PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Bible, let's quit attacking Bible translations (again)



TrustGzus
Feb 13th 2013, 09:33 PM
Recently, two new threads have arisen attacking new translations. One attacks the translations directly calling them "counterfeit" and the other thread attacks the Greek text that is most often used in translating the New Testament in the new versions.

I would like to point out as I have in the past, it isn't people who use the new versions starting threads to attack the KJV. The assault against translations is heavily one-sided from strong adherents to the KJV attacking the Bible in more recent translations. With that happening, I'm starting a new thread by an old title and will paste my most relevant posts from the old thread.


This website is bibleforums.org


It drives me nuts to see how many Christians attack Bible translations in here. I don't think this should be allowed. Now I'll clarify and qualify that.


This forum should be discussing passages of the Bible and discussing what the theology is we should learn from it and what applications there are. If a translation doesn't do a particularly good job with a word or passage, then that should be noted. Call a ball, a ball and call a strike, a strike.


But the point is, the discussion should be about the passage. The discussion should not be about translation XYZ or ABC and how they "perverted" the passage.


My position is pro-Bible. I'm not pro-new versions and anti-KJV. I'm simply pro-Bible. If the KJV blesses a person and (that's a big "and") they truly understand it, then use it. However, people can misunderstand the KJV for myriad reasons and my thread on Psalm 12 provides a good example. Most people in here were born way after 1769 (the last serious revision of the KJV, not including the NKJV which itself is really just another revision of the KJV) and so people naturally struggle with it.


That being said, I read the Bible cover to cover every year and I switch translations almost every year. Next year I'm thinking of reading through the King James again. I haven't done that for a while. So, again, I'm not anti-KJV.


Pro-Bible. It's my position. I recommend this position for everyone. If you have a version and you like, then read it and don't let anyone try to scare you out of it. Come talk to me if they do. Unless it's The New World Translation of the Watchtower or the Joseph Smith Bible - then you really do need a new Bible.


Now how about we quit attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org?


Do you like the KJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NKJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NASB? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NIV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the ESV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Let's leave Bible attacks to Bart Ehrman and the new atheists. Let's not have Christians attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org

RabbiKnife
Feb 13th 2013, 09:35 PM
The only Bible that matters is not the one you read, or the one you condemn, but the one you obey.

You can quote me on that!

Good thread, Trusty.

IMINXTC
Feb 13th 2013, 10:30 PM
Millions of believers, starting particularly in the early 20th century, have raised serious concerns with the revisions of Westcott and Hort, the advent of Textual Criticism, and the resultant New Greek which all modern versions are based upon.

Millions to this day see the reliance, almost solely, upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, (less than 1% of extant evidence) along with a tiny smattering of other scraps of codices, while abandoning the vast majority of textual evidences, such as those underlying the King James Translation, as a diluting of the transmitted scriptures, at best, in lieu of the Alexandrian traditions underlying those of the Roman Catholics.

So, while few would go so far as to condemn new versions altogether (I wouldn't), the issue, for many, is far from settled, and deserves constant discussion.

The Roman Catholic church, particularly during the Post-Reformation era, attempted to silence forever those who challenged their bible versions and tried to burn all alternative texts.

This well-documented history is in the public domain and is a critical topic within the realm of Christian discourse.

dan
Feb 13th 2013, 10:34 PM
Recently, two new threads have arisen attacking new translations. One attacks the translations directly calling them "counterfeit" and the other thread attacks the Greek text that is most often used in translating the New Testament in the new versions.

I would like to point out as I have in the past, it isn't people who use the new versions starting threads to attack the KJV. The assault against translations is heavily one-sided from strong adherents to the KJV attacking the Bible in more recent translations. With that happening, I'm starting a new thread by an old title and will paste my most relevant posts from the old thread.

Why?

What are we gaining by not talking about it?

Is it productive, somehow, to have the appearance of agreeing when it is not true?

RabbiKnife
Feb 13th 2013, 10:36 PM
The so called "discrepancies" between the two families of texts are extremely minor, and none... absolutely none of them abrogate or change any doctrine. None.

dan
Feb 13th 2013, 10:38 PM
The so called "discrepancies" between the two families of texts are extremely minor, and none... absolutely none of them abrogate or change any doctrine. None.

Do they change Prophecy?

Or, is prophecy not that important?

RabbiKnife
Feb 13th 2013, 10:42 PM
Another dead horse.

No, they do not change prophesy. Prophesy in and of itself is evidence of God's dealing, but it is not foundational to our understanding of God or salvation. Prophesy, and any one or group's interpretation of prophesy, is not salvific.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 14th 2013, 12:24 AM
(1) What I see TrustGzus pleading with us to avoid is not reasoned textual discussion or critique, but exaggeration and (frankly) remarks bordering upon calumny.

I haven't taken the time to follow the threads that Joe (TrustGzus) is critiquing here, so when I came across this thread I wasn't sure which threads Joe was referring to. But searching for recent posts in Bible Chat, the first one I could find was one started Jan 27 by Marco Polo, titled "Modern day counterfeit Bibles?". The latest posts in the thread were early this morning, Feb 13, (or late last night, depending on your time zone).

Modern day counterfeit Bibles?

In Matthew 4, satan presumes to counterfeit scripture in front of King Jesus. Does this foreshadow our modern day versions of bibles as counterfeits?

In response to Joe's thread IMINXTC replied (post #3) that "well-documented history" of challenging some modern versions, and the Westcott Greek text underlying them "is in the public domain and is a critical topic within the realm of Christian discourse." In post #4, dan replies to the thread "What are we gaining by not talking about it?"

These responses seem to me to misunderstand what Joe is saying. I don't think his point was that we can't discuss or debate which of various translations, or Greek texts, is more accurate, in particular readings, or overall. That's reasonable. But the Marco Polo thread doesn't do that: instead it is a kind of name-calling. "Modern" Bibles are said to be "counterfeit" and are compared to Satan counterfeiting scripture (which, as was pointed out in a rejoinder in post #2 of that thread, Satan does not actually do in the temptation narrative: he quotes Scripture accurately, but in a misleading way, instead).

Rather than discussing or debating particular textual readings, or translations, we have in such comments a broad-guage set of accusations about whole translations, or editions of the Greek text, which attributes malevolent intent to the authors. By implication such text are both disingenuous ("counterfeit") -- that is, deliberately leading people astray -- and even satanic. By implication there's a terrible and destructive conspiracy.

Such (to speak plainly) hyped and extreme accusations do not further discussion.

Even in dispute with the devil (about the body of Moses), Jude 1:9 tells us, God's archangel "did not presume to use reviling language." Surely we can discuss particular texts without making wild accusations and speaking ill of others.

(2) Rabbi Knife points out, correctly I think, that the differences between translations (or rescensions of the original language texts) are quite slight, and that no point of doctrine turns upon them.

Even if there were some significant doctrinal (or, if you wish, prophetic) differences these could be discussed without the kind of distracting and unseemly personal, or versional attacks which are sometimes mounted.

(3) Why are the points that TrustGzus and Rabbi Knife are making here important? For three or four reasons, I think.

3.1 Getting all wound up about about the translations as a whole is not necessary to making whatever corrections someone feels ought to be made in support of certain doctrines or prophecies. That can be done without throwing generalized accusations around. In fact, simply making the corrections, and strengthening, perhaps, our understanding of key (or minor) doctrines and prophecies is better accomplished by focusing on the particular substance of what, the critic holds, Scripture is arguing, without getting away from that to flail away at whole translations.

3.2 Attacking whole translations, as if their were something terribly wrong with them when in fact the differences are minor is destructive. How? If the exaggerated accusations (statement suggesting the whole translation is corrupt, or of the devil, for instance) are taken seriously, they can work to undermine people's faith in the Bible. They can trouble new Christians, who don't have a robust understanding of how clear and sure the overall witness of Scripture is. And they play into the hands of the many unprincipled non-believers who try to convince people that the text of Scripture as we have it is some concoction of deceivers and unscrupulous priests. This kind of Dan-Brown-esque lying leads many people to reject Scripture because they've been taught that the Bible as we have it is unreliable. (I encountered such a bewildered person, just the other day, who kept herself from reading the Bible partly with the utterly confused ideas about the unreliability of Bibles.)

3.3 As Rabbi Knife cogently and tirelessly points out, the problem in our failure to follow and trust the Bible's teaching arises not from the tiny differences between translations, but from our failing to heed or focus upon the clear teachings which the massive and coherent witness of Scripture -- in any accepted translation -- gives us. Such failure to follow comes from lack of spending time in the Scriptures with a heart directed toward learning and obeying. That receptive and obedient -- and studious -- approach is where we need to focus our attention: not in fruitless controversies.

3.4 The kind of berating, reviling talk which sometimes surfaces about translations, and translators, is the kind of speaking-ill of others which the Bible expressly prohibits. We are to speak respectfully and kindly of others, to the maximum extent possible, even where those others are in error, or actually harming us. Correcting any errors, if there are errors is fine. Reviling others is not. This is the clear command of Scripture. Our disobedience on such points, also, does concrete harm. It makes people who see this kind of extreme, disrespectful, talk think ill of Christians in general, because of the inconsiderate actions of a few. Also, those who engage in such behavior are harming themselves, and others lured into such unconstructive talk, both by cultivating inaccurate and derogatory speech, and also by missing the main points of Scripture for such controversialism.

We can do better than that.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2013, 02:54 AM
Recently, two new threads have arisen attacking new translations. One attacks the translations directly calling them "counterfeit" and the other thread attacks the Greek text that is most often used in translating the New Testament in the new versions.

I would like to point out as I have in the past, it isn't people who use the new versions starting threads to attack the KJV. The assault against translations is heavily one-sided from strong adherents to the KJV attacking the Bible in more recent translations. With that happening, I'm starting a new thread by an old title and will paste my most relevant posts from the old thread.

In the realm of time, who really has attacked the bible?

It has been nearly 2,000 years since the ministry of Christ on the earth. For six Centuries, from the fourteenth Century(The beginning of the English translation) to the twentieth Century the English Bible followed the readings of the Received Text. Even the chairman of the Revised Version, quoting Hort, said the pedigree of the Textus Receptus was equal to, or older than any existing (Implication being the Alexandrian texts.) manuscript.

Why did they then attack it, and call it vile? Hort said it was vile because it contained 1 John 5:7. If this verse changes no doctrine, what makes it vile? Hort, in a letter to a friend said that Tischendorf would find him new rich material with which to rewrite the Bible. This actually happened. Tischendorf did exactly that. This new material Tischendorf dug up included a manuscript that was found in the trash, and was proclaimed by the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century to be written by him. This manuscript is touted as aleph, or number one of the manuscripts used to rewrite the bible.

So who attacked the bible? Wasn't it Westcott & Hort along with a small number of friends. This was 1881 and the English Revised Version. The Church had enough sense to reject their work. Twenty years later the chairman of the 1881 Revised Version wrote a book pleading with the church to use this revision, but to no avail. The National Council of Churches took up the banner and purchased the copyright for the American revised edition. To no avail though. And then in 1971 Dewey Lockman purchased the right to use the ASV copyright of the National Council of Churches to produce the New American Standard Bible. Thus was the work of Westcott & Hort given a new facelift and push toward displacing that "vile" Received Text. So from the early to mid thirteen hundreds, to nineteen hundred and seventy one we had one bible stream in English. Prior to the thirteen hundreds that stream was in Latin. And now only in the last forty years do we have a completely new bible from an entirely different transmission line, that has no chain of evidence.

So who is the bad guy? Those that defend the received bible, that since its inception in English has remained constant from the same transmission line, or the new guy that says we can't trust the bible that has been around since the inception of the English translation?

Has a people that no longer allows the bible in the classroom grown that much smarter in the last half Century?

markedward
Feb 14th 2013, 03:10 AM
Hort said it was vile because it contained 1 John 5:7. If this verse changes no doctrine, what makes it vile?
That it was deceitfully added into the text of Scripture, when it was not originally written by the author of the epistle? If we found a text of Matthew, and somewhere in the book Jesus says 'rejoice44 reads the King James Version', the mere fact that the statement is true does not justify that it is an undeniable addition to the text. Attempting to keep such words in the Bible on the sole basis that it 'changes no doctrine' is founded upon deceit, which is why we rightly object to its inclusion.


and was proclaimed by the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century to be written by him.
You've said this before; can you provide a specific name to this 'greatest forger of the nineteenth century', and what exactly he said, and what qualifies him for saying as much?


the bible that has been around since the inception of the English translation?
The KJV has not 'been around since the inception of the English translation'.


