the failings of this version.
-
Considering the ~95% agreement among the differing NT manuscripts, I would say that eyebrows should rise if any translation is way off from any of the others.
That appears to be faulty reasoning, dear brother. If I gave you a dinner that was of the same measure, you might not live through the night. Now, if this is so with our physical life, ought not we be just as much or even more concerned about our spiritual life? If you take in 5% of your daily study that is very well placed lies, I fear for your ultimate end.
This is just what has happened and it is proving deadly for very many. They pick and choose what they like from the Bible and itching ears like the smooth things. Satan has been planning for this day. He has prepared for these poor souls, smooth lies that are not consistent with the rest of the Word of God, but this is no matter to the ones who do not want their sins reproved. You take the "bibles" with the 5% lies and try to use your human reasoning to translate from a language you to not understand on a word by word basis and you will lose in the end. The KJV is a very good Bible. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation in the things that matter. There are very few difficulties that have a material importance on the gospel truth. Not so with many of the new "bibles".
Brother Andre has presented some good information on the NKJV and I am studying this out without bias. All are asked to help in this matter. Is the NKJV corrupted in major verses? I don't know. I have gone to important verses that the NIV has changed and the NKJV has not. So, I am going to continue look at it. If others have already done this, then please save me the time and point out the failings of this version.
Brother Richard I believe the Brother was referring to the fact that not all the NT manuscripts are 100% the same, as mentioned before, this is why the newer translations dont have things in which the KJV have, as some of them were additions by the copyists
Take the last verses of Mark chapter 16, which yet again prove that not all of the NT manuscripts are the same...
Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of vs. 9–20 altogether, and thus for concluding the Gospel of Mark with v. 8. Commentators favoring the omission of vs. 9–20 point to numerous differences in literary style, idiom, and wording between these verses and the preceding portion of the Gospel. These verses are called the Longer Ending of Mark. Instead of the Longer Ending a few ancient manuscripts have what is called the Shorter Ending: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation” (RSV). Taken as a whole, however, textual evidence favors the so-called Longer Ending.
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. Mk 16:9
-
Considering the ~95% agreement among the differing NT manuscripts, I would say that eyebrows should rise if any translation is way off from any of the others.
That appears to be faulty reasoning, dear brother. If I gave you a dinner that was of the same measure, you might not live through the night. Now, if this is so with our physical life, ought not we be just as much or even more concerned about our spiritual life? If you take in 5% of your daily study that is very well placed lies, I fear for your ultimate end.
Some may say, with equal vehemence, that you are the one imbibing the 5% poison by your absolute trust in the KJV. In the end, you might discover that ALL translators have biases. You just happen to prefer the biases of the KJV translators.
If we found the KJV to be significantly different from all other translations on some point, you would probably say that's proof that all other translations are faulty. In contrast, I would question the KJV. I don't let my guard down, even when reading the KJV.
You take the "bibles" with the 5% lies and try to use your human reasoning to translate from a language you to not understand on a word by word basis and you will lose in the end. The KJV is a very good Bible. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation in the things that matter. There are very few difficulties that have a material importance on the gospel truth. Not so with many of the new "bibles".
Unless you know the original languages, you are basing that determination on your personal biases. Your biases may very well prove to be correct, but they are subjective biases nonetheless.
And to say that other bibles have error simply because they differ from the KJV carries no weight with those who are not already sold on the KJV. IOW, it is an argument that serves no purpose, since it does not convince anyone of anything new.
This, BTW, is the basis of most arguments in the pro-KJV books I've read. Very disheartening, and damaging to the reputation of the KJV. Of all the arguments I've seen, I find Dean Burgon's most compelling, though he was defending the TR, not the KJV.
Brother Andre has presented some good information on the NKJV and I am studying this out without bias. All are asked to help in this matter. Is the NKJV corrupted in major verses? I don't know. I have gone to important verses that the NIV has changed and the NKJV has not. So, I am going to continue look at it. If others have already done this, then please save me the time and point out the failings of this version.
Bro Richard, are you now willing to look at the Greek? If you're only comparing it to the KJV, the "changes" you find may be "restorations" to the original that the KJV changed in the first place, as we find in 1Jn 3:4.
If you want a modern version that stays the closest to the KJV, I think the KJ21 might be worth a look. But that is not necessarily the same as staying the closest to what the bible authors wrote.
-
I have looked at the Greek and Herbrew, but I am wise enough to know that this is not helpful. I have seen where false teachers have twisted these languages to suit their interpretations, but I leave that up to the converted experts who know the languages. I will instead look at what they say and see if it agrees with the whole of Scripture. God has blessed me in this area and I leave the Greek and Hebrew to those who are fluent in the language and who have a living relationship with Jesus and know the gospel of grace. These I am more than willing to listen to when they come bearing the Greek and Hebrew.
Thank you for the suggestion on the new translation. I will see if I can find a copy of it.
I do not think the KJV is without error. Have never stated that.
-
When we realize that the NKJV differs from the KJV, we should also realize that this fact proves that the NKJV is wrong JUST AS MUCH as it proves that the KJV is wrong.
The only legitimate method to determine which is correct is to go to the originals - Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic - and determine what God meant, then compare the translations to see if they convey the same meaning. But without going to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, it's all just a bunch of blah blah.
If someone wants the KJV, go for it. But don't presume to say any other translation is bad unless you're willing to put on your scholar hat and dig into the original manuscripts. Anything short is just rhetoric. I prefer to leave that with the politicians.
Well, most of us are not Greek and Hebrew scholars, and so that is unrealistic, and we are stuck with the English language.
What that means is that for most of us, it is unwise to sit in the judge's seat to determine the quality of translations with any degree of confidence. If we know only English, and not the originals, then we are in no position to determine if the English translation was faithful to the authors' original text. It is easy to see that to judge the quality of a translation, an absolute bare minimum requirement is that one know both the original language and the language into which the book is translated. Without meeting that requirement, we're just basing our judgment on our personal biases.
Given all the problems with the modern translations, not the least of which are the biases (more abundant than they were 400 years ago, due to the multiplication of heresies), it still makes sense to use the KJV as the default translation.
In that case, Wycliffe's version would be better than the KJV.
Use as many others as you want for comparison, but if it's way off from the KJV, the eyebrows should be raised.
Considering the ~95% agreement among the differing NT manuscripts, I would say that eyebrows should rise if any translation is way off from any of the others.
If I follow your reasoning than, since most of us are not Greek or Hebrew scholars, we should just leave it up to the whims and biases of the modern translators. The issues are not the same as they were in the days of Wycliffe and the KJV. The issue then was to get the Bible into the English language. Now, the translations are multiplied according to the biases of the translators. Shall I get the gender neutral Bible? How about the one for the feminists? One easy way to tell of a translation is faulty is to see if it contradicts itself--something that Scripture cannot do, but which a biased translation, such as the NIV can and will do. I know you will now try to show where the KJV appears to contradict itself. Don't waste your time. I'm aware of those, and they are all the result of one of several possibilities: not enough information available about the situation when the passage was penned; mistranslation of a particular word.
One other sidelight: to my knowledge there are only 2, possible 3 translations that translate Dan. 8:14 "shall be cleansed," which, as Cliff Goldstein has shown, is a good and proper rendering of the Hebrew. The doctrine of the investigative judgment is not so easily arrived at if that text is muddied as it is in virtually all modern translations. Again, I go back to the French and Spanish Bibles, both of which say "shall be cleansed."
You also implied that Wycliffe's translation was less biased that the KJV. Not sure where you got that idea, but the KJV developed out of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations, and the KJV was an improvement. I've never said that the KJV was perfect--the word "Easter" should have never been put in there, for example, but it is, nevertheless, a good translation, minus the baggage of all the newer ones, starting with the RSV.
What I and many like me object to is the fact that the denomination, in most of its publications, seems to be promoting (cramming down our unwilling throats?) the NIV very heavily, and has been for years. If they wanted to promote a particular translation, they could have at least picked one that is closer to the original Greek and Hebrew.
-
Brother Wally, how does the NJKV translate the sanctuary verses?
-
http://bible.cc/hebrews/1-11.htm
Here is a nice translation parallel site.
-
Pardon my interruption ... I just found this while looking for something else ...
Matthew 5:17-20 (King James Version)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
******KOREAN Translation of the KJV******
5:17 내 가 율 법 이 나 선 지 자 나 폐 하 러 온 줄 로 생 각 지 말 라 폐 하 러 온 것 이 아 니 요 완 전 케 하 려 함 이 로 다
5:18 진 실 로 너 희 에 게 이 르 노 니 천 지 가 없 어 지 기 전 에 는 율 법 의 일 점 일 획 이 라 도 반 드 시 없 어 지 지 아 니 하 고 다 이 루 리 라
5:19 그 러 므 로 누 구 든 지 이 계 명 중 에 지 극 히 작 은 것 하 나 라 도 버 리 고 또 그 같 이 사 람 을 가 르 치 는 자 는 천 국 에 서 지 극 히 작 다 일 컬 음 을 받 을 것 이 요 누 구 든 지 이 를 행 하 며 가 르 치 는 자 는 천 국 에 서 크 다 일 컬 음 을 받 으 리 라
5:20 내 가 너 희 에 게 이 르 노 니 너 희 의 가 서 기 관 과 바 리 새 인 보 다 더 낫 지 못 하 면 결 단 코 천 국 에 들 어 가 지 못 하 리 라
Not there. Left out.
If we have some Koreans, or those who read Korean or have this translation, please help us verify this information.
Won: I have come to the conclusion that the person questioning whether or not this text is in the Korean translation of Scripture did not have their computer settings on the correct item to view the Korean characters. If they are not properly set to view "Korean" - the result will be question marks such as shown above.
So you may disregard my question, dear man.
-
Mimmi,
The Korean translation of the Bible verses are correct. Since I do not own a Korean Bible I can not tell if they are indeed in the Bible. But I do not see why they are not in the Bible. I will try to find a Korean Bible and verify it.
Won
-
Thank you, Won. I have learned the site this question came from is suspect at best and I am actually regretting bringing up the question. So don't trouble yourself too much over this.
-
Brother Wally, how does the NJKV translate the sanctuary verses?
Daniel 8:14--
And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” NKJV
-
I have looked at the Greek and Herbrew, but I am wise enough to know that this is not helpful.
It depends on how you intend use it. If you put on your apologist hat and your purpose is to defend your current beliefs, it is probably not helpful at all unless you are fluent. But if your purpose is to find out what the Bible writers wrote, regardless of your beliefs, then it is most helpful.
I fall into category 2, since I have never become so confident of my beliefs that I can judge a translation on the basis of its perceived agreement or disagreement with my beliefs. However, I have found that I can use pretty much any translation to defend my beliefs, as long as it is a translation rather than an interpretation.
I have seen where false teachers have twisted these languages to suit their interpretations, but I leave that up to the converted experts who know the languages.
Well, we've seen that done in English. Those who are so inclined can wrest any Scripture in any language.
Thank you for the suggestion on the new translation. I will see if I can find a copy of it.
