Which translation is correct?

[rejoice44]

Norman,

I really think your position backs you into a corner. You have a view that is not true. There is one perfect Bible --- the autographs. Everything after that is not perfect. Now simply because each copy or translation has errors doesn't mean we cannot trust anything and/or everything. That's what the field of textual criticism is for. You trust the KJV, yet the KJV was produced through textual criticism also. So it seems you either need to do one of two things:

1. apply all your criticisms of new versions to the KJV and not trust anything
2. give the new versions more of a benefit of the doubt since they came through the same process

This is old ground you and I have been over and over and over. But now you have a new crop of verses. So let's talk about them.

You have it wrong Joe, I would have been happy with the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva Bible for the differences are so minor.

It is not about the King James Bible, it is about changing the Word of God on almost a daily basis.

Ezekiel 42:16

First let me point out that the NIV isn't the first version to use cubits. So they didn't get any new copyright out of that. The RSV and NAB have cubits and they pre-date the NIV.

RSV 1952 The National Council of Churches Bible, heavy Catholic influence and the NAB, a Catholic Bible. You are right I didn't look these two up. Note that the NASB which got permission from the NCC to revise the NAB did not use cubits.

That being said, the Septuagint has cubits. So you ask on what basis was the change made? The Septuagint. Now you have rightly pointed out that cubits isn't used in 42:16. No measurement standard is in verse 16. It just states that the measurement was 500. However, the Septuagint has cubits in verses 17 and 20.

If the word cubit is not in any Greek manuscript in verse 42:16, what right do translators have to add it?

The Septuagint is accepted by the New Testament authors. They quote it more often than the Hebrew. Interestingly, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes the Septuagint almost exclusively. Why would the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quote the Septuagint so much? For purposes of this discussion, the reason doesn't really matter, just the fact does.

So when New Testament authors quote the Septuagint, then God has made the Septuagint the Word of God at that point.

This is a premise on your part. There is one Septuagint that the greatest forger of the Nineteenth Century claimed to write. If you are manufacturing a manuscript you merely quote word from word.

You can't take this issue up with me, or the NIV Committee on Bible Translation or Westcott or Hort. If you have issues with the Septuagint as a source, such as the timing of the death of Methusaleh and the flood, you must take this up with God since he made parts of the Septuagint part of the New Testament. By the way, I'm curious how you deduced the Methusaleh dating issue. It won't bother me since I don't expect the Septuagint to be perfect and a sound Biblical theology doesn't require the Septuagint to be perfect, but I am curious how you came to that conclusion.

It is a fact that no bible translation takes the Septuagint as their main source for the Old Testament, and the reason is it would not sell, for no one would accept it.

Tell me something Joe, just how many old Manuscripts have the Septuagint in them that we can today observe?

You ask how I came to the conclusion that Methuselah went swimming in the flood. When I started reading the Septuagint as found in the Vaticanus 1209 I observed in chapter five that they changed the age of Adam by a hundred years when he begat Seth. From there I check further on the ages in the genealogy that was found in chapter five, and if you run the numbers, Methuselah, instead of dying the year of the flood dies fourteen years later, just do the math.

Another factor is that if you add up the dimensions of the temple, 500 cubits fits nicely compared to 500 reeds. It seems to me that sometime between the writing of Ezekiel and the Hebrew manuscripts that are known today, a copyist error was made and that the Septuagint preserved what Ezekiel actually wrote.

The first question is, do we just arbitrarily change something in the Bible because in our mind it doesn't add up? The second point is that those dimensions as found in Ezekiel 42:16-20 are not the Temple proper, but rather a line drawn around Jerusalem. As I have suggested to Fenris that perhaps that line is the same line as found in Zechariah 1:16 Therefore thus saith the LORD, I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.

And then we have Zechariah 2:5 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her. In Ezekiel 42:16-20 we see a line stretched with neither height or breadth, and a wall upon that line. I would suggest that the wall is the wall of fire that the Lord is, as found in Zechariah 2:5. If this is true than putting cubits in place of reeds is surely altering the Word of God.

So that's the authority. What was the purpose? To make newer translations more accurate at this point of detail where older translations were mistaken. But since the Bible never promised inerrant translations, there is no problem. No Bible ever promised inerrant translations.

I have faith that God is able to protect his Word even though Satan would love nothing better than to destroy it.

Matthew 1:19

First you talk about whether Joseph was a just, righteous or good man in newer versions. The KJV itself translates this word as just or righteous at various points. And as for good, I have no need to defend every choice made by modern translations because I don't hold an infallibility view of English versions.