Has a people that no longer allows the bible in the classroom
This is a blatant falsehood. Students are freely able to bring, and read, the Bible in their classrooms, in the event that they don't forcibly impose their beliefs on others and that they don't read it during the time frame when they're supposed to be receiving an education from their teachers or professors. It absolutely baffles me that Christians keep saying we're not allowed to take a Bible into a classroom; perpetuating this falsehood after it has been exposed for so long makes it a lie, right out.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2013, 03:56 AM
[QUOTE=markedward;2951836]That it was deceitfully added into the text of Scripture, when it was not originally written by the author of the epistle? If we found a text of Matthew, and somewhere in the book Jesus says 'rejoice44 reads the King James Version', the mere fact that the statement is true does not justify that it is an undeniable addition to the text. Attempting to keep such words in the Bible on the sole basis that it 'changes no doctrine' is founded upon deceit, which is why we rightly object to its inclusion.

Can you prove it wasn't in originally, and then taken out, just like it was in 1881?



You've said this before; can you provide a specific name to this 'greatest forger of the nineteenth century', and what exactly he said, and what qualifies him for saying as much?

Literary Forgeries of the Nineteenth Century

( Originally Published 1893 )
Constantine Simonides (1820-1867)

"The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculus esuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger.---

After this Simonides appeared only once with any prominence before the public, when in 1861 he boldly asserted that he himself had written the whole of the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf had brought in 1856 from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The statement was, of course, received with the utmost incredulity ; but Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the AIS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information."

In my possession is a book written in 1907 by J. A. Farrer, titled "Literary Forgeries, in which he devotes pages 39 through 66 out of 282 pages to Constantine Simonides.

On the first page on Simonides, page 39, Farrer has this to say in regards to Constantine Simonides, "For with whatever right Simonides is assigned to the forging fraternity, his industry, his learning, and his adventures claim for him a position apart, whilst it may be doubted whether any of his contemporaries in the learned world at all approached him in the art of calligraphy or in his knowledge of paleography."

Of the 27 pages on Simonides, eight pages are dedicated to the Codex Sinaiticus and the claims of Simonides. On page 65 Farrer says this, "On the side of Simonides is his unlimited skill in calligraphy; the very audacity of such a claim if entirely baseless; the remarkable presence in the Codex of a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, which Simonides was the first scholar ever to have seen in Greek; the very natural allusions to the work in the lithographed letters; that fact that no vistior to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks; and the very extraordinary story told by Tischendorf of his discovery and acquisition of the Codex. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature."



The KJV has not 'been around since the inception of the English translation'.

KJV was not mentioned. The reference to the bible was the transmission line, or the received text, if you will. All English translations(Translations actually used by the Church.) up until 1881 came from one stream.



This is a blatant falsehood. Students are freely able to bring, and read, the Bible in their classrooms, in the event that they don't forcibly impose their beliefs on others and that they don't read it during the time frame when they're supposed to be receiving an education from their teachers or professors. It absolutely baffles me that Christians keep saying we're not allowed to take a Bible into a classroom; perpetuating this falsehood after it has been exposed for so long makes it a lie, right out.

Teachers cannot read from them and students cannot quote from them at commencement speeches.

markedward
Feb 14th 2013, 04:59 AM
Constantine Simonides
Thanks.

I also see that one Henry Bradshaw then exposed Simonides' claims as being an absurdity, with a core piece of the story being that Simonides' description of the Bible he created was 'without the wish, or design, or indeed the smallest expectation, of misleading the most ignorant and unwary as to the true character of the work'. How, then, did a book that was not meant to deceive people into thinking it was really an ancient Bible, somehow able to trick numerous experts in the field?

This would be equivalent to me claiming to have painted the newly-discovered Mona Lisa and then experts in the works of Leonardo da Vinci thinking it was authentic despite that I had never set out to trick anyone. This would be just too incredulous of a claim to take seriously, let alone after my story was shown to be contradicted by the very people I claimed were witnesses in my favor.


Teachers cannot read from them
Again, this is a blatant falsehood. Dozens of my classes all throughout junior high school, senior high school, and university (all public schools) incorporated the Bible, contingent on the relevancy to the subject being studied. It never came up in math or science because reading John 3.16 was not relevant to learning the Pythagorean Theorem or the airspeed velocity of unladen swallows. But the Bible (and consequently, reading it) came up regularly in classes pertaining to history, philosophy, religion, journalism, art, design, and so forth.


and students cannot quote from them at commencement speeches.
This likely varies from school to school. I never paid attention to commencement speeches, so I can't say for certain whether any of my schools prohibited the Bible from being quoted. But when the current president, whom many people on this forum claim is not a Christian, quotes Jesus in his official speeches, it is not that hard to consider this claim to be baseless as well.

Anyway, I'll step out of this conversation, but I'll leave with this: I will read the ESV, the NIV, the RSV, the KJV, the YLT, and others, to the glory of God.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2013, 12:21 PM
[QUOTE=markedward;2951866]Thanks.

I also see that one Henry Bradshaw then exposed Simonides' claims as being an absurdity, with a core piece of the story being that Simonides' description of the Bible he created was 'without the wish, or design, or indeed the smallest expectation, of misleading the most ignorant and unwary as to the true character of the work'. How, then, did a book that was not meant to deceive people into thinking it was really an ancient Bible, somehow able to trick numerous experts in the field?

You are citing Henry Bradshaw without quoting source. What evidence did Henry Bradshaw present, other than mere words?

Are you aware that Henry Bradshaw was a personal friend of Westcott & Hort? Are you also aware that Henry Bradshaw, along with Westcott & Hort, defended the Vatican and Puseyites (Equates to Unitarians.) while at Cambridge? Read the following from the Undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw.


The following is taken from the Undergraduate life Henry Bradshaw written by G. W. (George Walter) Prothero. (Starting in section 35 and continuing in section 36.)


“In connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A. Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called " Papal aggression." The pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was

36 UNDERGRADUATE LIFE.

in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen on the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the pope and the Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr Llewellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs ; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and bitterness likely to be engendered by such a meeting as was proposed, resolved to put a stop to it. A deputation accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Bradshaw, along with his friends Hort and Westcott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition,
which was successful, and the meeting was stopped.”




This would be equivalent to me claiming to have painted the newly-discovered Mona Lisa and then experts in the works of Leonardo da Vinci thinking it was authentic despite that I had never set out to trick anyone. This would be just too incredulous of a claim to take seriously, let alone after my story was shown to be contradicted by the very people I claimed were witnesses in my favor.---

The Codex Sinaiticus is no Mona Lisa, nor was the scribe a Leonardo da Vinci. What with more than 20,000 errors the work was obviously done in a hurry. This was Henry Bradshaw's claim, that Simonides didn't have enough time to copy the manuscript in the time that Simonides allotted for it. Please explain how both the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus both have the same error, "under a candlestick" in Mark 4:21?

TrustGzus
Feb 14th 2013, 01:59 PM
And now this Pro-Bible thread asking people not to attack the Bible is being use to attack the Bible via logical fallacies such as the genetic fallacy and guilt by association tactics. When does it stop?

Now how about we quit attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org?


Do you like the KJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NKJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NASB? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NIV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the ESV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Let's leave Bible attacks to Bart Ehrman and the new atheists. Let's not have Christians attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org

Why is this so hard for some who are into the KJV?

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2013, 03:40 PM
And now this Pro-Bible thread asking people not to attack the Bible is being use to attack the Bible via logical fallacies such as the genetic fallacy and guilt by association tactics. When does it stop?

Are you saying, "Lets not confuse the issue by presenting facts"?




Let's leave Bible attacks to Bart Ehrman and the new atheists. Let's not have Christians attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org.

Fact! Bart Ehrman is a product or protege of Bruce Metzger. Bruce Metzger was the leading editor of the UBS which had picked up the torch for presenting a new stream of bible manuscripts from Westcott & Hort.

To say one is attacking the bible for presenting historical facts is not justified. Isn't presenting new translations with new wording attacking the bible? Surely you are not suggesting that we need to suppress the facts to protect the bible?

RabbiKnife
Feb 14th 2013, 03:50 PM
When you show me the original autographs, then you speak authoritatively of any text or textual variant attacking the Bible.

TrustGzus
Feb 14th 2013, 04:45 PM
Are you saying, "Lets not confuse the issue by presenting facts"?

No, Norman. I'm saying let's not confuse the issue by attacking newer translations than the KJV by using logical fallacies such as the genetic fallacy and employing guilt by association tactics, circular reasoning, special pleading (and in some cases ad hominems). Nearly every "fact" against new translations employs one of those fallacies and a lot of emotional rhetoric but little to no sound, empirical reasoning.


Fact! Bart Ehrman is a product or protege of Bruce Metzger. Bruce Metzger was the leading editor of the UBS which had picked up the torch for presenting a new stream of bible manuscripts from Westcott & Hort.

More fallacies that don't prove a thing. Metzger held to the faith till he died. We could use your logic to discredit Jesus since Judas was one of Jesus' disciples. And there is no "new stream of bible manuscripts from Westcott & Hort." The UBS committee, Westcott & Hort simply used manuscripts that had been discovered that the KJV translators didn't use and didn't have at their disposal. Those are the facts and once again this is an example of you committing a genetic fallacy instead of making a sound argument. It also can show the double standards used by people who hold to the extreme KJV view. You often point out that Ehrman was a student of Metzger. All we have to find with any teacher then is a student that defected and that discredits them. Has every strong adherent of the KJV had every single disciple stick to the faith?


To say one is attacking the bible for presenting historical facts is not justified. Isn't presenting new translations with new wording attacking the bible?

Then every new translation is a "an attack" using your description. The KJV was an attack. The Geneva was an attack. The first translation into any language is an attack because it's all new wording.


Surely you are not suggesting that we need to suppress the facts to protect the bible?

No, I'm not. I never have suggested that. I didn't suggest that in this thread. And after all the exchanges in details you and I have had over the years, you know better than that. You need to re-read the OP and in particular, the first quote box where I discuss all of that. I suggest a productive way to discuss translational differences.

TomH
Feb 14th 2013, 06:13 PM
I liken different translations to a box of Crayola's. The big 64 count.

Take away all the colors names from the labels and have different groups of artists name each of the 64. Most "differences" in translations are descriptive. To one group, a color could be called Amber, while another group would say it's burnt cyenna. I would read the descriptive and say it's brown.

In the end, the Word remains the Word.

There are four colors that all groups will name the same. Black, white, silver and gold. When you have agreement with black and white and have gold and silver sandwiched between the two, you describe salvation to the reader. The other 60 are simply puffy indulgences.

Liquid Tension
Feb 14th 2013, 06:38 PM
The only Bible that matters is not the one you read, or the one you condemn, but the one you obey.

You can quote me on that!

Good thread, Trusty.

This.



These responses seem to me to misunderstand what Joe is saying. I don't think his point was that we can't discuss or debate which of various translations, or Greek texts, is more accurate, in particular readings, or overall. That's reasonable.


And this. Great post, by the way.


I will read the ESV, the NIV, the RSV, the KJV, the YLT, and others, to the glory of God.

And this also.


And now this Pro-Bible thread asking people not to attack the Bible is being use to attack the Bible via logical fallacies such as the genetic fallacy and guilt by association tactics. When does it stop?

Now how about we quit attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org?


Do you like the KJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NKJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NASB? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the NIV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Do you like the ESV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.


Let's leave Bible attacks to Bart Ehrman and the new atheists. Let's not have Christians attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org

Why is this so hard for some who are into the KJV?

And, once again, this.

RabbiKnife
Feb 14th 2013, 06:55 PM
I think I asked it in another post.

What version of the Bible should a non-English speaking, French as a second-language only, primary language Togo dialect Christian use?

teddyv
Feb 14th 2013, 08:10 PM
I think I asked it in another post.

What version of the Bible should a non-English speaking, French as a second-language only, primary language Togo dialect Christian use?Version de roi Jacques.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2013, 10:56 PM
No, Norman. I'm saying let's not confuse the issue by attacking newer translations than the KJV by using logical fallacies such as the genetic fallacy and employing guilt by association tactics, circular reasoning, special pleading (and in some cases ad hominems). Nearly every "fact" against new translations employs one of those fallacies and a lot of emotional rhetoric but little to no sound, empirical reasoning.

Hort requested Tischendorf to find him rich new material to write a new translation, and then when Tischendorf finds it, it was then proclaimed a forgery by the the greatest forger of the nineteenth century. Are you then saying that it has no bearing on the new stream of manuscripts? Or are you saying it is not true?