You can go to BibleGateway.com to check it out. You can even compare verses in multiple versions, so you can have the KJV, NKJV, and KJ21 side-by-side.
Click on these "controversial" verses to see a comparison in 5 versions: Daniel 8:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%208:14;&version=9;50;48;8;49;) and Revelation 22:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:14;&version=9;50;48;8;49;). I threw in the NASB since that is what many scholars say is the most accurate translation. You will note also the difference between the Textus Receptus translations and the Nestle/UBS translations (what some would call Westcott/Hort abominations) in the Revelation verse, due to the difference in the Greek manuscripts.
I do not think the KJV is without error. Have never stated that.
When you come across error in the KJV, where do you find the correct version? IOW, what has enough authority to you to trump the KJV?
-
When you come across error in the KJV, where do you find the correct version? IOW, what has enough authority to you to trump the KJV?
For a moment, let's say that you live 300 years ago and you come across what you perceive to be error in the KJV. What has enough authority for you to trump that particular translation of that verse?
-
When you come across error in the KJV, where do you find the correct version? IOW, what has enough authority to you to trump the KJV?
For a moment, let's say that you live 300 years ago and you come across what you perceive to be error in the KJV. What has enough authority for you to trump that particular translation of that verse?
If I was in that situation, I would have to look at the originals and see if what the prophets wrote matches what the translators wrote. And since I am quite distrustful of my own scholarship, I would find some others to work on the project with me, others who might not agree with me on all things. We would compare Scripture with Scripture, in the original languages as much as possible, and see how it all fits. Of course, all this activity must be guided by the Holy Spirit. And of course, since we would have no computers, this would involve a huge pile of scrolls.
After quite a bit of work, we might eventually come to the point of determining with some degree of confidence how well the 50 KJV translators did. We might find that we are in agreement, such as tsadaq in Dan 8:14. Or we might find that we are in disagreement, such as poieo and anomia in 1Jn 3:4.
But the bottom line question is, what has enough authority to trump the translation? The original.
But what if I'm incapable of understanding the original, as most people are? Then I should face the fact that I am ill-equipped to cast judgment on the translation. In short, I should stop trying to do what I cannot do.
My only recourse is to go to someone I trust who can do the job of straightening it out for me. For some, they trust scholars such as James Strong, Matthew Henry, or bible translators to help them understand what it means. Some look to contemporary prophets such as Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy for clarification.
How about you? How do you find the truth when the KJV is incorrect?
BTW, Wycliffe's Bible, which came out in the 1300's, was based on the Vulgate. Tyndale's version, about 200 years later, was based on Erasmus' manuscripts. (I suspect that they differ in Revelation 22:14.) Which one is better? I'd go for Tyndale's. Older is not necessarily better. That's true for Wycliffe, Tyndale, Textus Receptus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, KJV, and anything else.
-
My only recourse is to go to someone I trust who can do the job of straightening it out for me. For some, they trust scholars such as James Strong, Matthew Henry, or bible translators to help them understand what it means. Some look to contemporary prophets such as Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy for clarification.
How about you? How do you find the truth when the KJV is incorrect?
:) There is a need for translators. I hold no hard feelings against that profession. :) But, in today's age, I fear that the majority are not following God. Why? That is rather easy to answer. The churches are fallen. Are there some good translators? I hope so, but I am not the one to ask. I don't know any.
So, that leaves me with a problem. How to discern all of that important error in my Bible. Well...maybe not so much, but it surely must be important to discern it. Yes, in some cases it is. In some cases it really makes no difference to me. Why? Because some of the error is not of an important nature. The Bible is a large volume. But, it is not so large we cannot read and understand it. It is just right. For what? To be able to know what it is that God wants me to know for each day. I am not bothered by any error in my Bible. I was by the error in my NIV. That is why I will never read from it again. I was very disturbed. But, I am not ever bothered and never have been since the very first time I began to study from my KJV. This comes from one who detested the Old English. So, something must have happened. Yes, something did.
The Holy Spirit revealed to me the correct understanding of Romans seven and eight. I never have been concerned about understanding my Bible since that very first study. God through the Holy Spirit teaches me as He wants me to see. He gives me just what I need each day, for that day. He can teach me in a moment what I could not learn in a lifetime without Him. So, the issue with me is not so much the correct interpretation of the Hebrew or Greek, but is if I am His and hearing that still small voice. Line upon line, precept upon precept the truth is discerned. When a verse comes up that appears to be contrary to the truth, I first believe it is I that am wrong. But, there have been some verses that after many years of not being able to understand how they fit with the truth, I have come to believe they were just mis-translated. It does not bother me in the least. Because I do not rely upon one verse for my truth, I am not the least bothered by a verse that seems out of whack. How many such verses have I run across? Not very many. Maybe two or three. Are there more? I suppose so, but I don't know of any that are of importance.
Where is the problem? With those who come bearing the Hebrew and Greek in an attempt to make the Bible say what it does not say. I am speaking about important matters like grace and law and the Most Holy Place and our High Priest. I do not have the slightest desire to study the dead languages. I study my Bible and am richly blessed by so doing. God blessed me by speaking to my mind and protecting me from the error in the NIV. My duty is to warn others of the knowledge I have been given. If you want to have confidence in your Bible, then you can do so if you have a KJV. Are there other Bible translations in English that are good? I don't know. If there are, I would like to know because it will be a blessing to others who have a problem with the KJV. I do not desire another Bible. I like mine. It is the rule of my life. It is the foundation of my beliefs and is confirmed by hundreds of thousands of pages in the Spirit of Prophecy. I am a very happy and blessed Christian to have the Word of God in a manner that guides my life.
Another interesting thing that confirms my blessing is the continual error I see in many who presume to teach the gospel. I see a lack of consistency in what they say and I often see a lack of fruit in their dealings with others who disagree with them. My testimony is that God's Word is not only true, it changes one's life when it is followed. The greatest miracle of God is to see the results when the Word of God is taken into the life. This is the reason why I love my Bible. I know it is true by the results I see when its teachings are followed. By beholding the God of my Bible, I, my family, and others are changed into the same image we behold. As long as we keep our eyes on the Jesus of the KJV, we will reflect His character, His glory. This is the truth contained in my Bible. I know that the NIV leads away from this truth. Let all be persuaded in their own minds as to the truth of what I have shared. The Bible is well able to be the interpreter of itself. If a translator made a mistake, then the Bible itself will reveal this. Praise God. We can have complete faith in the Word of God!
-
"We are not to set our stakes and then interpret everything to reach this set point. Here is where some of our great Reformers have failed, and this is the reason that many who today might be mighty champions for God and the truth are warring against the truth. . . . God designs we should be learners, first from the living oracles, and second from our associates. This is God’s order.
The Word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine. We must study it reverentially. We are to receive no one’s opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority, which is supreme in matters of faith.
It is the Word of the living God that is to decide all controversies. It is when people mingle their own human smartness with God’s words of truth, in giving sharp thrusts to those who are in controversy with them, that they show that they have not a sacred reverence for God’s Inspired Word. They mix the human with the divine, the common with the sacred, and they belittle God’s Word. . .
The correct interpretation of the Scriptures is not all that God requires. He enjoins upon us that we should not only know the truth, but that we should practice the truth as it is in Jesus. We are to bring into our practice, in our association with others, the spirit of Him who gave us the truth. We must not only search for the truth as for hidden treasures, but it is a positive necessity, if we are laborers together with God, that we comply with the conditions laid down in His Word, and bring the spirit of Christ into our hearts, that our understanding may be strengthened and we become apt teachers to make known to others the truth revealed to us in His Word. . .
There is no assurance that our doctrine is right and free from all chaff and error unless we are daily doing the will of God. If we do His will, we shall know of the doctrine. We shall see the truth in its sacred beauty. We shall accept it with reverence and godly fear, and then we can present to others that which we know is truth. . . .
The soul that is in love with God and His work will be as candid as the day. There will be no quibbling, no evading the true bearing of Scripture. God’s Word is our foundation of all doctrine."—Letter 20, 1888 (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, vol. 1, pp. 42-44).
-
If I follow your reasoning than, since most of us are not Greek or Hebrew scholars, we should just leave it up to the whims and biases of the modern translators.
Your conclusion would only be valid if combined with the premise that all old translations are bad. Since I do not believe that premise, what you describe does not follow my reasoning at all. Your understanding of what I mean is seriously flawed.
Can you now see how easily misunderstandings can creep into a situation when hidden presuppositions are involved? And that's with 21st-century English, in which both of us are fluent. And fortunately, I am here to correct your erroneous understanding.
So how can you hope to cast judgment on a translation of 2000-year-old Greek and 4000-year-old Hebrew, in which you are not fluent? Combine that with the fact that none of the writers can correct any misunderstandings, and the prospect looks very bleak.
One easy way to tell of a translation is faulty is to see if it contradicts itself--something that Scripture cannot do, but which a biased translation, such as the NIV can and will do. I know you will now try to show where the KJV appears to contradict itself. Don't waste your time. I'm aware of those, and they are all the result of one of several possibilities: not enough information available about the situation when the passage was penned; mistranslation of a particular word.
Hmmmm.... The NIV has contradictions due to the translators' biases. The KJV also has contradictions, but those were due to reasons other than translator bias. And you have evidence that allows you to make this determination?
Is it possible that some NIV "contradictions" were due to lack of information, or plain mistranslation? Is it possible that the KJV translators had some biases, perhaps even some "suggestions" from King James himself?
One other sidelight: to my knowledge there are only 2, possible 3 translations that translate Dan. 8:14 "shall be cleansed," which, as Cliff Goldstein has shown, is a good and proper rendering of the Hebrew. The doctrine of the investigative judgment is not so easily arrived at if that text is muddied as it is in virtually all modern translations.
That may be so, but the ease with which we can prove our point is not the standard by which a translation should be judged. That was the criterion used by the JWs to make their translation. It is faulty, at best.
When translating, there should be only one concern: To accurately express the sentiments that God intends. Whether that makes our job easier or harder is irrelevant. We subject our beliefs to God's Word, not the other way around.
Again, I go back to the French and Spanish Bibles, both of which say "shall be cleansed."
Are those translated from the original languages? The Masoretic text? TR or Nestle/UBS? Or are they derived from an English version, like the Ang Biblia (Tagalog) Bible is?
You also implied that Wycliffe's translation was less biased that the KJV. Not sure where you got that idea
I got that from your statement that biases were "more abundant than they were 400 years ago, due to the multiplication of heresies." If you back up another 300 years from the KJV, there should be less heresies, no? Or do you believe that, for whatever reason, the number of heresies dropped in the early 1600's?
the KJV developed out of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations, and the KJV was an improvement. I've never said that the KJV was perfect--the word "Easter" should have never been put in there, for example, but it is, nevertheless, a good translation, minus the baggage of all the newer ones, starting with the RSV.
If the KJV is imperfect, is it impossible for God to arrange for a more perfect version to be made? I think He's resourceful enough to pull that off.