It is about changing the Word. They did not change the Word for the sake of change, but truly tried to be faithful to the Word of God, and that is no longer the case.

As for whether the newer versions claim Joseph and Mary were married, none of them do. Just keep reading further into Matthew 1:20-25 where in all versions it's clear that Joseph had not married Mary.

If you read the Old Testament you will find that once betrothed the law applies as if one is married, because a betrothed wife, caught in adultry, is treated the same as a married woman, she is to be stoned to death. What happens when you start changing words in the bible you lose the connection between the various books.

Now you may counter about the word "divorce." The KJV has "put away". But the KJV uses this same language for divorce. See Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9 for some examples of where a husband may "put away" his wife. So, again, be consistent and make the same charge against the KJV or be more kind and gracious with new versions and give some benefit of the doubt.

Your third example of trying to make a distinction between public example versus shaming or disgracing seems like a stretch to make your point. Especially since the KJV translates the same Greek as "open shame" in Hebrews 6:6.

When you take away public example in this context you take away the idea that Mary was in danger of being stoned to death, and also lose the connection to the law. Where certain words have one meaning in one context they may have a slighter different meaning in another context.

It is all about changing the words, and therefore changing the meaning.

Now you wrote to me . . .

You have not mentioned the KJV.

However you say the NIV changed the Bible. So what Bible are you comparing the NIV to? It's not the originals since you agree they don't exist. What's the Bible which the NIV is changing and how have you established, since said Bible isn't the original, that said Bible is correct and the NIV is wrong?

Compare the NIV with the Geneva Bible, the KJV bible, and ASV bible in Matthew 1:19 and then say there hasn't been a drastic change.

The Geneva Bible. Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

The KJV.---------- Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

The ASV-----------Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

The NIV.---------- Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Can you see the respect that the KJV and the ASV had for not entirely reconstructing the whole verse. We no longer have that respect and in so doing change connections with the Old Testament as well as meanings.

[rejoice44]

[COLOR="#000080"] Your post is inaccurate. The first major translation of the Bible to translate “cubits” from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament rather than “reeds” from the Masoretic text was the first edition of the RSV in 1952. This practice was also followed by the translators of the Jerusalem Bible in 1966, the New English Bible in 1970, the New American Bible also in 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible in 1985, the Revised English Bible in 1989, and the English Standard Version in 2001. Moreover, the first edition of the NIV was not published in 1984; it was published in 1978!

Yes my post is inaccurate, the NIV was not first published in 1984. The National Council of Churches, though they had a different name then, were the first to corrupt the Scripture as found in Ezekiel 42:16-20, and from there it went on and on.

If the Masoretic text has the correct reading of Ezekiel 42:16, the temple would have been larger than the city of Jerusalem! Please see the very detailed commentary on the Hebrew text of Ezekiel by G. A. Cooke, Late Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, pp. 445-462. Additionally, please see the very detailed commentary on the Hebrew text of Ezekiel by Walter Eichrodt, Professor of Old Testament and History of Religion at the University of Basel from 1922 to 1960, pp. 531-551.

You are incorrect, there is no manuscript that has cubits in Ezekiel 42:16.

Show me from the Bible where the 500 reed dimension is the Temple proper. The dimensions of the Temple proper have length, breadth, and height. The 500 hundred reed measurement is a line only, with a wall on that line that has no breadth, or height, and if it is as I suspect, the same line as found in Zechariah 1:16, and the same wall as found in Zechariah 2:5, then it would not have a breadth, or a height. It would be the demarcation between the profane and the Holy.

Most unfortunately, even many adults have poor reading skills and are not familiar with the length of either a reed or a cubit. Therefore, translations that were prepared for these adults use units of measure that they understand rather than units of measure that they do not understand. Moreover, the English language is an exceptionally dynamic language that is changing so rapidly that all translations of the Bible become significantly inaccurate and obsolete in 25 to 30 years after their initial publication. This fact is shown by the following examples:

Jerusalem Bible, 1966
New Jerusalem Bible, 1985

New American Bible, 1970
New American Bible, with the Revised New Testament, 1986
New American Bible, revised edition, 2010

Revised Standard Version, 1946, 1952, 1971
New Revised Standard Version, 1989

New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995
New American Standard Bible, Updated Version, 1995

New English Bible, 1961, 1970
Revised English Bible, 1989

New International Version, 1978, 1984, 2011

What is observed by the Bible poll is that more people are using the KJV than any other version, and it has not been altered decade after decade. The 1611 copy differs little from the copy of today.