More fallacies that don't prove a thing. Metzger held to the faith till he died. We could use your logic to discredit Jesus since Judas was one of Jesus' disciples. And there is no "new stream of bible manuscripts from Westcott & Hort." The UBS committee, Westcott & Hort simply used manuscripts that had been discovered that the KJV translators didn't use and didn't have at their disposal. Those are the facts and once again this is an example of you committing a genetic fallacy instead of making a sound argument. It also can show the double standards used by people who hold to the extreme KJV view.

You often point out that Ehrman was a student of Metzger. All we have to find with any teacher then is a student that defected and that discredits them. Has every strong adherent of the KJV had every single disciple stick to the faith?


Metzger had no problem even in 2005 in co-authoring books with Bart Erhman. Metzger wrote his own bible translation leaving out 40% of the bible. He obviously didn't believe the bible because he left out Rrevelation 22:19 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, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



Then every new translation is a "an attack" using your description. The KJV was an attack. The Geneva was an attack. The first translation into any language is an attack because it's all new wording.

What we have today is a completely new stream of manuscripts as a base, and nobody wants to look at them individually, only collectively, and then they are truly only a small collection.


No, I'm not. I never have suggested that. I didn't suggest that in this thread. And after all the exchanges in details you and I have had over the years, you know better than that. You need to re-read the OP and in particular, the first quote box where I discuss all of that. I suggest a productive way to discuss translational differences.

And it doesn't include examining the manuscript stream individually, or examining the people presenting them, or their motives.

TrustGzus
Feb 15th 2013, 07:36 AM
Before I begin, I'd like to say that this thread is pro-Bible. I'm not attacking any version. I'm not attacking the KJV, the Geneva or any new translation. I'm not attacking people either. I am going to attack your arguments. I want people to read the Bible cover-to-cover and then do it over and over again in any respectable committee produced translation. If a person reads the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV or HCSB (I'm not claiming an exhaustive list here) cover-to-cover and employs proper methods of hermeneutics, that person will develop a sound, orthodox Christian theology. None of those translations are perfect. All of them could have done a better job with a verse here or a verse there. But they are reliable and the differences are understandable and one doesn't have to employ genetic fallacies and ad hominems or special pleading or circular reasoning or red herrings or what is virtually an endless list of logical fallacies to stack the deck and poison the well to prove the point. The extreme KJV position can not be sustained without frequent employment of such fallacies. Every post you make uses some of these fallacies. And that's why I don't hold a position like that as I did 25 years ago.


Hort requested Tischendorf to find him rich new material to write a new translation, and then when Tischendorf finds it, it was then proclaimed a forgery by the the greatest forger of the nineteenth century. Are you then saying that it has no bearing on the new stream of manuscripts? Or are you saying it is not true?

If I grant all you say as true, and I don't, to answer your question, it has no bearing on the "new" stream of manuscripts. First, it isn't a "new" stream. It's an old stream. More about that in my next point.

Secondly, you can't boil it down to just Sinaiticus. Vaticanus is older. Many of the papyri are older. The case for how various verses are rendered in the modern versions also rests on writings found in the early church fathers and in ancient translations. If you could prove that Sinaiticus has no place in the textual tradition of the Bible, it wouldn't prove your view.

Thirdly, should I go with the word of a solitary forger or the words of a plurality of honest scholars? To maintain your view, you go against nearly all scholarship and go with the claims of a single, proven forger. Should I reject what scholarly paleographers say about Sinaiticus in favor of a proven liar?

Fourthly, the view you espouse requires so much conspiracy. The number of people involved in the conspiracy makes it all the more unlikely. Conspiracies succeed best with the least number of participants. It requires the majority of the members of the committee in 1881 to be too stupid to handle Hort and Westcott and it requires pretty much all of modern scholarship unable to discern the problem too when all this stuff is so available in print in all of the modern anti-version books (many of which are on my shelves).

Fifthly, Westcott & Hort are now not much more than an asterisk in textual criticism history. If they never existed, the manuscripts would have been discovered eventually. And so instead of Westcott and Hort we'd be talking about Smith and Wesson or somebody else. The Westcott and Hort text isn't used in making new translations so a vast majority of the W&H talk is simply not relevant to the discussion.


Metzger had no problem even in 2005 in co-authoring books with Bart Erhman. Metzger wrote his own bible translation leaving out 40% of the bible. He obviously didn't believe the bible because he left out Rrevelation 22:19 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, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

What 2005 book? Let's get all the facts on the table if you want to bring that up.

Metzger "obviously didn't believe the Bible"? Really? Because of him being the editor of the Reader's Digest Bible? Metzger died proclaiming the Christian faith. I can't fathom that you've read must of Metzger directly to say what you are saying. But again, note that to maintain your view, attack a man. Since many church father writings line up with the newer versions and many of the ancient translations and the manuscripts do, let's attack the people instead. Instead of being open minded and having a blank slate in asking if verse X or Y was written by John or Luke and let the evidence speak and not assume bad motives on one side or the other but simple scribal mistakes (that are easily understandable for so many reasons) let's attack the people we don't agree with and question their beliefs and salvation, right Norman?

Theodore Beza removed ὅσιος from Revelation 16:5 and added εσομενος. This changed John from saying "O Holy One" to "and shalt be". He had no manuscript evidence to do this as there isn't a single piece of manuscript evidence that contains this. He did it all on his own. And yet his removal and addition sit in the KJV today. You can look at the Wycliffe or the Purvey or any of Tyndale's editions or the Geneva. All of them match modern versions at this verse. Using your logic, I guess Theodore Beza didn't believe the Bible either, right? Obviously, I don't think that of Beza. I think he made a grave error in doing what he did. But I don't question his beliefs nor his destiny over it.

I also would like to point out that you didn't address my point about Jesus and Judas in regard to where a disciple walks away doesn't discredit the teacher. You go right on attacking Metzger and don't address my point there nor my point about whether or not we can find a student of an extreme KJV adherent that walked away and if that would discredit his teacher.


What we have today is a completely new stream of manuscripts as a base, and nobody wants to look at them individually, only collectively, and then they are truly only a small collection.

Again, it's not a new stream. It's an old stream. And if you want to discredit them don't forget you can't stop looking at only each and every manuscript individually but many church fathers and ancient versions too.

Take 1 John 5:7 which is one you bring up often. It's never mentioned by the Greek Fathers in the Trinitarian controversies with Sabellius or Arius. Why? Easiest explanation is 1 John 5:7 wasn't there. If it was there, why would anyone not use it? But back to the point, besides looking at each manuscript individually, are you going to look at each Church Father individually to discredit them over this "omission"? 1 John 5:7 is also absent from all versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic and Slavonic. Should we examine each of those to discredit them? Or should we simply accept that the 8 very late Greek manuscripts that have it (4 of which have it added in the margin) have added a verse that John didn't write?

Are you willing to take those 8 manuscripts and scrutinize them like you want to scrutinize every fact that doesn't support your view? What do we really know about manuscript 221? Who wrote it? Maybe he was a co-conspirator himself in bed with a bunch of other fellows. Maybe he was a forger like Simonides who we should take at face value. Can we find the historical trail for 221 to know that we can trust it? Let's employ your tests to every manuscript and see where it gets us.


And it doesn't include examining the manuscript stream individually, or examining the people presenting them, or their motives.

People or motives . . . I already mentioned Beza. What would you say of him if what he did ended up in the NASB instead of the KJV? And all the attacking of indidvuals and ad hominems I have in my KJVO books and audio . . . Yeah . . . let's examine the people and the motives. Despite all the poor behavior of the KJVO crowd in their writings and audio, that doesn't prove their view false. Would it count against their view if they were pushing the NASB? Based on everything you've written, Norm, things you consider questionable count against people --- unless it's a forger whose claims help the KJV position. Then it's ok.

And here's something I simply do not get. You harp on new Bible translations ad nauseum. You bring up a charge regularly about a "Unitarian" being involved with the ERV in 1881 as a negative charge against that version. Then, in your newest thread when an actual Unitarian joined the discussion (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/244900-Information-relating-to-the-UBS/page2), you claimed it wasn't your intent to get into a discussion of the Trinity and you didn't pursue that much more important topic with this member! It amazes me that you didn't want to "offend" him on this important issue.

What's more important:

1) That I carry a Bible that has "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 yet I profess/teach a correct view of the Trinity?

Or

2) That I carry a KJV that has "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV has that too) but am a Unitarian?

Quit creating threads attacking new versions and the UBS text, Norman. Why not help a person who was in a discussion with you to form a correct understanding of the Trinity rather than continuing your attempt to unsettle people's trust in their Bibles just because it isn't a KJV?

Boo
Feb 15th 2013, 11:11 AM
I think I asked it in another post.

What version of the Bible should a non-English speaking, French as a second-language only, primary language Togo dialect Christian use?

There are French bibles out there that would do well. There is also an ongoing project of translating the Bible into the 2nd largest language in Togo-Kabiyé.

Having attended church in foreign countries with people who speak English as a second language, they have come to know and serve God well using the NIV. Thank God that people can put His words in their hands in a way that they can understand.

RabbiKnife
Feb 15th 2013, 01:26 PM
There are French bibles out there that would do well. There is also an ongoing project of translating the Bible into the 2nd largest language in Togo-Kabiyé.

Having attended church in foreign countries with people who speak English as a second language, they have come to know and serve God well using the NIV. Thank God that people can put His words in their hands in a way that they can understand.

But.. but.... I thought those were COUNTERFEIT Bibles...

You mean... no, surely not....

-SEEKING-
Feb 15th 2013, 01:33 PM
I think I asked it in another post.

What version of the Bible should a non-English speaking, French as a second-language only, primary language Togo dialect Christian use?

I believe God requires them to learn Shakespearean English.

Liquid Tension
Feb 15th 2013, 02:14 PM
I believe God requires them to learn Shakespearean English.

Surely thou jokest.

RabbiKnife
Feb 15th 2013, 02:18 PM
Surely thou jokest.

Nay, forsooth thou slackard that speaketh only in words with 42 vowels and one consonant... Aaiaiaoooaiaiaiaakah!

crawfish
Feb 15th 2013, 04:14 PM
I read a lot of 'em. When studying scripture I'll read it from the NIV, KJV, NRSV, Message, and Complete Jewish Bible, at least. I've found that the clearest depiction of what it says (at least to me) can come from different sources. Sometimes I like how one version puts it over another one. KJV text can be beautiful, but often loses the intended tone (it makes Ezekiel 23:20 sound beautiful, and I don't think that was the intention). The Jewish versions are great because they indicate the original Hebrew words when they would clarify meaning, such as the various names of God.

Versions, like bible chapters and verses, are a useful tool. We are blessed to live in a time when such things are so easily available.

Gideon Jerubbaal
Feb 15th 2013, 04:35 PM
Each time I read the Bible cover-to-cover, I like to use a different version. I'm currently reading The Original Bible for Modern Readers which recently came out in a "pre-publication" edition. There's a free PDF version available online.

But, seriously, there are some versions that should be avoided: for example, the Mormon "Inspired Version" that has stuff Joseph Smith inserted, including a supposed prophecy about himself; and the Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" that has close to 250 changes made to fit JW doctrine -- mainly to eliminate references to the deity of Christ, and to diminish the importance of Christ.

Gideon Jerubbaal

Liquid Tension
Feb 15th 2013, 06:11 PM
Nay, forsooth thou slackard that speaketh only in words with 42 vowels and one consonant... Aaiaiaoooaiaiaiaakah!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

rejoice44
Feb 15th 2013, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE]If I grant all you say as true, and I don't, to answer your question, it has no bearing on the "new" stream of manuscripts. First, it isn't a "new" stream. It's an old stream. More about that in my next point.

What did I say specifically that wasn't true?

The Vaticanus1209, in the eighteenth Century, wasn't considered worthy of collation by top scholars. The Alexandrian stream was not used in any translations used by churches until the last fifty years. Ninety five percent of the supporting material did not show up until the nineteenth Century, and most of it without any chain of evidence. At least in this sense it is new. There is no record of its use in the church, and if it was used, it was abandoned by the church.


Secondly, you can't boil it down to just Sinaiticus. Vaticanus is older. Many of the papyri are older. The case for how various verses are rendered in the modern versions also rests on writings found in the early church fathers and in ancient translations. If you could prove that Sinaiticus has no place in the textual tradition of the Bible, it wouldn't prove your view.

If Aleph was determined to be a forgery it wouldn't matter? It was the single biggest supporter of the Vaticanus. It was provided to the Revised Version committee as rich new material with which to rewrite the Bible. Wherever the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus 1209 agreed, it was almost automatically placed in the Revised Version.