But if the standard by which you judge a translation's accuracy is its "faithfulness" to the KJV rendering, then any significant improvement would be suspected of being the result of an attempt to make it difficult for us to prove our doctrines. That method, and it is popular among the KJV-only crowd, contradicts the claim that the KJV is not perfect.
What I and many like me object to is the fact that the denomination, in most of its publications, seems to be promoting (cramming down our unwilling throats?) the NIV very heavily, and has been for years. If they wanted to promote a particular translation, they could have at least picked one that is closer to the original Greek and Hebrew.
Here we find agreement. A good translation is defined by how closely it sticks to the original Greek and Hebrew. So when we discuss the merits or demerits of a particular translation, we would do well to use that metric - faithfulness to the original languages - rather than how close is mimics the KJV.
-
Another interesting thing that confirms my blessing is the continual error I see in many who presume to teach the gospel. I see a lack of consistency in what they say and I often see a lack of fruit in their dealings with others who disagree with them. My testimony is that God's Word is not only true, it changes one's life when it is followed. The greatest miracle of God is to see the results when the Word of God is taken into the life.
I know what you mean. Unfortunately, some of the most unkind and judgmental people I have come across are in the KJV-only crowd. They seem to think that since they have the correct Bible, all who disagree with them are corrupted and/or are seeking to lead people into apostasy. They seem unable to comprehend the possibility that they could be wrong. It's a shame because the KJV is a good translation, and they give it a bad name by their bad spirit.
As for your hermeneutic to "correct" the KJV "errors," it's a little too subjective for me. My heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, and I don't trust it to lead me in the right direction, even when I'm hearing a voice telling me what's what. And to consider the Bible wrong on some point because I can't make it fit my other beliefs after years of studying? It makes me nervous just thinking about it.
-
[
Again, I go back to the French and Spanish Bibles, both of which say "shall be cleansed."
Are those translated from the original languages? The Masoretic text? TR or Nestle/UBS? Or are they derived from an English version, like the Ang Biblia (Tagalog) Bible is?
You also implied that Wycliffe's translation was less biased that the KJV. Not sure where you got that idea
I got that from your statement that biases were "more abundant than they were 400 years ago, due to the multiplication of heresies." If you back up another 300 years from the KJV, there should be less heresies, no? Or do you believe that, for whatever reason, the number of heresies dropped in the early 1600's?
[
My point was not that there were fewer heresies in the 1600's, only that the opponents of truth weren't as well organized then. I should have been clearer. The devil and his accomplices have had nearly 400 years to fine tune their attacks on the truth, and make them more subtle. We see that in the attacks on the Sabbath by Dale Ratzlaff, and others like him. I believe that most of the modern translations reflect that subtlety and fine tuning.
The French and Spanish translations are not derived from any English Bible. The go back to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts just like English translations do.
-
If the KJV is imperfect, is it impossible for God to arrange for a more perfect version to be made? I think He's resourceful enough to pull that off.
I agree, but, why, after over a century and a half of preaching the 3 Angels' Messages, hasn't He done so? Maybe because we don't need one? Maybe we already have what we need. And if such a translation were needed, who would produce it? Certainly not an Adventist--the world would reject such a translation for the same reasons we reject the one produced by Jehovah's Witnesses. The "scholars" from the fallen churches of Babylon could not be trusted to produce such a translation--they're the ones producing the questionable translations we are getting now.
This why so many of us have accepted the KJV as the gold standard for the English-speaking world. It comes to us with less baggage than the more recent translations. And I think that is the bottom line: not that the KJV is without problems, but that it has proven itself to be reliable for 400 years, and the few problems that exist are well-known and, for the most part, easily dealt with. The ones that are not so easily dealt with don't affect core doctrines (i.e. those that affect our salvation). The newer translations create more problems than they solve.
-
My point was not that there were fewer heresies in the 1600's, only that the opponents of truth weren't as well organized then. I should have been clearer. The devil and his accomplices have had nearly 400 years to fine tune their attacks on the truth, and make them more subtle.
That argument would make Wycliffe's better than the KJV, since it came about 300 years earlier. The bad guys would have been even less organized way back then, right? Even Tyndale's would be a little better than the KJV.
The French and Spanish translations are not derived from any English Bible. The go back to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts just like English translations do.
Do you know which Greek manuscripts they use? What does Revelation 22:14 say?
-
If the KJV is imperfect, is it impossible for God to arrange for a more perfect version to be made? I think He's resourceful enough to pull that off.
I agree, but, why, after over a century and a half of preaching the 3 Angels' Messages, hasn't He done so? Maybe because we don't need one? Maybe we already have what we need. And if such a translation were needed, who would produce it? Certainly not an Adventist--the world would reject such a translation for the same reasons we reject the one produced by Jehovah's Witnesses. The "scholars" from the fallen churches of Babylon could not be trusted to produce such a translation--they're the ones producing the questionable translations we are getting now.
This why so many of us have accepted the KJV as the gold standard for the English-speaking world. It comes to us with less baggage than the more recent translations. And I think that is the bottom line: not that the KJV is without problems, but that it has proven itself to be reliable for 400 years, and the few problems that exist are well-known and, for the most part, easily dealt with. The ones that are not so easily dealt with don't affect core doctrines (i.e. those that affect our salvation). The newer translations create more problems than they solve.
I am in agreement that the KJV is a wonderful Bible, however, what I find to be quite sad; is that people attack other translations, without having sufficient understanding. Take for instance the reason why I got involved in the debate. A website was linked to tell us how 'evil' the KJV is. People quote differences between KJV and new sources, and citing such differences as heretical, deceitful etc.
The NKJV is quite true to the KJV, with updates to certain verses, I have shown the reasons for them wanting/needing to update some of these texts, but still there seems to be a minority in the church that are keeping the Word of God from the "common"persons understanding, by forcing such to read the KJV( Forcing might seem harsh, but who would want to be seen with an "evil Bible")
-
Mimi,
I have confirmed with a friend of mine who has a Korean Bible that what you have posted above are indeed factual.
Won
-
If the KJV is imperfect, is it impossible for God to arrange for a more perfect version to be made? I think He's resourceful enough to pull that off.
I agree, but, why, after over a century and a half of preaching the 3 Angels' Messages, hasn't He done so?
Maybe He did. But maybe you blew it off as a biased translation.
And if such a translation were needed, who would produce it? Certainly not an Adventist--the world would reject such a translation for the same reasons we reject the one produced by Jehovah's Witnesses.
The same argument applies to Desire of Ages. Yet, God had that made by an Adventist anyway. Why? Because WE need it.
Before we worry about what the world does, we need to address the fact that God must fix US first. When that happens, regardless of what people say, God will be glorified by what they see.
The "scholars" from the fallen churches of Babylon could not be trusted to produce such a translation--they're the ones producing the questionable translations we are getting now.
That is just a form of ad hominem attack: Their work is bad because they are bad. BTW, the Church of England, which authorized the KJV, wasn't exactly the Remnant either.
it has proven itself to be reliable for 400 years
The same argument could have been made in 1700 to condemn the KJV and support Wycliffe's. And if we're still around in 400 years, the same could be said of the NIV.
Furthermore, the argument will be refuted by those who disagree with your doctrines. They'll say your messed up Bible leads you to messed up doctrines. Then you rebut that their doctrines are messed up because of their messed up Bible.
In the end, the "KJV is reliable" argument is an irrefutable opinion.
The ones that are not so easily dealt with don't affect core doctrines (i.e. those that affect our salvation).
That's how I see most of the problems in the modern translations. Issues in Dan 8:14 and Rev 22:14 tie some people into a knot, but I don't think they're insurmountable problems. The Bible is a big book, which teaches the same thing over and over. A messed up verse here and there doesn't affect our salvation.
Of course, this doesn't apply to interpretations and paraphrases.
-
Do you know which Greek manuscripts they use? What does Revelation 22:14 say?
Heurex ceux qui lavent leur robes, afin d'avoir droit a l'arbre de vie, et d'entrer par les portes dans la ville!
"Happy those who wash their robes, and thus to be able to have right to the tree of life, and to enter by the gates into the city!"
The Spanish also says "wash their robes." "lavan sus ropas"
-
Richard, you asked how the NKJV treats the sanctuary:
Hebrews 9:12 has "most holy" = "hagia hagien" = holy of holies
NKJV - "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."
KJV - "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
The KJV is correct as Jesus first entered the heavenly sanctuary into the Holy place, the first apartment, moving into the most holy place in 1844.
-
From this website are listed the following differences between the KJV and the NKJV. It is not an exhaustive list:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html
Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man.
Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."
Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."
Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."
Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").
2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."
Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."
1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."
2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."
Old Testament examples include:
Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.
Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.
In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perverted persons."
Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.
-
Do you know which Greek manuscripts they use? What does Revelation 22:14 say?
Heurex ceux qui lavent leur robes, afin d'avoir droit a l'arbre de vie, et d'entrer par les portes dans la ville!
"Happy those who wash their robes, and thus to be able to have right to the tree of life, and to enter by the gates into the city!"
The Spanish also says "wash their robes." "lavan sus ropas"
It looks like they use the Alexandrian texts, rather than the Byzantine.
-
(Here you need to have really studied greek, or at least be willing to try or, the very least, use strongs :). Greek verbs and nouns take on Accusative, Genetive, Dative and nomanitive and Dative... please remember this with all Translations, then it also Might be male, female, or Neuter and then first person, 2nd person and 3rd person. singular or plural, oh and that excludes tenses) Thats why I still struggle with Greek :-)
Now I am going to address the NT first, as I dont have time to do all of the homework for the people on this site, as we all have to do the research. As I have stated before, don't just quote from a website, these guys have their own missgivings and some have some strange axe to grind.
It is easy to cut and paste, or link to a site... it is easy to think that these guys on the internet are actually all just telling the truth, but Bible study is not easy, it is something to be grappling with...
From this website are listed the following differences between the KJV and the NKJV. It is not an exhaustive list:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html
Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man.
What is a heretic, but a person that spreads a divisive gospel. as the Gospel is to unite
Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."
child3816
- pais -Perhaps from G3817; a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or (by analogy) a girl, and (generally) a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God): - child, maid (-en), (man) servant, son, young man.
Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."
bewitched1839
From G1537 and G2476; to put (stand) out of wits, that is, astound, or (reflexively) become astounded, insane: - amaze, be (make) astonished, be beside self (selves), bewitch, wonder.
Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."
into1722
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in)
Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").
for1223
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."
imaginations,3053
From G3049; computation, that is, (figuratively) reasoning (conscience, conceit): - imagination, thought.
Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."
1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."
appearance1491
From G1492; a view, that is, form (literally or figuratively): - appearance, fashion, shape, sight.
2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."
Study4704
From G4710; to use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest: - do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.
-
Old Testament examples include:
Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.
heathen1471
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Its not in original
Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2066:5&version=50 Yes it is, translated as, We shall see your joy...
He shall appear. Literally, “we shall see.” According to the Masoretic reading this clause forms a part of the taunt: “Let the Lord be glorified and we will see your joy.” The translation “he shall appear” requires a change in the Hebrew. However, Dead Sea scroll 1QIsa clearly reads, “he shall appear.