As for the textual basis of the Old Testament in the King James Version, the Old Testament texts primarily used by the translators of the King James Version were the Complutensian Polyglot (1517) and the Antwerp Polyglot (1572). Today we have Masoretic manuscripts dating from the 10th century. For portions of the Old Testament, we now have manuscripts from the second century B.C. Approximately 800 Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament have now been studied. The King James Translators had only one text for the Septuagint, we now have many. They had only a corrupted text of the Latin, we now have Codex Amiatinus (A.D. 541) representing Jerome's final edition. Therefore, the textual basis of the Old Testament in the King James Version is very poor.

We don't know what the translators of 1611 had in their hands, but we do know that they were not to change the word from the received text, that was handed down from generation to generation, no more than was thought to be absolutely necessary.

There is a chain of evidence for the KJV and it is the church. The new material for which many bibles are translated have no chain of evidence, and in fact, the major one has an odor about it starting with a claim of forgery by the most noted forgery of the nineteenth century.

[Jemand]

You are incorrect, there is no manuscript that has cubits in Ezekiel 42:16.

No, I am NOT incorrect. I did not say that the Greek word πηχυαιος (cubit in English) is found in Ezekiel 42:16, I wrote,

“The first major translation of the Bible to translate “cubits” from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament rather than “reeds” from the Masoretic text was the first edition of the RSV in 1952.”

The Greek word πηχυαιος is not found in the Septuagint at Ezekiel 42:16, but it is understood from Ezekiel 42:17 where it is found. Therefore, in the commonly used 1851 English translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, we read,

Ezekiel 42:16 And he stood behind the gate looking eastward, and measured five hundred cubits with the measuring reed.

The word ‘cubits’ in this verse is a supplied word not found in the Greek text, and is therefore printed in italic type, as is also the practice of the printers of the KJV when words are supplied to make the English more understandable.

We don't know what the translators of 1611 had in their hands, but we do know that they were not to change the word from the received text, that was handed down from generation to generation, no more than was thought to be absolutely necessary.

The only text of the Bible that can accurately be said to have been handed down from generation to generation is the Latin Vulgate. The translators of the KJV largely ignored this standard of the Church and translated both the Old and the New Testament from corrupted medieval Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

There is a chain of evidence for the KJV and it is the church. The new material for which many bibles are translated have no chain of evidence, and in fact, the major one has an odor about it starting with a claim of forgery by the most noted forgery of the nineteenth century.

This paragraph has no basis of fact. The Bible of the Church, for more than 1,000 years, was the Latin Vulgate. It remained the standard for Roman Catholics until the publication of the Douay/Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate in 1609. The English-speaking Protestants had several English translations to choose from by this time, and in 1611, they were given yet another choice, the Authorized King James Version. However, the Geneva Bible remained the favorite of English-speaking Protestants until about 1700 when the Authorized King James Version became the favorite.

Most unfortunately, however, much of the language in the Authorized King James Version was already seriously outdated when it was first published, and some of it was already archaic because many readers of the Bible are very reluctant to give up the language of the Bible used by their parents and grandparents.

[rejoice44]

No, I am NOT incorrect. I did not say that the Greek word πηχυαιος (cubit in English) is found in Ezekiel 42:16, I wrote,

What I was referring to when I said you were incorrect was your implication that the Masoretic text in Ezekiel 42:16 was somehow flawed. The truth is the Alexandrian text and the Masoretic text are the same in Ezekiel 42:16. Below is an excerpt from your statement.

"If the Masoretic text has the correct reading of Ezekiel 42:16, the temple would have been larger than the city of Jerusalem!"

The only text of the Bible that can accurately be said to have been handed down from generation to generation is the Latin Vulgate. The translators of the KJV largely ignored this standard of the Church and translated both the Old and the New Testament from corrupted medieval Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Could you produce a dozen errors as found in the KJV that come from medieval Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?

I have been comparing manuscripts and texts, and the only difference that I have found so far between the KJV and the Alexandrian text is miniscule, usually involving prepositions, or a word left out by the Alexandrian text. It is truly amazing how close they are. The difference between modern translations is far and above anything found between the KJV and the Alexandrian text. (These statements only apply to the New Testament)

The ASV followed almost every variation as found in the Alexandrian text. For the most part, the rest of the translations picked and chose whether they followed the KJV or the Alexandrian text. It seems that the latter translations have come back somewhat to the KJV in some aspects.