Thirdly, should I go with the word of a solitary forger or the words of a plurality of honest scholars? To maintain your view, you go against nearly all scholarship and go with the claims of a single, proven forger. Should I reject what scholarly paleographers say about Sinaiticus in favor of a proven liar?

Lets see, a solitary forger who was proclaimed as the greatest paleographer of the Nineteenth Century, and perhaps of all time, declared he wrote the Sinaiticus, even though he had nothing to gain but jail time by making such a claim. He was in fact placed in jail for making the claim, and then released after producing credible proof that he had written it.

Simonides provided proof that he wrote the Sinaiticus, but the honest scholars provided no proof that he didn't.

Simonides provided proof in the form of places where he initialed the manuscript. At every place Simonides said he left a mark there was a blemish, as if an erasure. He also produced letters that had been lithographed, and that he had sent to a friend at the time he was producing the Codex Sinaiticus. These letters had been given to the British Library by a James Young. The letters were given the names "Autographa and "Spoudaion huponema". Also, Simonides was the only person to have seen and to have had in his possession the Shepherd of Hermes, in Greek, prior to the Sinaiticus. This is attested to in--

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE PASTOR OF HERMAS



------------



[Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.a.]

Author Index: Do (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Authors-Do) James Donaldson
(1831–1915)
excerpt from Roberts-Donaldson Introduction (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/shepherd.html)

For a long time the Pastor of Hermas was known to scholars only in a Latin version, occurring in several mss. with but slight vacations. But within recent times the difficulty of settling the text has been increased by the discovery of various mss. A Latin translation has been edited, widely differing from the common version. Then a Greek ms. was said to have been found in Mount Athos, of which Simonides affirmed that he brought away a portion of the original and a copy of the rest. Then a ms. of the Pastor of Hermas was found at the end of the Sinaitic Codex of Tischendorf.

Then we have John Eliot Hodgkin who in 1863 set out to find the truth of the matter. He became a supporter of Simionides after locating the foreman of the lithograph plant that lithographed one of the letters.


Fourthly, the view you espouse requires so much conspiracy. The number of people involved in the conspiracy makes it all the more unlikely. Conspiracies succeed best with the least number of participants. It requires the majority of the members of the committee in 1881 to be too stupid to handle Hort and Westcott and it requires pretty much all of modern scholarship unable to discern the problem too when all this stuff is so available in print in all of the modern anti-version books (many of which are on my shelves).

I don't know that you would call it a conspiracy. Hort asked Tischendorf to find him rich material to rewrite the bible and he did. According to Tischendorf he left an audience with the Pope, and the next event in his life was to find the Sinaiticus in the trash. If you have a problem with Tischendorf finding it in the trash it is with Tischendorf that you have to take it up, for he is the one that made that claim.


Fifthly, Westcott & Hort are now not much more than an asterisk in textual criticism history. If they never existed, the manuscripts would have been discovered eventually. And so instead of Westcott and Hort we'd be talking about Smith and Wesson or somebody else. The Westcott and Hort text isn't used in making new translations so a vast majority of the W&H talk is simply not relevant to the discussion.

I don't know about what would have been, but I do know that it was Hort's work and copyright that the NASB and the 2001 ESV were produced with.

TrustGzus
Feb 15th 2013, 10:40 PM
Norm, there are so many things I stated that you are not addressing. I'm not going to run around in circles with you about the few points that you think support your view while you ignore multiple other points.

In the post prior to your newest you stated . . .


What we have today is a completely new stream of manuscripts as a base, and nobody wants to look at them individually, only collectively, and then they are truly only a small collection.


Now you write . . .



The Vaticanus1209, in the eighteenth Century, wasn't considered worthy of collation by top scholars. The Alexandrian stream was not used in any translations used by churches until the last fifty years. Ninety five percent of the supporting material did not show up until the nineteenth Century, and most of it without any chain of evidence. At least in this sense it is new. There is no record of its use in the church, and if it was used, it was abandoned by the church.

You don't want to talk about Alexandrian readings individually. You want to sweep them away collectively in this post. I addressed in my last post that besides Sinaiticus and Vaticanus there are also many papyri, church fathers and other ancient versions (several languages of which I listed for the 1 John 5:7 passage). There is too much evidence for many (not all, but many) of the Alexandrian readings.

And you are making fallacious arguments in that paragraph. You say there is no record of the Alexandrian "stream" in the church. Are you reading me at all? THE CHURCH FATHERS! Read them and you will find all sorts of Alexandrian readings. Did you read my paragraph about 1 John 5:7 and all the ancient foreign versions that don't contain it. There is loads of evidence of Alexandrian readings in the church.

Why is English the rule for textual determination? That is the standard you use for some reason. I want what John wrote. I want what Luke wrote. I want what Paul wrote. I'm not interested in retaining errors in English versions just because the errors have been there for centuries. Why would you want to retain errors in English? If the English had an error for 600 years, then I want it fixed. I want what the apostles wrote. Let me add here that the errors are largely minor anyway. No core doctrine is undermined in either a KJV (or prior versions) or a modern version.

And then in that paragraph above you talk about there not being a stream of evidence. Again, are you reading my posts at all?!?!?!?

I asked you about the stream of evidence for manuscript 221 which contains 1 John 5:7. Or do you only need a stream when something doesn't agree with you?

How come you didn't address Beza and his textual change that made it into Revelation 16:5 of the KJV and into no other English translation prior to it?

How does Simonides initializing parts of Sinaiticus proof he made it? If that story is true, that proves nothing more than he handled it. Anyone who handles it could pull that off. How come no one buys this story except KJV extremists (and not all of them use this)? Most fields of knowledge grow when one person stands against the crowd with a new idea. They meet lots of resistance and often persecution in the field. However, the experts in the field test the ideas and eventually the true ideas get accepted. This hasn't happened with Simonides. Paleographers recognized multiple hand writings and have the corrective hand writings dated over a millennium prior to Simonides. You need a lot better evidence than internet cut-and-paste paragraphs from self-serving websites trying to prove their point to prove what experts in that field universally reject.

And I will repeat, even if everything with Simonides is true, Vaticanus is dated older than Sinaiticus, the papyri are older, the church fathers are older and you have all the ancient versions. Did Simonides forge all the church fathers and the ancient versions? Then there are others like Alexandrinus which is dated after Sinaiticus dates but is Alexandrian in non-gospel material. Simonides cannot help you. The evidence is so much more than a single uncial.

Is Metzger off the table now? Did we want to talk about his 2005 book?

What about the Unitarian in the other thread?

Which is more important: to have a correct doctrine of the Trinity yet carry a Bible with "He" in 1 Timothy 3:16 or to have a "correct" 1 Timothy 3:16 yet believe heretical views of the godhead?

Modern versions don't teach Unitarianism. I don't have an ERV, but I can't help but doubt that this translation did either. I do have the ASV and that doesn't teach it. Why not start a thread explaining the errors of Unitarianism instead of threads attacking translations? Wouldn't that be a much better use of the time God has given you? On something like that we could work together instead of going through these gyrations.

I have repeatedly pointed out that anyone who takes a committee based translation that is on the market today, if they employ proper hermeneutics, will arrive at proper, Christian theology. The argument for KJV superiority requires isolating verses out of context (because often the context makes everything clear) and then using a collection of logical fallacies and double-standards when the same argument works against KJV superiority and helps out modern translations. Nothing you have said changes any of that.

I'd like to end by quoting 2 Timothy 2:14 from the KJV of course . . .


2 Timothy 2:14 (AV)
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.


Norman, you have spent 2-1/2 years in these forums violating this command. You have been attacking the Bible, striving about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers by undermining their trust in the Bibles they have in their hands. While I keep coming behind explaining why Christians here can trust their NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.

I am charging you before the Lord to quit striving about words to no profit and subverting the hearers (or readers in this case). Quit attacking the Bible and obey this verse instead. We've got all the new atheists to attack the Bible. We don't need Christians at Bibleforums.org helping in attacking the Bible. Find the real calling for your life. Over the last several months I haven't seen any modern version user start a thread attacking the KJV or Geneva or any other older version. If KJV/AV extremists will obey 2 Timothy 2:14, this subject will be virtually, if not entirely, unheard of at these forums. It's time to move on to something more profitable, Norman.

rejoice44
Feb 15th 2013, 11:38 PM
What about the Unitarian in the other thread?

He called himself a Unitarian, but he was far different from the one on the Revised Version committee. He didn't diminish the Deity of Christ. He said Christ was God. The Unitarian on the Revised Version committee said "--for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).

George Vance Smith believed that early Christians mistakenly looked at Jesus as the incarnate word of God, and that the revision committee was correcting that error by removing "God manifested in the flesh".

You are mistakenly charging me with cutting and pasting from KJVO websites, and that is not true.

You are charging me with attacking the bible, when in fact the ones that are attacking the bible are the ones producing a different version every couple years. I believe that I have the inspired word of God, do you believe you have the inspired word of God?

Liquid Tension
Feb 16th 2013, 01:38 AM
I own a KJV bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.
I own a NASB bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.
I own a NIV bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.
I own an ESV bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2013, 01:53 AM
. ---You don't want to talk about Alexandrian readings individually. You want to sweep them away collectively in this post. I addressed in my last post that besides Sinaiticus and Vaticanus there are also many papyri, church fathers and other ancient versions (several languages of which I listed for the 1 John 5:7 passage). There is too much evidence for many (not all, but many) of the Alexandrian readings.---

You want to talk about individual readings, how about John 7:53 thru John 8:11. Look at the hypocrisy. We have to remove a single verse dealing with the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, and a single word in 1 Timothy 3:16 because they are not in the Alexandrian manuscripts, but in John 7:53-8:11 we have twelve verses not found in the Alexandrian manuscripts, and yet every translation contains them. What is the unique difference between what is removed, and what is retained? The removed verses involved the Deity of Christ, the retained verses do not contain the Deity of Christ.

Another hypocrisy is the UBS removing the word God from 1 Timothy 3:16 where it supports the deity of Christ, and then adding the word God to John 1:3 and John 1:10 where the word God actually detracts from the Deity of Christ, and the word God is not found in any Greek manuscript in John 1:3 and John 1:10.

And then look at the Vaticanus 1209 where it omitted the last 12 verses of Mark, and yet left a blank column for those 12 verses. This was the only blank column in the New Testament section. If, as you claim the Vaticanus 1209 is the oldest of the major Alexandrian manuscripts, and it omits these verses while at the same time recognizing their existence, what can we assume? That they assumed someone had added them earlier and they were just making a correction?

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2013, 02:01 AM
I own a KJV bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.
I own a NASB bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.
I own a NIV bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.
I own an ESV bible. I believe that is a translation of the inspired word of God.

That's nice but exactly where is this inspired word of God found, or are we still looking for it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that only the original autographs are the inspired word of God, and then say we have the inspired word of God. Unless your translation came directly from the original autographs you cannot say it is a translation of the inspired word of God. Unless of course you think God was somehow involved.

Liquid Tension
Feb 16th 2013, 02:06 AM
That's nice but exactly where is this inspired word of God found, or are we still looking for it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that only the original autographs are the inspired word of God, and then say we have the inspired word of God. Unless your translation came directly from the original autographs you cannot say it is a translation of the inspired word of God. Unless of course you think God was somehow involved.

Is the KJV translated directly from the original autographs??

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2013, 02:14 AM
Is the KJV translated directly from the original autographs??

No, but in the years when there was no other English translation competing for book sales the people were not debating whether they had the inspired word of God, they just assumed it.

TomH
Feb 16th 2013, 02:34 AM
I believe the Holy Spirit within us (if you're willing to give up your will to Him) will take up any translation you have in front of you, and give you first hand knowledge of the Inspired Word of God.

A mans knowledge is only as good as his teachers.

There are many posters here who desire to be right. I will debate them.

Although I'll probably embarrass him, posters such as LT have only a desire to know.

And I learn from them.

Liquid Tension
Feb 16th 2013, 07:10 AM
No, but in the years when there was no other English translation competing for book sales the people were not debating whether they had the inspired word of God, they just assumed it.

Ok, so how is it that you say you have the inspired word of God, but question if others who use modern versions if they have the inspired word of God? Or is it just assumed?

That being asked, I will back out of this thread because I want to honor Joe's OP and not debate translations. This is bibleforums.org after all.

Liquid Tension
Feb 16th 2013, 07:15 AM
I believe the Holy Spirit within us (if you're willing to give up your will to Him) will take up any translation you have in front of you, and give you first hand knowledge of the Inspired Word of God.

A mans knowledge is only as good as his teachers.

There are many posters here who desire to be right. I will debate them.

Although I'll probably embarrass him, posters such as LT have only a desire to know.

And I learn from them.

No embarassment here mate.