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. Is 66:6
Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.
This is right, and wrong... I prefer KJV here..
25. Like the Son of God. Commentators have variously interpreted the exclamation of the astonished Nebuchadnezzar concerning the fourth individual in the fiery furnace. Jewish scholars have always identified him simply as an angel. This view is reflected in the LXX, which translates the phrase “like an angel of God.” Early Christian interpreters (Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and others), on the other hand, saw in this fourth personage the second person of the Godhead. The rendering of the KJV reflects this interpretation. The majority of conservative Christians hold to this view, although modern critical commentators have now generally discarded it, as is seen by the translations of the RV, ASV, RSV, and other modern versions, “like a son of the gods.”
The problem is one of Aramaic grammar and interpretation. The Aramaic ’elahin, “gods,” is the plural of ’elah, “god.” In some cases where ’elahin is used, reference is made to pagan gods (chs. 2:11, 47; 5:4, 23). However, there are two passages besides the one under discussion where ’elahin can be interpreted to refer to the true God of Daniel (ch. 5:11, 14; see RSV footnote). Hence the translation “God” for ’elahin is justifiable if it can be established that Nebuchadnezzar was employing the term as a proper name. Grammatically, both translations, “like the son of God,” and, “like a son of the gods,” are correct.
The context reveals that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the superiority of the most high God of Israel (see chs. 3:26, 28, 29; 4:2). In these statements the king was not referring to gods in general but to the God in particular. For this reason conservative interpreters prefer the translation of the KJV and can linguistically defend their preference (see PK 509; Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 170–173).
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. Da 3:25
In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perverted persons."
Evil, in biblical terms, especially in KJV terms, could be all of the above.
Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.
Please point to specific's after you have done own research, and I shall see whether I can assist research.
-
If this is the worst of the translation, then it does not appear to be greatly offensive. I have preferences, but that is not my concern and never was. I see no reason to change some words just to change them which apparently has taken place. But, that is not the issue. It can cause confusion and make consistency more of a problem, but the main concern I have is that the gospel truth be translated correctly. This has been the target of Satan to deceive. Of course there are other doctrinal matters that are important, but the greatest is the gospel message which has been perverted throughout Christianity. The power of God's grace has been destroyed in the minds of many by Satan working through the church.
-
Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.
I will take these, Aerasmus.
-
Matthew 4:24
KJV Mat 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
NIV Mat 4:24 News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them.
NKJV Mat 4:24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.
ASV Mat 4:24 And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them.
KJ21 Mat 4:24 And His fame went throughout all Syria. And they brought unto Him all sick people who were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those who were possessed with devils, and those who were lunatic, and those who had the palsy; and He healed them.
NASB Mat 4:24 The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them.
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.”
-
Matthew 6:13
KJV Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
NIV Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Matthew 6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
NKJV Mat 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
NU-Text omits For Yours through Amen.
ASV Mat 6:13 And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Text omits For Yours through Amen.
KJ21 Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the Kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.
NASB Mat 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, but (A)deliver us from (B)evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'
-
Matthew 7:14
KJV Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
NIV Mat 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it
Small vs. strait Who is the Gate? Is He small or strait?
NKJV Mat 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
NU-Text and M-Text read "How"
ASV Mat 7:14 For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
"straightened" replaces "narrow" - these have been reversed
KJ21 Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
NASB Mat 7:14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Small vs. strait
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
I am in agreement with you, brother, but I will limit myself to those translations coming from uncorrupted manuscripts.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Can it be all inclusive?
-
Can it be all inclusive?
What do you mean?
-
Can it be all inclusive?
That is how I originally read it, as inclusive of all three divine entities. I could be wrong.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
Yes, and I think that, while it is another subject, may be of interest in this verse also. I am not sure, but will take a closer look. :) I am willing to be open and say that I am only interested in the gospel being clearly translated, but it may be that God would not allow me to be so accommodating. :) In my desire to come into unity with you and others who appreciate many of the new translations, it may be that I overstep my freedom.
-
Yes, and I think that, while it is another subject, may be of interest in this verse also. I am not sure, but will take a closer look. :) I am willing to be open and say that I am only interested in the gospel being clearly translated, but it may be that God would not allow me to be so accommodating. :) In my desire to come into unity with you and others who appreciate many of the new translations, it may be that I overstep my freedom.
The only thing I am interested in, is to Follow the Word of God, and to understand it. I have learned in my short life that Tradition is not to be put above the Word of God, as I am sure all would agree
-
Amen!!
When you said "He is God", were you indicating Jesus? While I was walking in the warm sunshine and breathing in the fresh clean air, I stopped to wonder if this was who you meant?
-
Amen!!
When you said "He is God", were you indicating Jesus? While I was walking in the warm sunshine and breathing in the fresh clean air, I stopped to wonder if this was who you meant?
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD :)
-
1 Thessalonians 5:23
Look at this text showing how the change of one simple word can quite possibly change theology, IMO. Notice "unto" the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in the KJV. In the Greek this is: unto 1722 - a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537)
The NKJV gives us "at" the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and you will see what the other versions render. Give me your thoughts.
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.
MSG (The Message) 1Thess 5:23-24 May God himself, the God who makes everything holy and whole, make you holy and whole, put you together—spirit, soul, and body—and keep you fit for the coming of our Master, Jesus Christ. The One who called you is completely dependable. If he said it, he'll do it!
WYC (Wycliffe) 1Thess. 5:23 And God himself of peace make you holy by all things, that your spirit be kept whole, and soul, and body, without plaint, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
TNIV 1Thess. 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
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.
Looks pretty serious. Why change it? What was the matter with the KJV? And, if you really just wanted to use a more modern world, how about "until"?
It is this subject that concerns me most. This appears to hit right at the gospel of grace.
-
Amen!!
When you said "He is God", were you indicating Jesus? While I was walking in the warm sunshine and breathing in the fresh clean air, I stopped to wonder if this was who you meant?
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD :)
Sorry, Brother Andre, you will have to answer me more directly. Is it Jesus that is God? Or do you reject that idea?
-
Amen!!
When you said "He is God", were you indicating Jesus? While I was walking in the warm sunshine and breathing in the fresh clean air, I stopped to wonder if this was who you meant?
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD :)
Sorry, Brother Andre, you will have to answer me more directly. Is it Jesus that is God? Or do you reject that idea?
Richard you said "They are God" I was referring to the fact that God is one... Jesus, Holy Ghost and Father = One( I am a monotheist)
Jesus was God made flesh, He is the "I am" He is my saviour and He is my Creator, and He is my Lord.
He is God!
I have not given the slightest indication that I do not accept Christ as God, and as God incarnate. If He was/is not God, then I am in trouble, because then my sins could not have been washed away...
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these
Heb 9:26 ... but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
And if He was/is not God, then there is no reason for my existence. Christ is everything to me, I shall serve Him with all my breath, and if I am not allowed to serve Him, then I would rather not be living!
I do not think I can be accused of rejecting Christ, as if I were to do so, then I would have had to reject His Word... I would have thought that you would've realised that I spend my time debating translations, because of my love for His Word... For God.
Lets not forget "...His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. "
-
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.
Looks pretty serious. Why change it? What was the matter with the KJV? And, if you really just wanted to use a more modern world, how about "until"?
It is this subject that concerns me most. This appears to hit right at the gospel of grace.
en
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.
Okay, now that we see what it can mean in Greek, and understanding that Translating is not as easy as thought :) if we consider a small preposition such as en...
Lets see what the SDA Bible Commentary says on this one.
Unto. Or, “at,” that is, at the time of the coming.
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. 1 Th 5:24
-
This is an interesting one, huh? I have trouble with it. 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"Unto" appears to denote a "holding power" through a span of time culminating at His coming.
"At" appears to denote something which will happen only when Jesus comes.
If I had a good handle on Spanish, my concerns could be explained with more specificity. English is really quite limiting.
-
1 Timothy 6:5
KJV Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
NKJV useless wranglings(a) of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.(b)
a. 1 Timothy 6:5 NU-Text and M-Text read constant friction.
b. 1 Timothy 6:5 NU-Text omits this sentence.
ESV and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
"from such withdraw yourself" is omitted
ASV wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.
"from such withdraw yourself" is omitted
NIV and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
"from such withdraw yourself" is omitted
7SDABC, 317, on the last phrase of this text (KJV) says "textual evidence favors the omission of this clause." There is a further reference to page 10 of the same volume explaining textual evidence for variant readings.
What do we want to do with this? Did a copyist add this clause in the KJV? Was it inferred, yet not strongly enough to include it in the newer translations?
-
This is an interesting one, huh? I have trouble with it. 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"Unto" appears to denote a "holding power" through a span of time culminating at His coming.
"At" appears to denote something which will happen only when Jesus comes.
If I had a good handle on Spanish, my concerns could be explained with more specificity. English is really quite limiting.
I have a good handle of Afrikaans, which also Translate it "at"
But this is not a problem, if one consider the words, it could be in referrence that the people are to remain alive and well, thus not consumed by the coming of Christ, due to the fact that the unrepentant will be consumed by His glory.
-
1 Timothy 6:5
KJV Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
NKJV useless wranglings(a) of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.(b)
a. 1 Timothy 6:5 NU-Text and M-Text read constant friction.
b. 1 Timothy 6:5 NU-Text omits this sentence.
ESV and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
"from such withdraw yourself" is omitted
ASV wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.
"from such withdraw yourself" is omitted
NIV and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
"from such withdraw yourself" is omitted
7SDABC, 317, on the last phrase of this text (KJV) says "textual evidence favors the omission of this clause." There is a further reference to page 10 of the same volume explaining textual evidence for variant readings.
What do we want to do with this? Did a copyist add this clause in the KJV? Was it inferred, yet not strongly enough to include it in the newer translations?
Even if this is added by a copyist(These were not mere "copyist" but men that truly served God and I believe lived by His Word) It does not cause any problem for me, I think it is an inferrence made, if we read the context and if we consider the Bible as a whole, we can justify the statement, even if it was originally added as a commentary...
Now if it is not added, in modern translations, due to the fact that these translations are trying to keep to what the original writers wrote, I don't see a problem with that either, I do think that they can be commended for keeping as close as possible to the original and should not be persecuted for doing so, which unfortunately alot of KJV-only loyalists have been doing.
-
Richard you said "They are God" I was referring to the fact that God is one... Jesus, Holy Ghost and Father = One( I am a monotheist)
Jesus was God made flesh, He is the "I am" He is my saviour and He is my Creator, and He is my Lord.
He is God!
I have not given the slightest indication that I do not accept Christ as God, and as God incarnate. If He was/is not God, then I am in trouble, because then my sins could not have been washed away...
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these
Heb 9:26 ... but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
And if He was/is not God, then there is no reason for my existence. Christ is everything to me, I shall serve Him with all my breath, and if I am not allowed to serve Him, then I would rather not be living!
I do not think I can be accused of rejecting Christ, as if I were to do so, then I would have had to reject His Word... I would have thought that you would've realised that I spend my time debating translations, because of my love for His Word... For God.