What is unique is that when the Deity of Christ was involved, all other translations followed the Alexandrian text. As an example when the Alexandrian text had God instead of Son in John 1:18, all the other translations omitted son and went with God.

In the same chapter you have in verse 26 the Greek word "de" for which the English translation is "but", and the ASV followed the Alexandrian text and omitted "but", yet the following translations have "but" in their text in that verse.

And then you have in the Alexandrian text in verse 29 the name of John is replaced with the pronoun "he". The ASV and the NASB went with the Alexandrian text and yet the other translations went with the KJV rendering. It seems like all the other translations stick together with the Alexandrian text if it is about the Deity of Christ, otherwise they are split.

Consider the following related to John 1:18, first will be the Greek text as found in the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian text. Note how similar the two Greek texts are, with only a "the"(0) missing from the Alexandrian text as well as the word "God" replacing the word "Son". Then compare the variation from the KJV and the ASV English texts. And then compare with them some more modern translations. You will see a progression of confusion with the new translations.


Alexandrian text---Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν είς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Textus Receptus---θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο



KJV-------------------------No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


ASV------------------------ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .



NIV 1984-------------------- No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NLT 2007--------------------No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.

ESV 2001-------------------- No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

When you replace God with Son the verse no longer makes sense. You now have the one and only God standing alongside of another God who is his Father. They removed the Son from in the Bosom, to have the Son standing alongside his Father. The Father is omni present, therefore you could not stand alongside of God the Father. God is not the author of confusion.

This paragraph has no basis of fact. The Bible of the Church, for more than 1,000 years, was the Latin Vulgate. It remained the standard for Roman Catholics until the publication of the Douay/Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate in 1609. The English-speaking Protestants had several English translations to choose from by this time, and in 1611, they were given yet another choice, the Authorized King James Version. However, the Geneva Bible remained the favorite of English-speaking Protestants until about 1700 when the Authorized King James Version became the favorite.

God's church was not a group of pius self proclaimed priests sitting on the seven hills, but rather was spread through out the world. There was the Latin of the Vatican and the Old Latin of which neither one of us are probably qualified to debate. The fact is it was called majority text as well as the received text.

Most unfortunately, however, much of the language in the Authorized King James Version was already seriously outdated when it was first published, and some of it was already archaic because many readers of the Bible are very reluctant to give up the language of the Bible used by their parents and grandparents.

Please present all the words that you cannot understand.

[TrustGzus]

You have it wrong Joe, I would have been happy with the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva Bible for the differences are so minor.

It is not about the King James Bible, it is about changing the Word of God on almost a daily basis.

Still . . . in order to say one is changing the Word of God, one must have a standard "word of God" to compare to in order to say one is changing it. That standard is the autographs. Now I assume you must agree that a change from the autograph is a change in the Word of God. Any variation from an autograph is changing the Word of God in the truest sense. Your ideas of changes, as far as I can see it, are largely arbitrary and your opinion.

Can we say that there are changes to the Word of God in English? I think so, but not the way you think so. The New World Translation truly makes changes to the Word of God in English. They blatantly insert and delete words to support their doctrines. Modern translations don't do this even if you post 1000 times in Bibleforums.org that they do. They simply don't.

RSV 1952 The National Council of Churches Bible, heavy Catholic influence and the NAB, a Catholic Bible. You are right I didn't look these two up. Note that the NASB which got permission from the NCC to revise the NAB did not use cubits.

Yes, the NASB uses reeds. So the translators stuck to the Hebrew. Doesn't make it correct. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I think cubits is more likely. However, No translator is being flippant in the choice. They are making choices based on reasoning. They are all making choices based on texts that have been discovered. They are not arbitrarily and willy-nilly changing things. Why in the world does cubits v. reeds bother you? This kind of change is nothing like the kind of blatant abuses the Jehovah's Witnesses do. What they do is something to be disturbed about.

If the word cubit is not in any Greek manuscript in verse 42:16, what right do translators have to add it?

The same reason KJV translators added words . . . clarity. By the way, my English translation of the Septuagint has cubits in italics in verse 16 . . . just like the KJV translators did with many words. Why can KJV translators add words and others cannot?

This is a premise on your part. There is one Septuagint that the greatest forger of the Nineteenth Century claimed to write. If you are manufacturing a manuscript you merely quote word from word.

Forgers are liars and you believe the liar. You know that I think this claim hasn't been proven anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt. And since there isn't only one copy of the Septuagint, even if it were true, it doesn't put an end to the issue. The New Testament quotes it often and so do the church fathers. I simply don't see why you think Septuagint readings that are hundreds of years older than Hebrew copies shouldn't at least be considered and weighed in the process.