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2013, 01:53 PM
Ok, so how is it that you say you have the inspired word of God, but question if others who use modern versions if they have the inspired word of God? Or is it just assumed?

That being asked, I will back out of this thread because I want to honor Joe's OP and not debate translations. This is bibleforums.org after all.

It was not me that said they didn't have the inspired word of God, they are the ones that said that the inspired word of God is found only in the original autographs. This is not my opinion.

This is bibleforums.org, and not biblesforums.org.

God's word is in all the translations, but when they all start saying opposing things then they all can't be inspired. If translators ever accepted that they had the inspired word of God they would be condemning themselves whenever they changed it, therefore they have to relegate inspiration back to the original autographs alone.

It is really simple. One bible is good, multiple bibles, all having their own identity through verbal gymnastics, is not good. It is not good because it creates debates, something Satan loves. It is a detriment to memorization, something Satan loves. It brings into question, what hath God said? Satan loves it.

Why is there a need for multiple bibles in a single language? Even if you say we have found more accurate older manuscripts what difference does it matter? You need only look at all these new translations to see that they are not following these, "so called", older and better manuscripts if it is going to hurt their sales. These manuscripts do not have the last twelve verses found in the book of Mark, and yet every translation has them in. These manuscripts do not have the twelve verses starting in John 7:53 through John 8:11 and yet every translation has them in. This could only be attributed to the fear of lost book sales. So much for giving you a more accurate translation. So why have so many diverse translations, where, if you try following someone reading from another translation you get lost in the verses?

This is not about the KJB. Diversity is not always good.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 16th 2013, 02:37 PM
In the 4th chapter of Philippians, Paul writes:

Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

The centerpiece of Paul's letter (2:1-14) -- the Christological hymn and the character that it should foster in us -- is Paul's affirmation of Christ as God, and showing how humility of heart, and counting others better than oneself, is the very expression of Jesus heart and mind, and of His divinity. Paul sets this reaffirmation of the kind of mind we should have in the context of his own imprisonment, and the fears of the Philippians. Paul -- from the very start of his discussion of his imprisonment in chapter 1, is rejoicing: rejoicing that the Gospel is going forth, and for the partnership of the Philippians in that proclamation of the Gospel. Rejoicing is a kind of keynote. Conversely Paul tells the Philippians to

Do all things without grumbling and complaining so that you may be blameless and innocent sons of God without rebuke shining like stars in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.


Here in chapter 4, in the same way, Paul is urging Euodias and Synteche not to quarrel: the focus should be on laboring for the Gospel.

That irenic, reconciling emphasis goes together with rejoicing, which Paul again urges upon us in the next verse (verse 4:4, of all things!) The absence of quarreling, the peace Paul commends, naturally go together with moderation, or a forebearing spirit. And they naturally follow from the nearness of the Lord's presence.

How do we cultivate that kind of peaceful and fruitful heart? By not getting hung up on bad things that are happening, but by thinking on things true, honesty, just, pure, lovely, and of good report, virtuous and worthy of praise.


Rather than focusing on conspiracies, and accusations, and imputing evil to people, and getting all worried about that, wouldn't we glorify God and spread the gospel better by talking about Jesus, and letting our talk be wholesome, and emphasizing the goodness of God who in Christ has become man for us?

I praise God, and am thankful for His goodness and power, His humility and mercy, His kindness and care for us. How wonderful it is that we have access to Bibles, commentaries, original language versions, and so much to help us in godliness. How amazing that God became man in Jesus Christ, and has revealed this to us, and is at work transforming our nature, generously, despite our sins, into the likeness of Christ, His only and eternal Son, so that we too may become His children by adoption, and learn to be people of thanks and praise!

TrustGzus
Feb 16th 2013, 03:11 PM
I praise God, and am thankful for His goodness and power, His humility and mercy, His kindness and care for us. How wonderful it is that we have access to Bibles, commentaries, original language versions, and so much to help us in godliness. How amazing that God became man in Jesus Christ, and has revealed this to us, and is at work transforming our nature, generously, despite our sins, into the likeness of Christ, His only and eternal Son, so that we too may become His children by adoption, and learn to be people of thanks and praise!

Two very nice posts in here, Scruff. Thank you kindly. I tried to rep you but alas . . . You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Scruffy Kid again.

Vhayes
Feb 16th 2013, 03:46 PM
Not all that many years ago, a bible was a rare and precious possession. Few people could read one, let alone own one.

People were dependent on the ability as well as the theology of their church leadership to tell them what was said within the pages of the Holy Bible.

Today, people in the Western world can walk into any book store and buy 10 translations and take them all home. Located within the pages of each and every one of those translations is this:
Mark 16
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

And ya know what? Not a single follower of Jesus had ANY translation.

How is it possible that first century Christians could have been saved adequately without a proper translation?

My thoughts on the whole thing? If you put Jesus first, He'll take care of the rest.

TrustGzus
Feb 16th 2013, 11:42 PM
Norman, ultimately this is going nowhere, i.e. to no profit, just as 2 Timothy 2:14 said. I'm going to reply to your last two posts challenging whatever it is your challenging, and then if you want you can have another say. But again, all your attempts appear to be mere striving about words to no profit.
He called himself a Unitarian, but he was far different from the one on the Revised Version committee. He didn't diminish the Deity of Christ. He said Christ was God. The Unitarian on the Revised Version committee said "--for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).

George Vance Smith believed that early Christians mistakenly looked at Jesus as the incarnate word of God, and that the revision committee was correcting that error by removing "God manifested in the flesh".

Norman, what does this info add other than for you to continue arguing? The ERV is not a Unitarian translation. I can easily prove the Trinity with the ERV as I can any other mainstream translation. If Smith's intention was to eliminate the Trinity and deity of Jesus, he failed miserably in the ERV and every major translation that has followed.


You are mistakenly charging me with cutting and pasting from KJVO websites, and that is not true.

Do you own the Smith book and typed what you read from it directly? I just cut-and-pasted your quote from George Vance Smtih. I immediately found two websites that have the quote and even give the source information exactly as you do with just "Smith", the title of the book and the page. They don't document the quote by giving the publisher's name nor the year of the publication which are normal parts of documenting a quote. I guess those sights are cutting-and-pasting from you?

From http://www.wayoflife.org/database/unitarianism.html


for this loss; as indeed IT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT THE N.T. CONTAINS NEITHER PRECEPT NOR EXAMPLE WHICH REALLY SANCTIONS THE RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST” (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).

From http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46643.htm


for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).


You are charging me with attacking the bible, when in fact the ones that are attacking the bible are the ones producing a different version every couple years. I believe that I have the inspired word of God, do you believe you have the inspired word of God?

If attacking means to make a new version every couple years, then by your definition of "attack", the KJV is an attack on the Bible. I'm going to show some dates of English translations prior to the KJV/AV. My source is Dr. D.A. Waite's book Defending the King James Bible. I won't list every translation that he lists, but mostly major ones that people like yourself who are into the translation issue have heard of:



Wycliffe -- 1388
Purvery -- 1388
Coverdale -- 1535
Matthews -- 1537
Great Bible -- 1539
Geneva -- 1560
Bishops -- 1568
Geneva-Tomson-Junius -- 1599
AV -- 1611


So as you can see, using the word attack the way you do, the KJV itself was an attack. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the position you're shooting for. If we use 1604, the date the KJV began to be translated, it's "attack" began only 5 years after the most recent Geneva had been released.

Waite lists 71 English versions prior to the ERV with the AV being number 17 on that list. So the AV was an "attack" on 16 prior versions and then 54 more followed prior to the ERV and that's only counting complete Bibles, not including New Testament versions only.

All that being said, you are using the word attack differently than I. You are using the word for any revision being made to the Bible (thus making the KJV itself an attack on the Geneva Bible as I already pointed out). I am using the word attack as an attempt to undermine people's trust in their Bible. You clearly see new versions as an attack or vile and have for 2-1/2 years attempted to undermine people's faith in them.

Liquid Tension answered your question about inspiration well. Thank you, LT.

Norman, would you answer a question about inspiration? Is the KJV inspired in Revelation 16:5?


You want to talk about individual readings, how about John 7:53 thru John 8:11. Look at the hypocrisy. We have to remove a single verse dealing with the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, and a single word in 1 Timothy 3:16 because they are not in the Alexandrian manuscripts, but in John 7:53-8:11 we have twelve verses not found in the Alexandrian manuscripts, and yet every translation contains them. What is the unique difference between what is removed, and what is retained? The removed verses involved the Deity of Christ, the retained verses do not contain the Deity of Christ.

Hypocrisy is pretending to be something you are not. I am not sure that hypocrisy is the word you're looking for. I see them being very open and honest with the information that's out there, particularly the NKJV. I don't see much profit in talking about John 7:53 - 8:11, but I'll talk about it. If not all of the modern versions, most of them have a note addressing John 7:53 - 8:11. Some of those notes even provide the details about manuscripts having this in a variety of different spots and that it doesn't always fall in after John 7:52. The 2011 NIV has perhaps taken a step closer to removing the text. They not only have a note, but have John 7:53-8:11 in a different font setting and in smaller print.

I also see in your paragraph logical and factual problems. 1 John 5:7 is not a full-blown definition of the Trinity. A Unitarian or modalist could agree to it because 1 John 5:7 doesn't address whether or not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. So in that sense, the KJV doesn't "teach the Trinity" there. There's a factual issue.

Another factual issue is that if we read the entire context of 1 Timothy, it's clear the "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to God. So the deity is not removed. This is were KJV/AV extremism often fails and commits the fallacy of special pleading. The arguments sound scary and impressive if we only read the selected material put in front of our faces by the KJV/AV extremist. But reading the context often relieves the supposed dilemma.

A logical fallacy you commit in that paragraph is circular reasoning. You begin with the conclusion that 1 John 5:7 is "deleted" and that 1 Timothy 3:16 has the word "God" deleted. You start with your KJV/AV/TR and don't ask the questions: What did John really write? What did Paul really write?

If they wrote what the KJV/AV/TR has, then by all means, let that stand. But if they didn't write that, don't add to or change God's words. You've never proven either of those two verses. All you have continually done is assert your presuppositions as fact. That's circular reasoning.



Another hypocrisy is the UBS removing the word God from 1 Timothy 3:16 where it supports the deity of Christ, and then adding the word God to John 1:3 and John 1:10 where the word God actually detracts from the Deity of Christ, and the word God is not found in any Greek manuscript in John 1:3 and John 1:10.

Logical mistake -- circular reasoning again just like your prior paragraph. You assume your conclusion that the USB "added" the word "God" instead of asking "Did John write 'God' or not in these verses?" and then let the evidence speak.

Factual mistake -- I grabbed my copy of the UBS and found that neither John 1:3 nor John 1:10 include theos in either verse.

Here they are from the UBS . . .


John 1:3 (UBS4)
3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
John 1:10 (UBS4)
10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.




And then look at the Vaticanus 1209 where it omitted the last 12 verses of Mark, and yet left a blank column for those 12 verses. This was the only blank column in the New Testament section. If, as you claim the Vaticanus 1209 is the oldest of the major Alexandrian manuscripts, and it omits these verses while at the same time recognizing their existence, what can we assume? That they assumed someone had added them earlier and they were just making a correction?

Let me say first of all, that whatever can be said of Mark 16:9-20, it does not justify your 2-1/2 year assault on people's trust in the newer translations. Let's get that out up front.

Now to address your point. First of all, your fallacy here is special pleading. You have presented one piece of evidence that might support your case and left out all the evidence that counters your view.

Secondly, it's absent from three manuscripts: Vaticanus as you pointed out, and I'll grant with a gap. It's also missing from Sinaiticus and 304. Now while you may think Sinaiticus is a forge, I don't know anyone else who's taking that charge seriously in this discussion (nor anywhere except for a few internet sites).

Thirdly, now while the Vaticanus has a gap, you didn't mention the manuscripts that contain it but contain comments about it's questionable character. So, those are like the Vaticanus in reverse. They have it, but they admit that it is not a certainty that it belongs.

Fourthly, there are a multiplicity of endings in the manuscripts for Mark. Some match the KJV/AV/TR. Some manuscripts have no ending as mentioned in my point 2, some have a shorter ending in the KJV/AV/TR ending. Some have the shorter ending and longing ending combined and one manuscript has an even longer ending with another paragraph between Mark 16:14 and 16:15.

The simplest answer to why all the variety is that Mark probably didn't have an ending and numerous people tried to "fix" it.

Having said all of that, I want to bring it full circle to the point I made earlier that regardless of what we conclude about Mark 16, none of it justifies your 2-1/2 year assault on people's trust in the newer versions.