Lets not forget "...His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. "
Thank you, dear brother, I did not think you rejected Christ as God. In the context of the verse and the world we live in, it seems that this is an issue. Some seem to be upset with Jesus being God. :( And therefore, it seems that the translations can help or hurt the truth.
-
Thessalonians 5:23
"Unto" appears to denote a "holding power" through a span of time culminating at His coming.
"At" appears to denote something which will happen only when Jesus comes.
The NKJV leads us to believe that "at" the coming of Jesus something will happen.
The KJV leads us to believe that something will happen up until the coming of Christ.
What is the truth? Will this take place "at" the second coming or is it something that is carried up to the second coming? I believe the truth is that it is something that precedes the second coming and goes right up to the second coming. It is not something that happens "at" the second coming. Is this correct?
-
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?
-
sorry I don't see it the way you do, please look at what I have said previously... :)
-
That's okay, brother - we are studying this out. I would assume we are older than you and it takes a bit more time to let these things percolate. What one sees, the other does not sometimes. We are just in the beginning stages of this, so be patient with your elders! ;)
Brother Aerasums, what do you make of the subtle differences I just noted? Do you think they are significant?
-
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?
-
Looks pretty serious. Why change it? What was the matter with the KJV? And, if you really just wanted to use a more modern world, 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.
2) If one is blameless, can such a person say that he has no sin? Or can a blameless person have sin?
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?
The first point there addresses the translation issue. The last two address the gospel of grace, and what it actually teaches.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
[
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.
-
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
-
[
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."
-
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).
-
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!
-
There is great concern with the increasing use within churches today of the modern "bible" translations, especially the NIV. For many years I have encouraged all that I can to use the King James version of the Bible. Let us discuss the situation and learn why the concern.
Sorry I am so late getting in. My question is: If the NIV is so bad, why are our churches pushing it? Almost every quote from a Bible on Hope or 3ABN or in the Review is from that NIV.
Why?
Harold.
-
There is great concern with the increasing use within churches today of the modern "bible" translations, especially the NIV. For many years I have encouraged all that I can to use the King James version of the Bible. Let us discuss the situation and learn why the concern.<P>In His love and grace, Richard<p>[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 07-04-2001).]
Sorry I am so late getting in. My question is: If the NIV is so bad, why are our churches pushing it? Almost every quote from a Bible on Hope or 3ABN or in the Review is from that NIV.
Why?
Harold.
A question that many of us have asked over the years. I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer. I never used the NIV (one of my friends calls it the "Non Inspired Version") either in my SS class or for preaching.
-
In the early 1960's when Vatican 2 was in session, it was said that the Vatican was putting out a new Bible to gether Jews, Pentacostals, Protestants, and Catholics - together.
Re 16:13-14 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Looking up the phrase "frogs come out of the mouth of " = 7 hits - very detailed interesting data. Earth's could not arrive at these conclusions using a Received Text translation that they obeyed, but using a Bible Version that is not from Received text and also being disobedient as well, they leave themselves wide open for further and further wanderings from what the Bible Writers wrote.
I have a Joe Crews article on the history of the Bible, if the moderator wants me to post it in segments.
-
I would really like to have you post this. :)
-
Brother Ed, the offer is a generous one. However, I'm thinking that it's probably best to have those who want it to contact you via pm.
-
ok,
I found it in my folders, and it is about 20= pages including bibliography & a few pages upon the Bible from 1SM = 25+ pages total.
if anybody wants it PM me, and give me your email. I am having trouble connecting using DSL where we moved to, but will email when I can.
-
I would like to have it, Ed. Thanks for sharing!
-
I would like to have it also. I thank you for it. If you can't get it to me through The Remnant Online, my email is in my profile. I mention this because I cannot get out to anyone else through TRO. Maybe it is just my system??? Thanks again. :)
-
my web access is down, am using someone elses net book and the file is in my laptopthat can not connect from where we live now. Sorry, will have to wait.
-
No rush.... We all are having problems with these machines now and then. :)
-
Brother Ed, can you add to what has been posted about Bible translations?
-
ok,
I found it in my folders, and it is about 20= pages including bibliography & a few pages upon the Bible from 1SM = 25+ pages total.
if anybody wants it PM me, and give me your email. I am having trouble connecting using DSL where we moved to, but will email when I can.
Sorry, I think this is the one. If you have the information, please PM us with it - those who have asked for it. Thanks!
-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Religion Press Release Services
Contact: Brandi Lewis, Marketing Manager
brandi.lewis@commonenglish.com or (615) 749-6211
Fuller Theological Seminary Approves the Common
English Bible for Official School Use
(http://i587.photobucket.com/albums/ss316/TROPhotobucket/art_commonenglishbible_0411_180.jpg)
NASHVILLE, TN—Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, has approved the new Common English Bible (http://CommonEnglishBible.com) (@CommonEngBible) as a translation for use in biblical studies courses for its more than 4,000 students, and particularly for all master's-level instruction in the seminary's School of Theology, School of Psychology, and School of Intercultural Studies on all eight of its campuses.
"Fuller's mission is to prepare men and women for the manifold ministries of Christ and his church. We work out this calling with an eye toward both academic excellence and service to the church. The Biblical Division's decision to approve the Common English Bible for classroom use reflects these commitments," says J. R. Daniel Kirk, assistant professor of New Testament at Fuller. "We've approved the Common English Bible because it's an academically excellent translation, because it communicates the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts in a clear and accessible fashion, and because it reflects the reality that the communities for which the Bible was written consist of both women and men."
Fuller has more than 35,000 alumni in 130 countries, serving as pulpit ministers, mission leaders, academic leaders, mental health professionals, chaplains, translators, and community and marketplace leaders. The Common English Bible joins two other translations officially approved by Fuller: the New Revised Standard Version and Today's New International Version.
Combining scholarly accuracy with vivid language, the Common English Bible is the work of more than 200 biblical scholars and church leaders, including members of more than 20 denominations, who translated the Bible into English directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. More than 500 readers in 77 groups field-tested the translation. Every verse was read aloud in the reading groups, where potentially confusing passages were identified. The translators considered the groups' responses and, where necessary, reworked those passages to clarify in English their meaning from the original languages.
The digital revolution is accelerating changes in language and its everyday usage. The new Common English Bible is written in contemporary idiom at the same reading level as the newspaper USA TODAY—using language that's comfortable and accessible for today's English readers. With the complete Bible arriving in stores in August, this new translation strives to make Bible reading more clear and compelling for individuals, groups, and corporate worship services.
"The Common English Bible is a brand-new, bold translation designed to meet the needs of people in all stages of their spiritual journey," says Paul Franklyn, associate publisher for the Common English Bible. "For students—whether at colleges and seminaries or outside a formal institution—it combines and balances highly respected ecumenical biblical scholarship necessary for serious study with responsiveness to 21st century clear communication requirements for comprehensive clarity. The Common English Bible can help students experience the insight and knowledge that comes from a fresh reading of the Bible."
The Common English Bible is an inclusive translation, using male and female pronouns where appropriate to indicate the meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text when referring to general human beings. Pronouns for God, Lord, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are translated as he, his, or him.
Another unique feature of the Common English Bible is the inclusion of exclusive, detailed color maps from National Geographic, well known for its vibrant and accurate map making.
Visit CommonEnglishBible.com to see comparison translations, learn about the translators, get free downloads, and more.
The Common English Bible is a denomination-neutral Bible sponsored by the Common English Bible Committee, an alliance of five publishers that serve the general market, as well as the Disciples of Christ (Chalice Press), Presbyterian Church (Westminster John Knox Press), Episcopal Church (Church Publishing Inc.), United Church of Christ (Pilgrim Press), and United Methodist Church (Abingdon Press).
-
From Commonenglishbible.com's website:
To keep scripture relevant, and integrated into worship. Cultural and religious settings have changed dramatically. Changes in worship impact the words we use in our churches. And language is changing even faster because of the digital revolution. Combined with huge cultural shifts underway, these changes are so enormous that a completely new translation of the Bible is required.
Culture and change must now drive relevancy to Scripture? Fuller is known for this. Woe, woe, woe!
-
The blind leading the blind.
Anyone with their eyes even half open realizes that the culture continues to get more wicked. Entertaining the idea that a Bible ought to follow a wicked culture rather than the wicked come to God is ................wicked.
There was talk several years ago about coming out with a KJV that contained graphic pictures such as when David fell for Bathsheba. Bible porn ? It did not materialize and we only hope it was a vicious rumor.
We have heard of culturally relevant music and culturally relevant adornment. Why should it be a surprise that a culturally relevant Bible be promoted ? After all, perhaps the NIV may have slipped into the realm of the ancients. ;D
Even some in our church would likely favor such. We already have a culturally relevant Desire of Ages do to the complex, mystical, coded language of the 1800 and 1900's.
-
I wonder if those who are not concerned about modern "bibles" will be awakened by this new bible? Without ever opening the "bible", how can we condemn it?
-
They have an interesting comparison chart on their website. Notice the reading levels of the different translations:
http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Explore/CompareTranslations/ComparisonChart/tabid/301/Default.aspx (http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Explore/CompareTranslations/ComparisonChart/tabid/301/Default.aspx)
-
I found this interesting for the NIV:
New International Version (NIV) 1978; rev. 2010 8 Hybrid: Verbal equivalence with dynamic balance Biblica. 2010 update by 10 person Committee on Bible Translation. Biblia Hebraica, eclectic mix of original texts for NT
There was no reference for the translators of the original NIV. But, for the updated version there were only ten people the translation committee. Not that it would have made any difference. There could be a hundred on it and it would have come out wrong.
Here is the list for the translators of the CEB:
Common English Bible Committee, an alliance of five denominational publishers (117 translators from 22 faith traditions and 5 countries; 77 field testing groups with 400 participants in 13 denominations)
5 denominational publishers
22 denominations
5 countries
117 translators
How about if we change this to 1000 translators all experts in Greek and Hebrew from the same number of denominations and countries? Or 10,000 translators? Will this give us an accurate portrayal of what God has said?
-
Here is what Bible Gateway states regarding the NIV:
A self-governing body of fifteen biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) was formed and charged with responsibility for the version, and in 1968 the New York Bible Society (which subsequently became the International Bible Society and then Biblica) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project. The translation of each book was assigned to translation teams, each made up of two lead translators, two translation consultants, and a stylistic consultant where necessary. The initial translations produced by these teams were carefully scrutinized and revised by intermediate editorial committees of five biblical scholars to check them against the source texts and assess them for comprehensibility. Each edited text was then submitted to a general committee of eight to twelve members before being distributed to selected outside critics and to all members of the CBT in preparation for a final review.