It is a fact that no bible translation takes the Septuagint as their main source for the Old Testament, and the reason is it would not sell, for no one would accept it.

Yet the Apostles appeared to use the Septuagint as their main source when writing the NT. Does this mean you know better than the Apostles?

Tell me something Joe, just how many old Manuscripts have the Septuagint in them that we can today observe?

More than we have of Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, or Pliny Secundus. More manuscripts of the Septuagint than Greek manuscripts of the NT that were involved in translating the KJV.

You ask how I came to the conclusion that Methuselah went swimming in the flood. When I started reading the Septuagint as found in the Vaticanus 1209 I observed in chapter five that they changed the age of Adam by a hundred years when he begat Seth. From there I check further on the ages in the genealogy that was found in chapter five, and if you run the numbers, Methuselah, instead of dying the year of the flood dies fourteen years later, just do the math.

Thanks. Interesting about Adam's age when Seth was born. But again, I have no problem with having manuscript errors and not rejecting something entirely because of mistakes. You don't either or you'd have to reject the KJV because they didn't just pick a single Greek manuscript or Greek text and stick with only one. They made choices between them and rejected some. And not all those differences were minor. In fact, just wait. I'm going to point out some errors in age in the KJV just like you pointed out in Genesis with Adam. Since you reject the Septuagint for this, get ready to reject the KJV . . . if you want to be consistent anyway.

The first question is, do we just arbitrarily change something in the Bible because in our mind it doesn't add up? The second point is that those dimensions as found in Ezekiel 42:16-20 are not the Temple proper, but rather a line drawn around Jerusalem. As I have suggested to Fenris that perhaps that line is the same line as found in Zechariah 1:16 Therefore thus saith the LORD, I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.

Not arbitrarily. Let me ask you something. The KJV says Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses in 1 Kings 4:26 and 4,000 in 2 Chronicles 9:25. Are both of these true? Seems the KJV has a mistake. Some Greek copies have 4,000 in 1 Kings. So which is correct - the Greek or the Hebrew? The Hebrew is obviously wrong in one passage or the other.

Was Ahaziah 22 when he became king (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 2:22 in the KJV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV)? Some copies of the Septuagint and the Syriac have 22 in 2 Chronicles. What's correct -- Hebrew or those copies of the Septuagint? The Hebrew makes Ahaziah older than his own father and the KJV follows right along with it. Is that the word of God --- that Ahaziah is older than his own father and 20 years older than himself in another book in the same Bible? So if you want to chuck the Septuagint in regard to Adam's age, how about you show a little consistency and chuck the Hebrew because of this blatant error. And don't forget to chuck the KJV for the same reasoning.

Hopefully, these kind of things make it clearer why I see only the autographs as inerrant. Because it's obvious right there that the KJV has two blatant errors. Yet many newer versions fix both of those. Who's right and who's wrong at those examples I gave? NIV or KJV?

So sometimes choosing a number isn't arbitrary. It's often based on good reason.

And then we have Zechariah 2:5 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her. In Ezekiel 42:16-20 we see a line stretched with neither height or breadth, and a wall upon that line. I would suggest that the wall is the wall of fire that the Lord is, as found in Zechariah 2:5. If this is true than putting cubits in place of reeds is surely altering the Word of God.

I don't see your interpretation as being sound. Ezekiel seems to speak of a literal wall. The wall of fire in Zechariah is God himself. Is God the wall in Ezekiel?

I have faith that God is able to protect his Word even though Satan would love nothing better than to destroy it.

We both agree that Satan would love to destroy God's word. I just gave two examples above where it's destroyed in the KJV. Are you ashamed that some new versions restored the God's Word in those two passages?

It is about changing the Word. They did not change the Word for the sake of change, but truly tried to be faithful to the Word of God, and that is no longer the case.

This is where you start to comment on Matthew 1:19. Let's look at it.

If you read the Old Testament you will find that once betrothed the law applies as if one is married, because a betrothed wife, caught in adultry, is treated the same as a married woman, she is to be stoned to death. What happens when you start changing words in the bible you lose the connection between the various books.

It's amazing. You claimed in post #7 that the NIV claims they were married. Then when I pointed out your error by the simple fact that you didn't read the rest of the chapter where the NIV makes it clear that they weren't married, you now bring up the well know understanding that betrothed people had laws apply to them as if they were married. Why didn't you do that from the beginning?