Quit attacking the Bible. Obey 2 Timothy 2:14. Quit starting threads attacking modern versions or their sources such as the UBS. I'm tired of all of this. I hope you are too. These discussions eat up time and I'm behind on my Bible reading plan. I've got a few chapters to catch up. I'm reading the AV this year, btw. :)

Norman, grace and peace to you.

-SEEKING-
Feb 17th 2013, 11:09 PM
Surely thou jokest.

I joketh noth. And don't call me Shirley. :P

rejoice44
Feb 18th 2013, 01:43 AM
Norman, ultimately this is going nowhere, i.e. to no profit, just as 2 Timothy 2:14 said. I'm going to reply to your last two posts challenging whatever it is your challenging, and then if you want you can have another say. But again, all your attempts appear to be mere striving about words to no profit.

Norman, what does this info add other than for you to continue arguing? The ERV is not a Unitarian translation. I can easily prove the Trinity with the ERV as I can any other mainstream translation. If Smith's intention was to eliminate the Trinity and deity of Jesus, he failed miserably in the ERV and every major translation that has followed.



Do you own the Smith book and typed what you read from it directly? I just cut-and-pasted your quote from George Vance Smtih. I immediately found two websites that have the quote and even give the source information exactly as you do with just "Smith", the title of the book and the page. They don't document the quote by giving the publisher's name nor the year of the publication which are normal parts of documenting a quote. I guess those sights are cutting-and-pasting from you?

From http://www.wayoflife.org/database/unitarianism.html



From http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46643.htm





If attacking means to make a new version every couple years, then by your definition of "attack", the KJV is an attack on the Bible. I'm going to show some dates of English translations prior to the KJV/AV. My source is Dr. D.A. Waite's book Defending the King James Bible. I won't list every translation that he lists, but mostly major ones that people like yourself who are into the translation issue have heard of:



Wycliffe -- 1388
Purvery -- 1388
Coverdale -- 1535
Matthews -- 1537
Great Bible -- 1539
Geneva -- 1560
Bishops -- 1568
Geneva-Tomson-Junius -- 1599
AV -- 1611


So as you can see, using the word attack the way you do, the KJV itself was an attack. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the position you're shooting for. If we use 1604, the date the KJV began to be translated, it's "attack" began only 5 years after the most recent Geneva had been released.

Waite lists 71 English versions prior to the ERV with the AV being number 17 on that list. So the AV was an "attack" on 16 prior versions and then 54 more followed prior to the ERV and that's only counting complete Bibles, not including New Testament versions only.

All that being said, you are using the word attack differently than I. You are using the word for any revision being made to the Bible (thus making the KJV itself an attack on the Geneva Bible as I already pointed out). I am using the word attack as an attempt to undermine people's trust in their Bible. You clearly see new versions as an attack or vile and have for 2-1/2 years attempted to undermine people's faith in them.

Liquid Tension answered your question about inspiration well. Thank you, LT.

Norman, would you answer a question about inspiration? Is the KJV inspired in Revelation 16:5?



Hypocrisy is pretending to be something you are not. I am not sure that hypocrisy is the word you're looking for. I see them being very open and honest with the information that's out there, particularly the NKJV. I don't see much profit in talking about John 7:53 - 8:11, but I'll talk about it. If not all of the modern versions, most of them have a note addressing John 7:53 - 8:11. Some of those notes even provide the details about manuscripts having this in a variety of different spots and that it doesn't always fall in after John 7:52. The 2011 NIV has perhaps taken a step closer to removing the text. They not only have a note, but have John 7:53-8:11 in a different font setting and in smaller print.

I also see in your paragraph logical and factual problems. 1 John 5:7 is not a full-blown definition of the Trinity. A Unitarian or modalist could agree to it because 1 John 5:7 doesn't address whether or not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. So in that sense, the KJV doesn't "teach the Trinity" there. There's a factual issue.

Another factual issue is that if we read the entire context of 1 Timothy, it's clear the "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to God. So the deity is not removed. This is were KJV/AV extremism often fails and commits the fallacy of special pleading. The arguments sound scary and impressive if we only read the selected material put in front of our faces by the KJV/AV extremist. But reading the context often relieves the supposed dilemma.

A logical fallacy you commit in that paragraph is circular reasoning. You begin with the conclusion that 1 John 5:7 is "deleted" and that 1 Timothy 3:16 has the word "God" deleted. You start with your KJV/AV/TR and don't ask the questions: What did John really write? What did Paul really write?

If they wrote what the KJV/AV/TR has, then by all means, let that stand. But if they didn't write that, don't add to or change God's words. You've never proven either of those two verses. All you have continually done is assert your presuppositions as fact. That's circular reasoning.




Logical mistake -- circular reasoning again just like your prior paragraph. You assume your conclusion that the USB "added" the word "God" instead of asking "Did John write 'God' or not in these verses?" and then let the evidence speak.

Factual mistake -- I grabbed my copy of the UBS and found that neither John 1:3 nor John 1:10 include theos in either verse.

Here they are from the UBS . . .






Let me say first of all, that whatever can be said of Mark 16:9-20, it does not justify your 2-1/2 year assault on people's trust in the newer translations. Let's get that out up front.

Now to address your point. First of all, your fallacy here is special pleading. You have presented one piece of evidence that might support your case and left out all the evidence that counters your view.

Secondly, it's absent from three manuscripts: Vaticanus as you pointed out, and I'll grant with a gap. It's also missing from Sinaiticus and 304. Now while you may think Sinaiticus is a forge, I don't know anyone else who's taking that charge seriously in this discussion (nor anywhere except for a few internet sites).

Thirdly, now while the Vaticanus has a gap, you didn't mention the manuscripts that contain it but contain comments about it's questionable character. So, those are like the Vaticanus in reverse. They have it, but they admit that it is not a certainty that it belongs.

Fourthly, there are a multiplicity of endings in the manuscripts for Mark. Some match the KJV/AV/TR. Some manuscripts have no ending as mentioned in my point 2, some have a shorter ending in the KJV/AV/TR ending. Some have the shorter ending and longing ending combined and one manuscript has an even longer ending with another paragraph between Mark 16:14 and 16:15.

The simplest answer to why all the variety is that Mark probably didn't have an ending and numerous people tried to "fix" it.

Having said all of that, I want to bring it full circle to the point I made earlier that regardless of what we conclude about Mark 16, none of it justifies your 2-1/2 year assault on people's trust in the newer versions.

Quit attacking the Bible. Obey 2 Timothy 2:14. Quit starting threads attacking modern versions or their sources such as the UBS. I'm tired of all of this. I hope you are too. These discussions eat up time and I'm behind on my Bible reading plan. I've got a few chapters to catch up. I'm reading the AV this year, btw. :)

Norman, grace and peace to you.

Joe, I thought you were serious about wanting to stop debating translations, and then you go and post all of this. Read Online (http://archive.org/stream/textsmarginsofre00smit) You could order this book for yourself if you like.

TrustGzus
Feb 18th 2013, 12:56 PM
Norman,

Thank you for the link.

Now, to your point. I'm left in a sort of dilemma. If I answer all your points. You respond like this . . .


Joe, I thought you were serious about wanting to stop debating translations, and then you go and post all of this.

However, in the not too distant past, when I tired of answering things I've answered before and I don't answer every point you bring up, I get replies like this . . .


Joe you have been doing an excellent job of dodging, ducking, dancing, or should I say obfuscating, around the questions pertaining to the Alexandrian manuscripts. Questions such as what is their history, and the history of the men that produced them. The questions of why is there two 1 Chronicles and other such questions.

I understand your avoidance of these questions, since many of the questions are unanswerable.

So should I not answer you in which case you accuse me of ducking and declare a victory for your view OR do I answer everything to avoid that charge but then be the recipient of your current charge?

I am serious about not wanting all this debate over translations. However, it means those who take shots at new versions and/or their sources need to stop. As long as shots are being taken at new versions or their sources, then the other side needs to be heard and newer versions defended.

Your newest attempt at this was a thread you started just this month. If you stop initiating threads against new versions and/or their sources, then I can stop countering.

Grace & peace to you.

Liquid Tension
Feb 18th 2013, 02:11 PM
I joketh noth. And don't call me Shirley. :P

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Liquid Tension
Feb 18th 2013, 02:12 PM
Norman,

Thank you for the link.

Now, to your point. I'm left in a sort of dilemma. If I answer all your points. You respond like this . . .



However, in the not too distant past, when I tired of answering things I've answered before and I don't answer every point you bring up, I get replies like this . . .



So should I not answer you in which case you accuse me of ducking and declare a victory for your view OR do I answer everything to avoid that charge but then be the recipient of your current charge?

I am serious about not wanting all this debate over translations. However, it means those who take shots at new versions and/or their sources need to stop. As long as shots are being taken at new versions or their sources, then the other side needs to be heard and newer versions defended.

Your newest attempt at this was a thread you started just this month. If you stop initiating threads against new versions and/or their sources, then I can stop countering.

Grace & peace to you.

Word.

/thread

Nick
Feb 19th 2013, 12:36 AM
I'm obviously late to the party here but let's say the "original" manuscripts were produced inerrant, would they be considered "inerrant" by the author who wrote it? Bible copies do have textual variations. Are the translations (copies) God-inspried or the original documents? Are the copies 100% textually pure? Some suggest it's almost 99% accurate. Then again, all we have are ancient copies, and not the original manuscripts. The good news is the copies more or less agree with each other minus that 1-2%.

rejoice44
Feb 19th 2013, 05:14 PM
--I also see in your paragraph logical and factual problems. 1 John 5:7 is not a full-blown definition of the Trinity. A Unitarian or modalist could agree to it because 1 John 5:7 doesn't address whether or not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. So in that sense, the KJV doesn't "teach the Trinity" there. There's a factual issue.

Another factual issue is that if we read the entire context of 1 Timothy, it's clear the "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to God. So the deity is not removed. This is were KJV/AV extremism often fails and commits the fallacy of special pleading. The arguments sound scary and impressive if we only read the selected material put in front of our faces by the KJV/AV extremist. But reading the context often relieves the supposed dilemma.--

A Unitarian on the Revised Version completely disagrees with your statement. The following are his words--

"The Revison, it will be observed, has achieved the distinction of adding a new verse to the Bible--that is to say, it has taken the latter part of the Authorised verse 6, and made it count as Revised verse 7. To balance this, the Authorised verse 7 is quietly dropped out of the text, not a word being said about it. Such is the ignominious end of the famous verse--the only verse in the Bible in which the doctrine of the Trinity was stated, and was no doubt intended to be stated." From Texts and Margins of The Revised New Testament Briefly Reviewed. Page 44. Presented by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881.

To read the entire book online click the following-- Read Online (http://archive.org/stream/textsmarginsofre00smit)

TrustGzus
Feb 19th 2013, 05:54 PM
A Unitarian on the Revised Version completely disagrees with your statement. The following are his words--

"The Revison, it will be observed, has achieved the distinction of adding a new verse to the Bible--that is to say, it has taken the latter part of the Authorised verse 6, and made it count as Revised verse 7. To balance this, the Authorised verse 7 is quietly dropped out of the text, not a word being said about it. Such is the ignominious end of the famous verse--the only verse in the Bible in which the doctrine of the Trinity was stated, and was no doubt intended to be stated." From Texts and Margins of The Revised New Testament Briefly Reviewed. Page 44. Presented by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881.

To read the entire book online click the following-- Read Online (http://archive.org/stream/textsmarginsofre00smit)

This is fruitless. You don't appear to be interested peaceful co-existence and agreeing to disagree. You continue to argue. Norman, God bless you.

rejoice44
Feb 20th 2013, 05:03 PM
[QUOTE]Logical mistake -- circular reasoning again just like your prior paragraph. You assume your conclusion that the USB "added" the word "God" instead of asking "Did John write 'God' or not in these verses?" and then let the evidence speak.

Logical mistake--assuming that I was referring to the UBS Greek text, when in fact it was the UBS English text that was being referenced.



Factual mistake -- I grabbed my copy of the UBS and found that neither John 1:3 nor John 1:10 include theos in either verse.

Factual mistake--The English text of the UBS does have "God" in it in John 1:3 and John 1:10.


In reference to attacking bible traslations--since when is presenting factual evidence an attack? This is the equivalent of saying we shouldn't mention homosexuality as a sin. I realize that many on this forum use a variety of translations and would be offended if evidence was given that their translations had some foundational problems, but isn't it better to be aware of them? God has produced fruit through these translations in spite of their foundation problems that exist within them. Those problems are miniscule in numbers compared to the overall text. The beginning of cancer within you often goes unnoticed, but has devastating effects in the long run.