And if you still need a little more information as to how trustworthy these people are who have control of the NIV translation, here is a statement about their un-Biblical scholarship and their character that ought to confirm your doubts about the translation:
"In 1995, the NIV team (International Bible Society (IBS) and Committee on Bible Translations (CBT)) created a feminist "gender-inclusive" NIV, titled the New International Version Inclusive language edition [NIVI]. They found out very quickly and very loudly that America was not "prime-time ready" for a NIV feminist "gender inclusive" edition. So the NIVI was published solely in Great Britain by Hodder & Stoughton (Zondervan is the exclusive NIV publisher in the U.S.)." source (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html)
Notice the "CBT" created the "gender inclusive" NIV. Yes, they control the NIV. Keep reading the link I provided and you will be amazed at what they did when they found that their lies were not going to be received as well as the original NIV was and is. One does not have to be a Bible scholar to understand what is going on with the modern translations.
-
During the week I was in a class in which I am a student, when the teacher asked if anyone had seen a particular program on the KJV recently. None of us had. She shared with a contagious enthusiasm her fondness of the KJV and how beautiful it is, how she treasures it, and what a wonderful history it has. I would never have picked this middle aged lady as being a fan of the KJV! She is artistic, trendy and very likeable. I couldn't help but admire how this lady's genuine enthusiasm just bubbled forth so naturally, without a hint of reservation or embarrassment. And to think of how the KJV is disliked by some of our own and here are others in other denominations who see that there is something very special about it.
-
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
-
...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?
-
It is good to have anyone acknowledge:
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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'....
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
Rick, we have a slew of examples here in this topic:
http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.msg77555#msg77555
-
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...
-
Rick, we have a slew of examples here in this topic:
http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.msg77555#msg77555
Yes, but you dont have why Wescott and Hort did it, and I will post that when I get home...
-
Well before going into the issue, let me first give a explanation of who Westcott and Hort were for those who may not know, then go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for new version.
Westcott 12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) and Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) were Anglican theologians who exerted influence on the members of the Bible commitee for revising the translation being done at that time which forms the basis of most modern versions.The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively which was based on the Textus Receptus and had done so almost from when it first came out.The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It also became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible and by extension the Textus Receptus it was based on. This challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.
The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)
Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.
Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
Hort did not have a single historical reference to support taht the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.
The great textual scholar of the time, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."
Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself..."
-
The King James was the primary Bible in use, and it was the guardian of the Reformation. The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively and it was the Bible of the Puritans, Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Quakers, the Baptists and became the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).
The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700's, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament but it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880, however, they found no audience. In America, it was read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies and American public schools were built around the King James Bible.
The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. In America, the Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700's and 1800's. The missionaries from England and the United States translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible.
Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible.came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.
The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)
Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.
Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
Hort did not have a single historical reference to support that the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.
-
Now both member held ideas that even know seem a bit odd for Christian churchmen, even if Anglican. Here is comment from Wescott, quote: “As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but many.”
( La Salette is the place in France where two young children said they saw and talked with an apparition of the Weeping Virgin)
From their letters:
Westcott: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Now what is interesting is the unique Catholic beliefs or doctrines which they subscribed to...
Hort was a very real believer in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854:
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named."
and in another letter to others.....
The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended.
"I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth."
Hort seem to think we all need to do the Catholic style severe self-afflicted penances or suffering in his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.
"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."
Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was more correct than the "evangelical" teaching.
"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
He also states that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."
Here we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation:
"You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles' time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven."
Hort said he saw no difference between Jesus worship or Mary worship, and said, “They have much in common in there causes and results.”
Hort seemed almost intent on taking down the beliefs held from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text in the Authorized Version: "Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
Here comes what I think was behind what drove Hort (with 'substantial Church' I take as meaning the Catholic chuch): "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary. (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).
As for Westcott, here are some of quotes and review of his beliefs which give you an idea of his bent: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate.
Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"
Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a physical coming but a spiritual coming and in 'other comings' which I can only think of as manifistations such as the virgin Mary appearing or as such events: "As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the 'Lord's coming' in my little book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lord's words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is 'coming' to us now."
Now it makes sense if you look at the Wescott La Salette quote again. “...the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself not in one form but many.” Now you see what he believed.
-
From what I have come across, it appears Westcott, denied the existance of Heaven and believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place as seen in this that he wrote: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place; 'heaven is a state and not a place.'"
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead as both believed it possible to communicate with the dead. Wescott and Hort even went into the occult and started a society to investigate ghosts and the supernatural.
They slowly fed others the changes they were making and so were ready when the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 met and steered it away from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text and into the Alexandria codices and its changes.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new 'Alexandrian' English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version or KJV, as it was claimed to be.
In Samuel Gipps book, An Understandable History of the Bible, we read:“In 1870 the…church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version. A gleam of hope shone in the eye of every Roman Catholic. An eager anticipation filled every Jesuit inspired Protestant scholar…although it was meant to correct a few supposed “error” in the Authorized Version, the textual critics of the day assured themselves that they would never again have to submit to the divine authority of the Universal Text.”
When they finished, the pure text was changed in 36,191 places. The result of all these changes is confusion in the diety of Christ for new readers or mistrust by others of the scriptures, so in my opinion their purpose was accomplised in one form or the other.
-
Now I have to tell something that I came across that just floored me. First it seemed to me from their quotes and ideas that they were being influenced by someone or by something towards Catholic doctrine and traditions and there was this period a stiring of activity of Jesuit or Catholic ideas in England and it appears Westcott and Hort became entagled with them. I cant find evidence for Hort but Westcott was deeply involced with John Newman, who from all appearances seemed to be a mentor. Lets take a look at who he is as I looked up his background...
....John Henry Newman, D.D., C.O. (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890), also referred to as Cardinal Newman and Blessed John Henry Newman, was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.
Originally an evangelical Oxford academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman was a leader in the Oxford Movement. This influential grouping of Anglicans wished to return the Church of England to many Catholic beliefs and forms of worship traditional in the medieval times to restore ritual expression. In 1845 Newman left the Church of England and was received into the Roman Catholic Church where he was eventually granted the rank of cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.....
Interesting to say the least, a Jesuit hiding in plain sight, seems possible.
What are your thoughts.......?
-
Share with us Westcott's relationship with Newman.
-
Newman was the leader of the Oxford Movement and Westcott was one of the younger members. This movement amound Aglicans started in Cambridge and also Oxford to renew the Church of England to the true teachings of the early church. But in reality it was being guided back to the mysticism and spiritualism of the corrupted Roman Catholic church. Newman was one of the main leaders in Oxford, and pushed for the reinstatement of 'lost Christian traditions' and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. It become known as the Oxford Movement and were known as Newmanites (pre-1845) and Puseyites (post-1845) after the two prominent leaders , John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey.
As a Cambridge undergraduate Westcott was a part of the movement and was in contact with Newman who was a more recognized leader, and organised a club which he named Hermes, a mythological guide of departed souls to Hades. This club met from 1845-48 and was evidently a precursor to the Ghost Club. Westcott and Hort were among the founders of the Ghost Club (or “Bogie Club” as scoffers called it) in 1850, with the purpose of investigating “ghosts and all supernatural appearances. In later years the followers of the Oxford movement placed increasing emphasis on the responsibility of Christians in the life of society and have given much attention to social problems. This social concern led to the foundation of the Christian Social Union in 1889 under Brooke Foss Westcott and Henry Scott Holland.
Here is some background that I came accross on the Jesuits and Newman...
In their unwearied efforts to restore the primacy of the papal faith in Britain through its educational institutions, the Jesuits did not overlook the institution which epitomized English educational excellence—the University of Oxford. Indeed Dr. Desanctis asserted that there were
a greater number of Jesuits [in Britain] than in Italy. Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, 128, quoted in Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement, 33
Since Dr. Desanctis had held the position of professor of Theology in Rome and official Theological Censor of the Inquisition and was himself a member of the Jesuit order before converting to Protestantism, we can give credence to his report. Indeed the same author claimed:
There are Jesuits in all classes of society: in Parliament, among the English clergy, among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. Ibid.
So successful were these Jesuit infiltrators that in the middle of the nineteenth century, the entire ecclesiastical history of Britain was revised. In his insightful work, the historian J.A. Froude related his own experiences during this period at the University of Oxford:
In my first term at the University, the controversial fires were beginning to blaze. . . . I had learnt, like other Protestant children, that the Pope was Antichrist, and that Gregory VII had been a special revelation of that being. I was now taught that Gregory VII was a saint. I had been told to honour the Reformers. The Reformation became a great schism, Cranmer a traitor, and Latimer a vulgar ranter. Milton was a name of horror. J.A.Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, 161, 167, quoted in B.G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 123
Since Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh Latimer were martyred for their opposition to the Roman Catholic faith and Milton was one of the great Protestant poets, this alteration in historical perception by the University of Oxford was a matter of no minor importance. In terms of belief this change meant that while in 1833 Anglicans in Britain believed that the Reformation was the work of God, that the pope was antichrist, and that the celebration of the Mass was satanic, a mere half-century later most Anglicans saw the Reformation as rebellion and the pope as the true successor of the apostles, while many participated in the services of the Mass.
Precisely one hundred years before our birth, the Oxford movement commenced. J.H. Newman was the leading founder of this movement. Newman had entered the University of Oxford as an Evangelical Christian but already the Jesuit influence was so strong that his professors, particularly Hawkins, the provost of Oriel College in Oxford, were teaching that the Bible must be interpreted in the light of tradition. Newman graduated from Oxford University with his Bachelor of Arts degree, and in 1823 was elected a fellow of Oriel College. As a fellow of Oriel College, Newman fell under the influence of numerous persons purporting to belong to the Church of England, but possessing a strong anti-Protestant and anti-Evangelical bias.
In 1833 Newman made a tour of Europe, making Rome his principal destination. While there, he sent a message to the pope requesting details of the terms upon which the Church of England could be accepted by the Church of Rome. The answer he received was that the Church of England must accept the findings of the Council of Trent. That Council, which had been called to counter the spread of Protestantism, had uplifted tradition and had devised plans to destroy the influence of the Protestant Reformation.
-
It is truly amazing that people don't know the history of these new translations/paraphrases. I generally use the KJV and some of the literal translations for my study and preaching. Only on rare occasions do I use any of the new translations like the NIV or similar. When you compare the "changes," the agenda begins to become clear. Diminish the significance of the deity of Christ, and you are left with a watered down gospel and a weakened, distorted plan of salvation. Yes, I know that the KJV has problems as well ("I say unto you today . . ."), but I believe it is the purest form of scripture available, the least tainted with translation errors and omissions. And if you are studying with someone, it is the one that is most accepted. Not that that is the reason to use it, but most recognize it as the best translation. The others normally aren't offended when you use the KJV either. I wish more people would read and understand about these new translations/paraphrases. "Study to show thyself approved . . ."
LtV
-
It is truly amazing that people don't know the history of these new translations/paraphrases. I generally use the KJV and some of the literal translations for my study and preaching. Only on rare occasions do I use any of the new translations like the NIV or similar. When you compare the "changes," the agenda begins to become clear. Diminish the significance of the deity of Christ, and you are left with a watered down gospel and a weakened, distorted plan of salvation. Yes, I know that the KJV has problems as well ("I say unto you today . . ."), but I believe it is the purest form of scripture available, the least tainted with translation errors and omissions. And if you are studying with someone, it is the one that is most accepted. Not that that is the reason to use it, but most recognize it as the best translation. The others normally aren't offended when you use the KJV either. I wish more people would read and understand about these new translations/paraphrases. "Study to show thyself approved . . ."