The KJV and the NIV don't tell us a different story. The KJV says betrothed. The NIV says pledged to be married. Both call Joseph her husband in verse 19. And you say differing words can cause loss of connection between books. In Deuteronomy, the NIV uses "pledged to be married" just like in Matthew.

Norman, give me a break.

When you take away public example in this context you take away the idea that Mary was in danger of being stoned to death, and also lose the connection to the law. Where certain words have one meaning in one context they may have a slighter different meaning in another context.

I see no such thing. The NIV states the same account as the KJV. The words are different. But hey, 400 years have passed. People don't use the word betrothed much these days. But the NIV uses "pledged to be married" to keep the "connection" with the OT. There's nothing wrong with what the NIV says. It doesn't change the account of the events.

It is all about changing the words, and therefore changing the meaning.

No. Sometimes words can change and meaning doesn't.

Compare the NIV with the Geneva Bible, the KJV bible, and ASV bible in Matthew 1:19 and then say there hasn't been a drastic change.

I don't see a "drastic" change. I see a desperate attempt to make your point.

Can you see the respect that the KJV and the ASV had for not entirely reconstructing the whole verse. We no longer have that respect and in so doing change connections with the Old Testament as well as meanings.

Categorically false.

[rejoice44]

Thanks. Interesting about Adam's age when Seth was born. But again, I have no problem with having manuscript errors and not rejecting something entirely because of mistakes. You don't either or you'd have to reject the KJV because they didn't just pick a single Greek manuscript or Greek text and stick with only one. They made choices between them and rejected some. And not all those differences were minor. In fact, just wait. I'm going to point out some errors in age in the KJV just like you pointed out in Genesis with Adam. Since you reject the Septuagint for this, get ready to reject the KJV . . . if you want to be consistent anyway.

---------------------------------------HEBREW BIBLE--------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------LIVED----------BEGAT---------LIVED ANOTHER------------------------AGE DIED-----------------

Adam------------130-----------Seth----------------------------800--------------------------930-----------------

Seth--------------105----------Enos----------------------------807--------------------------912-----------------

Enos---------------90----------Cainan--------------------------815--------------------------905-----------------

Cainan-------------70----------Mahalaeel----------------------840--------------------------910-----------------

Mahalaeel---------65----------Jared----------------------------830--------------------------895-----------------

Jared-------------162----------Enoch---------------------------800--------------------------962-----------------

Enoch-------------65-----------Methusaleh---------------------300--------------------------365-----------------

Methusaleh------187-----------Lamech-------------------------782--------------------------969-----------------

Lamech----------182-----------Noah----------------------------595--------------------------777----------------

Noah-------------500-----------Shem, Ham, & Japeth-----------450--------------------------950----------------

Flood------- plus 100----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of flood--1,656 from the day Adam was created.----------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------Codex Vaticanus 1209-------------------------------------------------------

Adam------------230------------Seth-----------------------------700-----------------------930------------------

Seth-------------205------------Enos-----------------------------707-----------------------912------------------

Enos-------------190------------Cainan---------------------------715-----------------------905------------------

Cainan-----------170------------Maleleel-------------------------740-----------------------910------------------

Maleleel-----------65------------Jared----------------------------730-----------------------895------------------

Jared------------162------------Enoch----------------------------800-----------------------962------------------

Enoch-----------165------------Mathusala------------------------200-----------------------365------------------

Mathusala-------167------------Lamech--------------------------802-----------------------969------------------

Lamech---------188-------------Noe------------------------------565-----------------------753------------------

Noe--------------500------------Shem, Cham, & Japheth---------450-----------------------950------------------

Flood-------plus 100-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of flood--2,142 from the day Adam was created.-----------------------------------------------------------------


Mathusala age at Lamech’s birth---------------167 years.----------------------------- Mathusala lived to be 969.

Add Lamech’s age at birth of Noe--------------188----------------------------------------------------------------

Add Noe’s age at birth of sons------------------500---------------------------------------------------------------

Add years from birth of Noe’s sons-------------100----------------------------------------------------------------

Years from Mathusala’s birth to flood.----------955 years. --------------------------------------------------------

The flood came 14, years before Mathusala’s death according to the Vaticanus.
According to the Hebrew Text Methusaleh died the year of the flood.

[TrustGzus]

I agree with your math. Now, as I said, to me, I'm not shaken by numerical errors in the Septuagint. I believe every manuscript and every translation has errors.

So, thanks for continuing to provide evidence for my view by demonstrating numerical problems in the Septuagint.