As evidenced by G. Vance Smith's book there was an unbelief in the Deity of Christ that existed in the translation committee of the ESV. We can then go the ASV and see that it had its share of Unitarians on the editorial board. Joseph Thayer was chairman of the New Testament Committee of the ASV. He was a Unitarian who had a professorship at Harvard. Then there was Ezra Abbot, another Unitarian, and also a Harvard theology professor who was on the ASV translation committee. Harvard had been a hotbed for Unitarianism starting in 1805 when Henry Ware became head of the theology department.

The majority of changes involved the Deity of Christ and wasn't merely about finding some old questionable manuscripts. As an example, there was more evidence for leaving "God manifested in the Flesh" in the text, as the Codex Alexandrinus had it in according to G. Vance Smith. It was not the case for the the last twelve verses of Mark, which none of the main Alexandrian had in, and yet they allowed those twelve verses to stand. It was all about the Deity of Christ.

teddyv
Feb 20th 2013, 05:34 PM
Fortunately perhaps, the bulk of Christianity these days are not using English translations of the Bible.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 12:14 AM
Fortunately perhaps, the bulk of Christianity these days are not using English translations of the Bible.

It is only the cynic who claims “to speak the truth” at all times and in all places to all men in the same way, but who, in fact, displays nothing but a lifeless image of the truth… He dons the halo of the fanatical devotee of truth who can make no allowance for human weaknesses; but, in fact, he is destroying the living truth between men. He wounds shame, desecrates mystery, breaks confidence, betrays the community in which he lives, and laughs arrogantly at the devastation he has wrought and at the human weakness which “cannot bear the truth”. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in Ethics.

One would almost think Bonfoeffer was talking about John the Baptist, don't you think?

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 01:34 AM
Would it be wrong to criticize Joseph Smith's translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' translation, or a new translation that denies Jesus was resurrected? Is it wrong to criticize anything professed Christians do or say? Is the act of criticism itself unchristian?

If you believe something is false, you should say so, but at the right time and place. If it's a dispute between Christians, you shouldn't be yelling it to the heathens.

TrustGzus
Feb 21st 2013, 03:54 AM
Would it be wrong to criticize Joseph Smith's translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' translation, or a new translation that denies Jesus was resurrected? Is it wrong to criticize anything professed Christians do or say? Is the act of criticism itself unchristian?

Sheth, I agree with you completely about Joseph Smith's translation and the New World Translation. But comparing those to new versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB (for some examples) is comparing apples-and-oranges. The NWT deliberately removes every single reference to the deity of Jesus. KJV extremists claim new versions such as the NASB and NIV remove the deity of Jesus. But anyone who reads those Bibles line by line knows that is simply not true. The NWT is deliberately manipulated against all manuscript evidence in favor of doctrinal bias. New versions such as the NASB and NIV read different based on manuscripts that differ from the handful of manuscripts used to translate the KJV. The differences between the KJV and modern versions are minor. KJV extremists employ the logical fallacy of special pleading to make it sound worse than it is. The differences between the NWT and the KJV/modern versions is the difference of worshiping a different god by turning the creator into the created.


If you believe something is false, you should say so, but at the right time and place. If it's a dispute between Christians, you shouldn't be yelling it to the heathens.

Well said.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 04:32 AM
The NWT deliberately removes every single reference to the deity of Jesus. KJV extremists claim new versions such as the NASB and NIV remove the deity of Jesus. But anyone who reads those Bibles line by line knows that is simply not true.

As you know, your point about the modern translations removing the deity of Christ is lost on KJV-only people. Remove it from one verse and you might as well have removed it from the whole Bible, in their thinking. In my thinking, it's more likely copyists added to the manuscripts that the KJV is based on for the same reason all translations (including the KJV) add some words, to clarify the text. In doing so, they unwittingly created problems down the road.

For example, 1 Timothy 3:16, The KJV reads "God" while the NIV reads "He". I think someone alone the line decided to clarify who "He" is by changing "He" to "God." It has nothing to do with the older manuscripts trying to deny the deity of Christ by changing "God" to "He." There are plenty of other verses in the NIV that show Jesus to be God (and, at which point in Church history was it fashionable to deny the deity of Christ?)

All translations reflect the bias of their translators. And, while you might disagree, I think some popular modern translations are very guilty of letting their bias influence their translation decisions more than they should have allowed. Denying the deity of Christ is not an example. But, the reasoning of the KJV-only people is not wholly invalid. There are disputes over even major doctrines and a few small changes can easily shift which way someone perceives the Bible to teach.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:56 AM
Just wondering....is it OK to read The Message and get fed through the paraphrased bible? Sometimes I read the Action Bible and get fed through that. Is that wrong? Other times, dare I say, I read the NIV version for women. Oops, I said it.

TrustGzus
Feb 21st 2013, 05:21 AM
Just wondering....is it OK to read The Message and get fed through the paraphrased bible? Sometimes I read the Action Bible and get fed through that. Is that wrong? Other times, dare I say, I read the NIV version for women. Oops, I said it.

Nick, my opinion . . . I see no problem with reading The Message. I read a different translation every year. I read it a few years back. I wouldn't encourage anyone to stay with only that. My advice for a regular Bible and study choice is a committee based translation such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV for examples. The KJV had the least diverse committee out of those mentioned (I don't know if anyone wasn't an Anglican on that committee, but it's still a committee which is better than a one man job). I have no idea what the Action Bible is without googling.

TrustGzus
Feb 21st 2013, 05:53 AM
As you know, your point about the modern translations removing the deity of Christ is lost on KJV-only people. Remove it from one verse and you might as well have removed it from the whole Bible, in their thinking. In my thinking, it's more likely copyists added to the manuscripts that the KJV is based on for the same reason all translations (including the KJV) add some words, to clarify the text. In doing so, they unwittingly created problems down the road.

For example, 1 Timothy 3:16, The KJV reads "God" while the NIV reads "He". I think someone alone the line decided to clarify who "He" is by changing "He" to "God." It has nothing to do with the older manuscripts trying to deny the deity of Christ by changing "God" to "He." There are plenty of other verses in the NIV that show Jesus to be God (and, at which point in Church history was it fashionable to deny the deity of Christ?)

I agree with your generalized overview here. Each verse should be looked at individually, but I agree with your general thought.


All translations reflect the bias of their translators. And, while you might disagree, I think some popular modern translations are very guilty of letting their bias influence their translation decisions more than they should have allowed. Denying the deity of Christ is not an example. But, the reasoning of the KJV-only people is not wholly invalid. There are disputes over even major doctrines and a few small changes can easily shift which way someone perceives the Bible to teach.

I think it's highly unlikely for a translator to translate with no bias. We might disagree a little here. You state some popular modern translations are very guilty of letting their bias influence the translation. I think that's a bit strong. I'd be curious if you think you overstated or if you would provide examples. A verse here or there in my mind wouldn't suffice. It would have to be much more present so as to prevent an opposing view to support their case. The NWT is the greatest example. I don't know a close second.

Most of the committees have a group of theologians across the bandwidth of theological views. You sound like you probably are aware of this. And if the committee isn't that way, the end users are. A good example is the ESV appears to have Reformed favor. It's translators have a theological bent that way. Reformed theologians appear to heavily favor it. Yet, Dr. Norman Geisler, who is very anti-Calvinism, has taken the ESV as his preferred translation of choice.

It seems to me the interpreter can find their view in almost any translation. In fact, one objection from KJVO people at this sight has been all the denominations that we have now and they try to blame that on the new versions. I've pointed out that most of those denominations existed before 1881. So, perhaps the KJV should be blamed. I jest of course. But for just about every theological viewpoint under the sun, I can find someone who uses the KJV for their view. I haven't seen new versions pragmatically be any different.

Anyway, I hope you read some of the beginning of this thread at least to see where I am coming from. I don't care if people read a KJV or a modern version. I would simply like to see people read the Bible cover-to-cover and in context and stop coming after versions that aren't their favorite which is a mostly one-sided problem. There is a good and proper way to discuss differences and problems. The KJVO/TRO approach in that is so common at these forums is not that way and is in most cases pseudo-intellectual, illogical and fideistic once confronted by facts.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 02:09 PM
--All translations reflect the bias of their translators. And, while you might disagree, I think some popular modern translations are very guilty of letting their bias influence their translation decisions more than they should have allowed. Denying the deity of Christ is not an example. But, the reasoning of the KJV-only people is not wholly invalid. There are disputes over even major doctrines and a few small changes can easily shift which way someone perceives the Bible to teach.

Sheth greetings.

Objection is taken with your statement, "Denying the Deity of Christ is not an example".

One only has to take a look at the statement of one of the translators of the Revised Version, written in a book in 1881. "At all events, it will be seen that the changes which have been introduced in the revised version have in several conspicuous instances, an important bearing upon theological doctrine, as usually derived from the New Testament. It is the design of the present Tract to point out some of these instances, and to offer a few remarks in elucidation of their theological import." Introduction page 6---------Read Online (http://archive.org/stream/textsmarginsofre00smit) -----------Conclusion page 45. "Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view;--in other words, that the great doctrines of popular theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the revision. How far this assertion is correct, the careful reader of the foregoing pages will be able to judge for himself."

This translator makes the claim throughout this book that they translation committee was successful in changing doctrine. (1) The doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity of the Godhead.

He gives example after example in his book and a few examples will be examined here.

1. Page 14. "Matthew 28:18 'Jesus - - -spake unto them saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.' ". The revisionists have changed "power" to "authority". The translator goes on to explain the reasoning behind it. His reasoning is consistency in the use of the word. The problem with this is that none of the translations are consistent with the Greek word being used. Authority is the right to do something, and power is the ability to carry that "right" out. They had the option to decide if the meaning was "the right" or "the ablility". Ten times the NASB applied "power" to the meaning of the Greek word, but never when it was applied to Jesus. They were denying the power of Jesus.

2. Page 14. Having to do with changing Master to teacher. In the English, the chief teacher is the Head Master. The new translations chose to deny Christ the title of chief teacher. According to this translator, throughout the book it is all about recognizing that Christ was not to be worshiped.

Another similar example of this, though maybe not mentioned by this translator is in Acts 3:13 and 3:16. The word son was changed to servant. This was not demanded by the Greek as we find the Greek word was translated son in John 4:51 by most translations. It was also translated children, maiden, girl, boy. So you see there was no need to change from Son to servant. That it was a change due to bias against the Deity of Christ becomes obvious in the the words of the translator.

3. On Page 35 he alludes to Philippians 2:5-7 noting the change made. What is that change? It is changing Christ from being equal to God, to not being able to be equal with God. This translator scored again in being able to correct the church on who Jesus really was. On Page 38 the translator states that the phrase "in the form of God" in Philippians 2:6 would have been better rendered "in the form of a god". On the same page he makes this amazing statement---"The turn which the popular theology gives to the passage in supposing it to mean that God, incarnate in Jesus, came down from heaven, and laid his divine majesty aside, and humbled himself to die, is simply incredible, and almost beyond the pale of rational discussion---."

There are many other passages which this translator eludes to, which for him were triumphs in correcting the wrongs, in regards to the Deity of Christ as found in the Authorized Version.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 03:10 PM
1. Page 14. "Matthew 28:18 'Jesus - - -spake unto them saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.' ". The revisionists have changed "power" to "authority". The translator goes on to explain the reasoning behind it. His reasoning is consistency in the use of the word. The problem with this is that none of the translations are consistent with the Greek word being used. Authority is the right to do something, and power is the ability to carry that "right" out. They had the option to decide if the meaning was "the right" or "the ablility". Ten times the NASB applied "power" to the meaning of the Greek word, but never when it was applied to Jesus. They were denying the power of Jesus.

That argument is a non-starter. Even KJV translates the word in question to "authority" about 30 times so how can you say this isn't consistent with the Greek word without condemning the KJV? Yes, there's a distinction between "power" and "authority", but so what? Are you denying that Jesus has authority? (See, two can play at that game.) The NASB does say Jesus has "power", but the NASB uses this translation with another Greek word. There's no question that Jesus has power, even in the NASB.


2. Page 14. Having to do with changing Master to teacher. In the English, the chief teacher is the Head Master. The new translations chose to deny Christ the title of chief teacher. According to this translator, throughout the book it is all about recognizing that Christ was not to be worshiped.

The KJV translates the word in question to "teacher" a number of times, so how can you object the NASB translation without also condemning the KJV? And, the NASB also uses "master" in reference to Jesus, but when another Greek word is used. So, what's the complaint? There's no question that Jesus is Master, even in the NASB. But, the KJV has enemies of Jesus calling Jesus "master", that makes no sense.