LtV
Oh but it gets better...I had a fellow Adventist tell me that the "Septuagint" showed some of the same text and supported the new versions. So I went to look and what I found was amazing. The "Septuagint" was a complete lie, to get Christians to accept the corrupted Greek Translations of the Alexandrian Codices. Christians had seen the corruption that was being put into the manuscripts so were wary of anything from Alexandria and were able to figure them out. But the "Septuagint" was presented in a manner which hid its true writers and made it seem as if true Hebrews scholars did the translation and gave it status that it did not deserve, let me check my notes and see if I can post it.
-
I am still researching this issue, but let me give you what I came across so far on the "Septuagint":
What is the "Septuagint" origin, or the Alexandrian Codices?
The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitamcy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.
Here is a description given online:
"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."
But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.
Lets see what is verifiable:
Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.
Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.
So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitamacy. But why...
This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was refereing to.
So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his 'Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha': Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.
The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.
Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? I would venture to say no.
-
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.
I would add:
Exo. 20:10
KJV seventh day is the Sabbath
NIV seventh day is a Sabbath
Lev. 23:3
KJV seventh day is the Sabbath
NIV seventh day is a Sabbath
This is the same in nearly all new versions. Makes it possible to nail the Sabbath to the cross.
Rev. 13:18
KJV the number is the number of a man
Most new versions the number is the mark of the beast.
I have a feeling it will be very hard to convince someone the mark of the beast is Sunday sacredness when their Bible says the mark is a number. Specially since the same Bible teaches the Sabbath was nailed to the cross.
-
Well it caused terrible confusion and wrong doctrines to rise, it first led to Arianism which could not be refuted because of the corrupted Ghostic codices. Since the Septuagint was picked up by the Christians in Rome along with Alexandria and considered the text that Jesus used, the Arians won every argument at the councils and before the Emperors, so the bishop of Rome tried other means to gain the upper hand. Yet the deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines, and they didnt comprehend the corrupted text was the main cause.
Jerome was one of the first to notice the issues in the text, and began in 382 to do a translation correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament which was used in Rome, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to the Hebrew Bible, but he had previously translated portions from the Septuagint, so there was still some corrupted text translated into the Vulgate.
Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint. Jerome's decision to use a true Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians in Rome, who considered the Septuagint inspired.
Jerome produced a number of commentaries on Scripture, defending his translation choices, mostly the text which were not from the Septuagint. Unlike his contemporaries, he emphasizes the difference between the Apocrypha which he felt was not to be included and the Hebrew Canon. So he tried to put in the correct text and books but the leaders in Rome forced him to include the Apocrypha which he knew should not be included. So you can see what damage the Vulgate did including these books, and being still partly based on the Septuagint, but at least Jerome tried to do what was right in his translation.
-
Now as I read through the historical there are basically two stream of manuscripts, those afftect or using the Alexandrian Codices which diminish the diety of Christ and bring in a gnostic viewpoint into play, and the true text which the faithful believers guarded carefully and passed on. Now lets look on how it go to the Reformers and changed history...
There was a people which picked up the true text from the 2nd century and eventually came to be known as the Wadensees. The Waldensees had Bibles which came from the Majority Text line of manuscripts or Textus Receptus and Mrs. White says their Bibles were of the pure form.
The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the entire Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution. They declared the Church of Rome to be the apostate Babylon of the Apocalypse, and at the peril of their lives they stood up to resist her corruptions. While, under the pressure of long-continued persecution, some compromised their faith, little by little yielding its distinctive principles, others held fast the truth. Through ages of darkness and apostasy, there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath. Under the fiercest tempests of opposition they maintained their faith. Though gashed by the Savoyard spear, and scorched by the Romish fagot, they stood unflinchingly for God's word and his honor. They would not yield one iota of the truth. {4SP 70.1}
The Lord has pronounced a curse upon those who take from or add to the Scriptures. The great I AM has decided what shall constitute the rule of faith and doctrine, and he has designed that the Bible shall be a household book. The church that holds to the word of God is irreconcilably separated from Rome. Protestants were once thus apart from this great church of apostasy, but they have approached more nearly to her, and are still in the path of reconciliation to the Church of Rome. Rome never changes. Her principles have not altered in the least. She has not lessened the breach between herself and Protestants; they have done all the advancing. But what does this argue for the Protestantism of this day? It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
So, the Bibles which have been influenced by the corrupted Alexandrian codices should be struck from our list as unreliable and unsafe. Conversely, the Bible of the Waldensians is commended by Mrs. White. Their Bible was of the Majority Text. So is the King James Version.
The NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, RV, NRSV, etc. were translated, not from the Majority Text, but from the Alexandrian Text, i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and we need to be aware of the danger they hold.
-
Here are a few things I came across on the Waldensians....
John Wesley has this to say about the Vaudois or Waldenses: "It is a vulgar mistake, that the Waldenses were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons. They were much more ancient than him; and their true name was Vallenses or Vaudois from their inhabiting the valleys of Lucerne and Agrogne. This name, Vallenses, after Waldo appeared about the year 1160, was changed by the Papists into Waldenses, on purpose to represent them as of modern original." (Notes on the Revelation of John, Revelation, Chapter 13, Verse 6, p. 936.)
Here is an important fact cited by Jonathan Edwards: "Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed that they first betook themselves to this place among the mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great [272-337 AD]. And thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 4, Work of Redemption., Period 3 - From Christ's Resurrection to the End Of the World, Part 4, p. 229.)
Here is some history..."There is abundant evidence that the history of the Waldenses dates back to the time of the apostles. It is their claim that their religion passed to them from the apostles and in fact even the writings of their enemies give credence to this. (Note that the Waldenses were called by several different names: Leonists, Vallenses, Valsenses, Vaudois and others.)
Reinerius Sasso was a well informed Inquisitor of the thirteenth century. He had once been a pastor among the Waldenses but had apostatized and become their persecutor. The book The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses by George Faber gives a translation of this testimony on page 272. His testimony described the Leonists (Waldenses) as being the most ‘pernicious’ of the sects of heretics for three reasons. The first reason was because of their longer continuance, for they had lasted from the time of Pope Sylvester or even from the Apostles. Secondly, because there was scarcely a land where they did not exist. And the third reason being because they lived justly before all men and blasphemed only against the Roman church and clergy while maintaining every point concerning the Deity and the articles of faith which made their doctrine appeal to the populous. He also writes that they were simple, modest people who instructed their children first in the Decalogue of the law, the Ten Commandments. (See Truth Triumphant, 254.)
Faber also shares the testimony of Pilichdorf, also of the thirteenth century, who writes that the Valdenses claimed to have existed from the time of Pope Sylvester. Claude Scyssel, the Archbishop of Turin, who lived in the neighborhood of the Waldenses in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries tells us that the Valdenses of Piedmont were followers of a person named Leo. In the time of Emperor Constantine, Leo, on account of the avarice of Pope Sylvester and the excesses of the Roman Church, seceded from that communion, and drew after him all those who entertained right sentiments concerning the Christian Religion. (See The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 276.).."
James A. Wylie (1808-1890) describes the "apostolicity of the Churches of the Waldensian valleys" with the observation that "Rome manifestly was the schismatic," while the Vaudois or Waldenses deserved the "valid title of the True Church," and even the Waldenses' "greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatized them as 'the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient'" (excerpted from "The History of Protestantism" Volume 1, Book 1, Chapter 6 "The Waldenses - Their Valleys" ---New Window [1878] by James A. Wylie). Since the Byzantine Manuscripts commonly accessible to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) were used in his production of the Greek New Testament, which formed the Textus Receptus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), their use demonstrated a continuity with the Vaudois. The Vaudois Christians had likewise used and preserved the ancient Byzantine manuscripts of Antioch in the form of Latin Scripture; and, their survival.. from the time of the Early Church until the sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") of the Protestant Reformation (1521) is testament that the True Church and the True Word of God did continuously testify against the False Church and False Scriptures of the Whore of Rome-- and triumphed! "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our Faith" (1John 5:4). The Vaudois rendezvous with the Protestant Reformation represents a Divine Approval of the Reformation, in that the Ancient Christian Church of the Vaudois attested to the Truth of the Reformers, and specifically to the validity of the Scriptures of the Reformers, which were used to translate the Textus Receptus Bibles of the Reformation, i.e., the Spanish Reina-Valera (1569), the Italian Diodati (1603), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Tyndale New Testament (1536), the Great Bible (1539), the Bishops Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1560-1599), and, of course, the King James Bible (1611). "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6). Significantly, men of God, such as John Wesley (1703-1791) and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), have attested to the accuracy of understanding that the Vaudois Christians were not merely a more recent vintage of Protestant reaction to the Church of Rome, coming upon the scene through Peter Waldo in twelfth century France (1171 AD), but that the Vaudois were ancient Christians, who preserved their Christianity along with the Scriptures-- separate from the Church of Rome-- as far back as the early second century AD.
-
Now Ellen White said that the Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures, so how did that happen. Well lets follow the manuscripts of the various versions that followed the Textus Receptus in a timeline so we can see how it was preserved till the Reformers came across it and the KJV came into widespread use.
These versions include:
The Vaudois/Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards),
The Peshitta Version (AD 150),
The Italic Bible (AD 157),
The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177),
The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350),
The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400),
The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450),
The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535),
The Czech Bible (AD 1602),
The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606),
The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church).
[Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran] http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm
Or looking at it from the origins or where it comes from:
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The ancient Masoretic Text
1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
THE NEW TESTAMENT
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
30-95------------Original Autographs or original documents
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Vaudois/Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)
These early Greek text that followed the Textus Receptus or Received Text as it was later called, was soon translated into old Latin before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible. There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that had the ancient manunscripts pf the Scriptures. Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV. The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, and more importantly the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text or the Textus Receptus .
Now from "OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED" by
Benjamin Wilkinson, PhD. had the following on the connection to Calvin...
"FOUR Bibles produced under Waldensian influence touched the
history of CALVIN: namely, a GREEK, a WALDENSIAN vernacular, a
FRENCH, and an ITALIAN. Calvin himself was led to his great work by OLIVETAN, a Waldensian. Thus was the Reformation brought to Calvin.......FAREL, also a Waldensian, besought him to come to Geneva and open up a work there. Calvin felt that he should labor in Paris. According to LEGER, Calvin recognized a relationship to the Calvins of the valley of St. Martin, one of the Waldensian Valley(Allix, Churches of Piedmont, pp. 288, 11).
Finally, PERSECUTION in Paris and the solicitation of Farel
caused Calvin to settle at GENEVA, where, with, BEZA, he brought out an edition of the Textus Receptus......Of BEZA, Dr. Edgar says that he "astonished and confounded the world" with the Greek MSS he unearthed. This later edition of the Received Text is in reality a Greek NT brought out under
Waldensian influnce. Unquestianbly, the LEADERS of the Reformation, GERMAN,FRENCH, and ENGLISH, were CONVINCED that the Received Text was the GENUINE NT, not ONLY by its OWN irresistible history and INTERNAL evidence, but ALSO because it MATCHED with the Received text which the Waldensian form came down from in the days of the apostles."