Now, what about the numerical problems in the KJV?

I see three options:

1. You can be consistent and toss the KJV just like you'd like to toss the Septuagint. But then you'd have to toss every manuscript and translation and be left with nothing if you were thoroughly consistent.
2. You can develop ideas on why the KJV is correct in the blatant numerical errors I pointed out. But this would demonstrate extreme bias and irrational, illogical and unreasonable thinking.
3. You can take up the view that says only the autographs were inerrant and every copy and translation has errors in it. Then when manuscript evidence arises that challenges a manuscript or translation, you don't have to sweat it and come up with rather unbelievable explanations to force the evidence to prop up a view that the evidence cannot support.

The third option has a real nice advantage . . . the Bible supports it. The Bible teaches the autographs were the Word of God. The Bible never teaches inerrant copies and translations. That's adding a doctrine the Bible doesn't teach. Leave that kind of activity to the cults.

[rejoice44]

I agree with your math. Now, as I said, to me, I'm not shaken by numerical errors in the Septuagint. I believe every manuscript and every translation has errors.

You talk of the Septuagint, but where are there copies in Greek? What manuscripts of the Septuagint are readily available to the public? Where can you buy one. The only copy of the Vaticanus 1209 that I have heard of for sale was in the thousands of dollars, so could you direct me to these copies?

[TrustGzus]

You can go online and buy the Septuagint in Greek at standard online bookstores. As for manuscripts, what manuscripts of almost anything are "readily" available to the public? Manuscripts aren't normally for sale.

Are you going to address the real points I'm making where I'm demonstrating errors in the KJV and how to incorporate that into our view?

Nothing you're saying about the Septuagint alters my view. It fits my view.

[rejoice44]

You can go online and buy the Septuagint in Greek at standard online bookstores. As for manuscripts, what manuscripts of almost anything are "readily" available to the public? Manuscripts aren't normally for sale.

Are you going to address the real points I'm making where I'm demonstrating errors in the KJV and how to incorporate that into our view?

Nothing you're saying about the Septuagint alters my view. It fits my view.

That is okay, I will address your questions. Please name the manuscripts that have copies in Greek that can be purchased. I ask this because the Septuagint has to come from a manuscript similar to the Vaticanus, or the Sinaiticus. Now I know that the Sinaiticus is online, but it only a partial copy.

[TrustGzus]

Norman, I'm not going down rabbit trails.

[percho]

By what authority does a translation change words with different meanings? We know that all new translations have to come up with different words to achieve a copyright, caring little that they are rewriting the bible.

In the process of studying Ezekiel's temple it came to my attention that the NIV changed "reed" to "cubit". They did it without any new information being revealed. The reed was approximately 11 feet and the cubit 1.5 feet.

Look how this instance opened up the opportunity for new translations to come up with different words.

The verse is Ezekiel 42:16.

The NIV translated reed to cubit in spite of the fact that every former translation reads "reeds".

God's Word Translation uses 875 feet.

The CEV uses 840 feet measuring stick.

The HCSB uses 875 feet by measuring rod.

New Century Version uses 875 feet by measuring stick.

New Life Version uses 500 sticks

Good New Translation uses 840 feet with measuring rod.

From the fifteen hundreds until 1984 every English translation had 500 reeds in Ezekiel 42:16. For those four hundred and eighty four years nothing new was revealed that would justify the change, yet it was changed by the translators of the NIV and many translators following.

What happened? Did Christian values change? Did their respect for the Word of God change? Why do we accept such changes?

What can I say. Sheep looking for a shepherd and finding a wolf.

[rejoice44]

Norman, I'm not going down rabbit trails.

I hardly think naming where your Septuagint came from is a rabbit trail. You are quoting the Septuagint but you will not name its source. I am beginning to think that there is a conspiracy to hide the Septuagint. While you can find the New Testament from the Alexandrian manuscripts online, where is the Greek Septuagint online from the Old Testament from these same manuscripts. I have tried in vain to find them. What is there to hide?

If you are going to bring the Septuagint into the conversation you need to quote a source. Evidently the English translations that are online came from the Vaticanus, but where are the other sources for the Septuagint? They need to be compared.

[TrustGzus]

I hardly think naming where your Septuagint came from is a rabbit trail. You are quoting the Septuagint but you will not name its source. I am beginning to think that there is a conspiracy to hide the Septuagint. While you can find the New Testament from the Alexandrian manuscripts online, where is the Greek Septuagint online from the Old Testament from these same manuscripts. I have tried in vain to find them. What is there to hide?

If you are going to bring the Septuagint into the conversation you need to quote a source. Evidently the English translations that are online came from the Vaticanus, but where are the other sources for the Septuagint? They need to be compared.

This is a big problem. Anything that doesn't line up with your view is a conspiracy or a forgery or a cover-up. To me that is so incredible.

I don't own any manuscripts of the Septuagint. I own multiple published copies. I own Lancelot Brenton's. I own Alfred Rahlfs'. I own Henry Barclay Swete's which is particular nice in that it lists all kinds of variations between the various copies of the Septuagint. So what I have is kind of like what the KJV translators had. They didn't have any manuscripts on hand. They had other people's works about the manuscripts and picked and chose between those.

And of course, there are the footnotes in all the modern translations that point out places where the Septuagint says "X" or "Y".

Are you going to tell me how all of these Septuagint texts I own are part of a conspiracy? Are you going to continue to still reject the Septuagint for numerical errors that are present in the Septuagint (but match the KJV in the Alexandrinus version of the Septuagint) and not address the blatant numerical errors I pointed out in the KJV?

This thread started out with you asking on what basis people change the word of God.

I ask a valid question . . . basically define "the word of God." We cannot say they are changing the word of God unless we first define what the word of God is that they are changing.

We both agree that the autographs are the word of God. Any change to the autographs is a change to the word of God.

We both agree that the autographs either don't exist or no one knows where they are.

So the question is when you, Norman, accuse people of changing the word of God, what is the standard . . . what is the measuring rod you are appealing to and calling the "word of God"?

Apparently, it's some sort of Bishops Bible / Geneva Bible / KJV version. Why? To me it appears to be tradition and believing fallacious arguments of the KJVO group. You don't trust the Septuagint in Ezekiel because of numbers in Genesis, yet when the KJV messes up numbers in Chronicles, you don't comment about it. Maybe since the KJV totally messes up Ahaziah's age in the historical books, then perhaps we shouldn't trust the KJV in Ezekiel. Now I don't think it's logical to conclude just because the KJV is messed up in Chronicles that we should conclude it's messed up in Ezekiel. However, when I say that about the KJV, then I handle the Septuagint in the same manner. Even if numbers are mixed up in Genesis in the Septuagint, that doesn't mean the Septuagint is wrong in Ezekiel. But apparently, you think differently. The standard the Septuagint is held is to not the same standard expected of the KJV. The KJV can be held to a much lower standard.

What am I supposed to do with this? Why should I find anything you're saying compelling when you seem to have one standard for what you don't agree with and won't address similar problems for the view you do hold to?

[rejoice44]

I don't own any manuscripts of the Septuagint. I own multiple published copies. I own Lancelot Brenton's. I own Alfred Rahlfs'. I own Henry Barclay Swete's which is particular nice in that it lists all kinds of variations between the various copies of the Septuagint. So what I have is kind of like what the KJV translators had. They didn't have any manuscripts on hand. They had other people's works about the manuscripts and picked and chose between those.

Lancelot Brenton's work is based on the Vaticanus (B). Henry Barclay Swete succeded Brooke Foss Westcott as regius professor at Cambridge and his work is based on the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Cottonianus, and the Codex Ambrosianus.

Where are the copies of these manuscripts that we can observe for our own eyes. They should be available. While the Sinaiticus is online, it is only a small portion of the Septuagint, and we have no other copy of the other Codex's to compare it with. Where is a copy of the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Cottonianus, and the Codex Ambrosianus, so we can compare them. It would seem that no one wants to reveal them. It is like they are saying, we will tell you what we want you to know, you don't need to see for yourself.

What don't they want us to see?

And of course, there are the footnotes in all the modern translations that point out places where the Septuagint says "X" or "Y".

Again, they will tell us what it says, but they won't let us see.

Are you going to tell me how all of these Septuagint texts I own are part of a conspiracy? Are you going to continue to still reject the Septuagint for numerical errors that are present in the Septuagint (but match the KJV in the Alexandrinus version of the Septuagint) and not address the blatant numerical errors I pointed out in the KJV?

Unless you own one of the copies of one of the manuscripts, you don't own a copy of the Septuagint. You still have yet to name one that you own. You have only listed what someone else, who has seen copies of the Septuagint, have said they contain.

There is absolutely no reason they should not be available. They have shown us several copies of the New Testament from these manuscripts, therefore it is only reasonable that we should see the Septuagint from these manuscripts as well.