This one connects the Waldensian bibles with another Reformer, Martin Luther....
The Waldensian Church. It is not certain how far back this church can be dated, but they were using a Bible that corresponds to the Traditional Text long before the Reformation. They lived in the valleys of Northern Italy and Southern France, in the regions of Turin, Milan and Lyons. There is a popular belief that the Waldensians were founded by Peter Waldo in 1174. However, they are mentioned by name in a document called the Noble Lesson, written about 1100, so Peter Waldo could only have consolidated and strengthened a movement that already existed. There are reasons to believe that the Waldensians have a very early history which has become obscured because many documents were destroyed during persecutions by the Roman Catholic Church. The Waldensians have beliefs and practices that are similar to the Protestant Churches of today, and can be regarded as the predecessors of the Protestant Reformation. The Waldensian Bible is believed to be the source text for the German Tepl Bible, which was in turn used by Martin Luther when he produced his own Lutheran New Testament.
and here is some more background....
"The precise origin of the mediaeval German Bible is still unknown. Dr. Ludwig Keller of Münster first suggested in his Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien, Leipzig, 1885, pp. 257-260, the hypothesis that it was made by Waldenses (who had also a Romanic version); and he tried to prove it in his Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, Leipzig, 1886 (189 pages). Dr. Hermann Haupt, of Würzburg, took the same ground in his Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen Waldenser in dem Codex Teplensis und der ersten gedruckten Bibel nachgewiesen, Würzburg, 1885 (64 pages); and again, in self-defense against Jostes, in Der waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis und der vor-lutherischen deutschen Bibeldrucke, Würzburg, 1886."
and finally some more of what Ellen White says on this:
Behind the lofty bulwarks of the mountains,--in all ages the refuge of the persecuted and oppressed,--the Waldenses found a hiding-place. Here the light of truth was kept burning amid the darkness of the Middle Ages. Here, for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith. {GC88 65.2}
and note in a later passage what she says on how the true faith was preserved:
The gospel had been planted in Bohemia as early as the ninth century. The Bible was translated, and public worship was conducted in the language of the people. But as the power of the pope increased, so the Word of God was obscured. Gregory VII., who had taken it upon him "to pull down the pride of kings," was no less intent upon enslaving the people, and accordingly a bull was issued forbidding public worship to be conducted in the Bohemian tongue. The pope declared that "God was pleased that his worship should be celebrated in an unknown tongue, and that a neglect of this rule had given rise to many evils and heresies." Thus Rome decreed that the light of God's Word should be extinguished, and the people should be shut up in darkness. But Heaven had provided other agencies for the preservation of the church. Many of the Waldenses and Albigenses, driven by persecution from their homes in France and Italy, came to Bohemia. Though they dared not teach openly, they labored zealously in secret. Thus the true faith was preserved from century to century. {GC88 97.1}
So the Bible at the heart of the Reformation seems to date back to that which the Waldenses and others had as the Received Text or Textus Receptus and what Ellen White what shown is confirmed by history.
-
This is a lot of information to take in. If it is accurate, it will help those who have not come to a knowledge of the problem with many of the new translations. My understanding came from seeing the error in the new bibles and the consistency in the KJV. I have never studied the history of the translations. Thanks for doing the research and sharing, Rick.
-
This is a lot of information to take in. If it is accurate, it will help those who have not come to a knowledge of the problem with many of the new translations. My understanding came from seeing the error in the new bibles and the consistency in the KJV. I have never studied the history of the translations. Thanks for doing the research and sharing, Rick.
I was was very surprised to see history confirm what SOP tells us. I know I shouldnt be, but I always am nevertheless, and next weeks lesson is on 'The Bible and History', so I will prepare a history for everyone to read. It will be interesting to say the least...
God Bless Richard and Happy Sabbath..
-
Hi Rick. Thank you for sharing this information. There is a lot and I will sit down and read it closely as soon as time permits.
-
I'm too lazy to read through all the poats and do not know if it has been mention here before. Has anyone heard of the Serenity Bible? I just read in the Southwest Union Record of a SDA church using this Bible. What is it?
-
There is great concern with the increasing use within churches today of the modern "bible" translations, especially the NIV. For many years I have encouraged all that I can to use the King James version of the Bible. Let us discuss the situation and learn why the concern.<P>In His love and grace, Richard<p>[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 07-04-2001).]
I agree about the KJV and I always use the KJV because others contain errors and are translated from corrupt sources. The KJV is translated from different sources to modern versions.
-
"Others arose from century to century to echo this protest. And those early teachers, who, traversing different lands, and known by various names, bore the character of the Vaudois missionaries, and spread everywhere the knowledge of the gospel, penetrated to the Netherlands. Their doctrines spread rapidly. The Waldensian Bible they translated in verse into the Dutch language. “There is,” they said, “great advantage in it; no jests, no fables, no trifles, no deceits, naught but words of truth. There is, indeed, here and there a hard crust, but even in this the marrow and sweetness of what is good and holy may easily be discovered.” Thus wrote the friends of the ancient faith, in the twelfth century." {GC88 237.2}
Chapter XIV - Later English Reformers
" While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it, and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen." {GC88 245.1}
-
I searched this thread and couldn't find any information on Constantine Simonides. He lived during the time of Tischendorf who discovered and obtained the Sinaiticus manuscripts, on which Westcott and Hort partially based their translation of the Bible. Simonides was a well known palaeographer, forger, and dealer in ancient writings and books. Some time after Tischendorf "discovered" the manuscripts, Simonides claimed that they were forged, and he should know because he claimed to have forged them. There was evidence that this is plausible and even likely. The Sinaiticus contained hieroglyphs with which Simonides was very familiar. Simonides had also been to the monestary where Tischendorf found the manuscripts.
Do the research and you'll find this story is plausible. Here's a link with a little more information:
http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-truth-about-constantine-simonides.html
I heard a retired teacher, David Allen, who goes around promoting different translations and versions of the Bible. He defends Westcott and Hort, attacks Walter Veith, and loves the NIV and believes in the manuscripts it is based upon. He styles himself as a somewhat of an expert and has a website called www.delightinhisword.com. I asked him if he had ever heard of Constantine Simonides and he stated that he had not. He was invited to speak at our camp meeting last year and also to our elders'/deacons' and pastors' meetings. He has some good thoughts but I believe that some of his research is incomplete, which would probably change his point of view if he were open minded enough.
-
If you can line these up and see which verses have been totally omitted from the new testament of the updated versions of the "modern" translations.
Verses "Taken Away" in the New Testament
T = Taken Away F = Taken Away in Footnote
VERSE NIV NASV NKJV RSV NRSV NCV LIV
Matt 12:47 F T F
Matt 17:21 T T F T T T F
Matt 18:11 T T F T T T F
Matt 21:44 F T F F
Matt 23:14 T T F T T T
Mark 7:16 T T F T T T T
Mark 9:44 T T F T T T T
Mark 9:46 T T F T T T T
Mark 11:26 T T F T T T T
Mark 15:28 T T F T T T F
Mark 16:9-20 F F F T F F F
Luke 17:36 T T F T T T
Luke 22:43 F F F T F
Luke 22:44 F F F T F
Luke 23:17 T T F T T T T
Luke 24:12 F T F
Luke 24:40 T T F
John 5:4 T T F T T T F
John 7:53 - 8:11 F F T F F F
Acts 8:37 T T F T T T F
Acts 15:34 T T F T T T T
Acts 24:7 T T T T T
Acts 28:29 T T F T T T T
Rom. 16:24 T T F T T T
2 Cor. 13:14 T
James 1:8 T T
-
Many of the new Translations have Jesus sinning by implication.
" But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother, WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment.... " KJV. Matt. 5:22
Many of the new translations leave out " without a cause." For instance NASB " But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court,..."
Now couple this verse with Mark 3:5 " And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the harness of their hearts,.... " KJV
-
Yes, cp, many new translations lead away from truth. I have not studied them all, but we ought to know that the common new translations are here to mislead. Our understanding is not based on what man says, but upon the Written Word. If it is wrong, then we are in danger. The KJV is not perfect, but it is very good. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. My understanding is not from reading what others have said of it or the new translations, but from my experience of beginning with the NIV and then for the last 30 years studying from the KJV. I can only speak of one error in translation in it. There may be more, but I have not seen them.
There are many faulty translations in the new translations I have looked at. The one that I see is most dangerous and quoted to mislead is Romans 8:1. We heave it quoted all the time. "There is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus." Therefor, all are saved as long as they are in Christ. This is true, but "in Christ" even in God's church has been mistaught by false teachers. The KJV tells who it is that is in Christ. Those who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The NIV just removed this. It is not by accident that this has been removed. Those who listen to others and do not study for themselves have taken captive and unless they begin to study for themselves will be eternally lost.
-
I'm curious about something. In Ministry of Healing under the chapter heading " The Builders of the Home" on the first page Canticles 4:7 is quoted. This is from the Vulgate. In other copies Song of Solomon 4:7 is quoted. It does not seem likely to me that Mrs. White quoted out of the Latin Vulgate / Catholic Bible. Does anyone know the history on this ?
-
I'm curious about something. In Ministry of Healing under the chapter heading " The Builders of the Home" on the first page Canticles 4:7 is quoted. This is from the Vulgate. In other copies Song of Solomon 4:7 is quoted. It does not seem likely to me that Mrs. White quoted out of the Latin Vulgate / Catholic Bible. Does anyone know the history on this ?
"Canticles" is another name for "Song of Solomon".
My version of the Bible Commentary says the following.
The Song of SOLOMON
INTRODUCTION
1. Title. The book is commonly known as the Song of Solomon. Its Latin name is Canticum Canticorum, from which is derived the title "Canticles," abbreviated below as Cant. In the Hebrew it is called Shir Hashshirim, "the song of songs," perhaps idiomatic for "the best of Solomon's many songs," in the same sense that "the King of kings" means, "the supreme King."
-
Thanks for the information, Glen. It is a blessing to have the minds of a multitude of counselors who love Jesus supremely.
-
I'm curious about something. In Ministry of Healing under the chapter heading " The Builders of the Home" on the first page Canticles 4:7 is quoted. This is from the Vulgate. In other copies Song of Solomon 4:7 is quoted. It does not seem likely to me that Mrs. White quoted out of the Latin Vulgate / Catholic Bible. Does anyone know the history on this ?
Why not? Not everything in the Vulgate is erroneous. I doubt that the White Estate tampered with the actual text of the book. My copy was copyrighted in 1942, long before attempts were being made to "modernize" her writings by putting them in contemporary English. She sometimes quoted from the RV, which reads a lot like the Douay version. The NT authors often quoted from the LXX, which often varies from the Masoretic text.
I wouldn't lose sleep over this.
-
Well, not everything in the Douay Bible is wrong either but I notice that she did not ever quote it.