You're not complaining about the NASB changing who Jesus is. You're complaining about the NASB not making the same translation choices in the same verses as the KJV, without any regard to which choice is actually better.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 03:46 PM
That argument is a non-starter. Even KJV translates the word in question to "authority" about 30 times so how can you say this isn't consistent with the Greek word without condemning the KJV? Yes, there's a distinction between "power" and "authority", but so what? Are you denying that Jesus has authority? (See, two can play at that game.) The NASB does say Jesus has "power", but the NASB uses this translation with another Greek word. There's no question that Jesus has power, even in the NASB.

You are not following this at all. There is no question that the Greek word can be translated authority. The same Greek word can also be translated power, as shown by the ten times the NASB chose to translate it as such. The problem is that the new translations chose to change the translation from the former translation, which was from power, to authority, when it applied to Jesus. They did not do this in every case when it didn't apply to Jesus. Which is greater to have the authority, or to have the power? The Unitarians always attempt to diminish the Deity of Christ in a downward spiral. They didn't have to change this word, but they wanted to, as demonstrated by the fact that they did.


The KJV translates the word in question to "teacher" a number of times, so how can you object the NASB translation without also condemning the KJV? And, the NASB also uses "master" in reference to Jesus, but when another Greek word is used. So, what's the complaint? There's no question that Jesus is Master, even in the NASB. But, the KJV has enemies of Jesus calling Jesus "master", that makes no sense.

Words in the Greek that have only a single English word representing it are in the minority. The fact that the NASB would translate this word only as teacher could well be the influence of the Unitarians. The chief teacher of the school is known as the Head Master, so surely Jesus was considered the chief teacher by his disciples. The term Master would not be inconsistent.


You're not complaining about the NASB changing who Jesus is. You're complaining about the NASB not making the same translation choices in the same verses as the KJV, without any regard to which choice is actually better.

Not true at all, it is just that their choices are consistently on the side of the Unitarian.

You have not replied in regard to Philippians 2:6.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 04:18 PM
The Unitarians always attempt to diminish the Deity of Christ in a downward spiral. They didn't have to change this word, but they wanted to, as demonstrated by the fact that they did.

The NASB might not have the word "Christ" in front of "Jesus" as many times as the KJV does, but it still says Jesus is Christ many times. The Bible does not support Unitarian religion. Unitarians don't believe the Bible -- I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm accepting their confession.


3. On Page 35 he alludes to Philippians 2:5-7 noting the change made. What is that change? It is changing Christ from being equal to God, to not being able to be equal with God. This translator scored again in being able to correct the church on who Jesus really was. On Page 38 the translator states that the phrase "in the form of God" in Philippians 2:6 would have been better rendered "in the form of a god". On the same page he makes this amazing statement---"The turn which the popular theology gives to the passage in supposing it to mean that God, incarnate in Jesus, came down from heaven, and laid his divine majesty aside, and humbled himself to die, is simply incredible, and almost beyond the pale of rational discussion---."

The NASB does not say Jesus was unable to be equal with God. It says Jesus was equal to God. The NASB does not say Jesus was in the form of a god. It says, as does the KJV, that Jesus was in the form of God. The NASB is superior to the KJV because it uses the word "grasped" instead of "robbery", a clearer word to convey what the passage says.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 05:08 PM
The NASB might not have the word "Christ" in front of "Jesus" as many times as the KJV does, but it still says Jesus is Christ many times. The Bible does not support Unitarian religion. Unitarians don't believe the Bible -- I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm accepting their confession.

The objective was not to attack the NASB, but rather show how the translations followed the work of the Revised Version committee and a George Vance Smith in particular. The NASB is easier to examine than some other translations and was the reason for it being picked. Have you followed this link-----Read Online (http://archive.org/stream/textsmarginsofre00smit)-----and read the words of the translator?


The NASB does not say Jesus was unable to be equal with God. It says Jesus was equal to God. The NASB does not say Jesus was in the form of a god. It says, as does the KJV, that Jesus was in the form of God. The NASB is superior to the KJV because it uses the word "grasped" instead of "robbery", a clearer word to convey what the passage says.

Rather than discussing what translation is superior, why not just look at the history, to see what happened? Would you agree that the NASB, in Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus could not grasp equality with God?

TrustGzus
Feb 21st 2013, 05:25 PM
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/beating-head-against-the-wall.gif

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 05:46 PM
Would you agree that the NASB, in Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus could not grasp equality with God?

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Huh?

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 06:05 PM
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Huh?

What does "Did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," mean?

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 06:07 PM
Exactly what it says. Jesus was willing to condescend to be human, he did not fight for his rightful place and hold tightly to his position of Deity in equality with God the Father, but sacrificed and emptied himself to be our servant, even one that would die for us.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 06:13 PM
Exactly what it says. Jesus was willing to condescend to be human, he did not fight for his rightful place and hold tightly to his position of Deity in equality with God the Father, but sacrificed and emptied himself to be our servant, even one that would die for us.

Ok, how does that fit in with the word but? "Did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." The but indicates that there needs to be a change in direction, but there is none.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 06:14 PM
What does "Did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," mean?

You are joking, right?

Jesus did not look upon equality with God as a position He was unwilling to let go of.

Even if you have trouble with verse 6, verse 7 makes it abundantly clear - emptied Himself.

Are you seriously going to tell me you think THIS is more easily understood?
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 06:18 PM
You are joking, right?

Jesus did not look upon equality with God as a position He was unwilling to let go of.

Even if you have trouble with verse 6, verse 7 makes it abundantly clear - emptied Himself.

Are you seriously going to tell me you think THIS is more easily understood?
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

I will ask you as well, why is there a but when there is no change?

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 06:21 PM
Ok, how does that fit in with the word but? "Did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." The but indicates that there needs to be a change in direction, but there is none.

What? "But" doesn't mean a change in direction. It also connotes a comparison.

DID NOT FIGHT FOR HONOR, instead, chose to be servant. A comparison between what he had a right to but did not hold onto and his choice to become a servant.

That is pretty simple.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 06:24 PM
I don't know what you are asking exactly.

"but" is a conjunction. It joins the two thoughts together. "And" cannot be used - "but" is the only word that makes sense because it shows one idea from opposite perspectives.

i do not have to go to the store because I'm Queen of the House BUT I will because I need half and half.

It's a silly sentence but I think it demonstrates my point.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 07:29 PM
The objective was not to attack the NASB, but rather show how the translations followed the work of the Revised Version committee and a George Vance Smith in particular.

From what I've gleaned: GV Smith was dead long before the NASB was produced. Smith was one of thirty translators for the Revised Version. It's perfectly reasonable to have a few old school Unitarians on board to help keep the others keen. Smith's influence on the NASB would have been most minimal.

It's well known that the KJV is based on a Greek text produced by a humanist. So, as usual, supporters of the KJV are throwing rocks from their glass house.


Rather than discussing what translation is superior, why not just look at the history, to see what happened? Would you agree that the NASB, in Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus could not grasp equality with God?

No, the NASB does not say that Jesus could not grasp equality with God! Jesus "existed in the form of God, [but] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." "In the form of God", the words also of the KJV, equates Jesus with God. That alone shuts down your argument.

Jesus didn't regard that equality with God (in form) was something had to hold on to. By His choice, He let go of equality with God in form and took human form.

The KJV, to modern people, is nonsensical. Jesus regarded it "not robbery to be equal with God" so He dumped the form of God for the form of a man?? The KJV intends to say the same as the NASB, it's just not as clear. Jesus regarded it "not [as something to be held onto by force] to be equal with God."

Liquid Tension
Feb 21st 2013, 09:15 PM
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/beating-head-against-the-wall.gif

I see what you did there. :lol:

TrustGzus
Feb 21st 2013, 10:03 PM
I see what you did there. :lol:

It was great. I had to borrow it. I think yours got misinterpreted in the other thread.

Liquid Tension
Feb 21st 2013, 10:08 PM
It was great. I had to borrow it. I think yours got misinterpreted in the other thread.

Yep, it sure did.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 11:21 PM
I don't know what you are asking exactly.

"but" is a conjunction. It joins the two thoughts together. "And" cannot be used - "but" is the only word that makes sense because it shows one idea from opposite perspectives.

i do not have to go to the store because I'm Queen of the House BUT I will because I need half and half.

It's a silly sentence but I think it demonstrates my point.

It is a very good sentence for demonstration. My question for you is what are the opposite perspectives in Philippians 2:6 for which the conjuntion "but" connects?

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 11:23 PM
Christ was equal to God in heaven

Christ gave up the right to Godhood to become a man.

rejoice44
Feb 21st 2013, 11:53 PM
Christ was equal to God in heaven

Christ gave up the right to Godhood to become a man.

Here is the problem with that statement. "But" does not connect those two thoughts as presented in the NASB. The two thoughts the "but" connects are--

(a) did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

(b) but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of man.


You see there is no contrasting thoughts here. "Although he existed in the form of God" is a dependent clause connected by its own conjunction "although". The rules say that the conjunction can go in front of the clause

This is the problem when you go about changing the reading, the grammar gets messed up.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 22nd 2013, 12:14 AM
Preliminary discussion: recapping the current dispute about the translation of Phil. 2 (the Christological hymn).

Rejoice44, as I understand it, seeks to argue that the translation of Philippians 2:6-7 in the RSV and NASB denies the deity of Christ. He seems to think that the clauses "He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men" move away from confessing the Deity of Christ. He seems to have two objections (1) translating "ouk harpagmon" as "not ... a thing to be grasped" rather than "not robbery"; and (2) the "but" ("alla") between "a thing to be grasped" and "emptied himself"


Would you agree that the NASB, in Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus could not grasp equality with God?



Would you agree that the NASB, in Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus could not grasp equality with God?6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Huh?



6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Huh?What does "Did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," mean?


Exactly what it says. Jesus was willing to condescend to be human, he did not fight for his rightful place and hold tightly to his position of Deity in equality with God the Father, but sacrificed and emptied himself to be our servant, even one that would die for us.



Exactly what it says. Jesus was willing to condescend to be human, he did not fight for his rightful place and hold tightly to his position of Deity in equality with God the Father, but sacrificed and emptied himself to be our servant, even one that would die for us.Ok, how does that fit in with the word but? "Did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." The but indicates that there needs to be a change in direction, but there is none.

I mainly aim to answer rejoice44's question in post #74 about "How does that fit in with the word 'but'?" However, I also want to indicate the sense of the passage as a whole.

The greek word for "but" (alla, or all') appears in both major Greek rescensions (The TR, which rejoice44 thinks is right, and the more recent versions of the greek text). The KJV translators, like others, translate that word as "but", just as more recent translations do. So rejoice44's objection must be to the flow of thought between v. 6 and v. 7 with a "but" in-between (at the start of v. 7).

Scruffy Kid
Feb 22nd 2013, 01:10 AM
The Christological hymn strongly affirms the Deity of Christ: it says that Christ Jesus "was in the form of God" or "was in very nature God"
2:6a ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.
It again affirms Christ's Deity when it says "he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" OR "he did not think it robbery to be equal to God"
2:6b οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ.
It immediately then contrasts grasping at being God with
emptying Himself and taking the form of a servant. "But emptied himself taking the form of a servant"
2:7a ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών.

The whole flow of the Christological Hymn (Phil 2:5-11) and also its surrounding context (Phil 2:1-16 ff.) is concerned with humbling oneself; and with this as the outworking of compassion, love, and mercy (2:1). The counsel of 2:1-4 is to "count others better than oneself" (2:3b) and not think of oneself more highly than one ought; and again to consider the welfare of others, and not just one's own concerns. (2:4) It is in this context that Paul presents Jesus as an example. Jesus was Himself, personally God; but rather than holding onto His God-ness He emptied himself. The contrast here is (A) between ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ("existed in the form of God", or "was in very nature God") (2:6a) and "(B) ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν ("but emptied Himself") (2:7a) and (C) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ("he took to himself being a slave") (2:7b). Through this "God ... highly-exalted Him" (2:9a), and gave him "the Name above every name" (2:9b), thus making Christ Jesus Lord of all (2:10-11).

Jesus' self-humbling is the model for the believer, who ought to behave humbly. Jesus was "obedient unto death" (2:8), and the believer ought to obey the Gospel message that was given to him (2:12). Through all this God raised Jesus and glorified Him (2:9-11), and the believer also can look forward to God's lifting him up and glorifying him.

Just how humbly did Jesus behave? Fully and unimaginably so. He had everything: He, Himself, was God. (We get this both from ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, "subsisting in the form of God" and also from οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ -- "did not consider being equal to God a matter for grasping") The eternal Word and Son of God was indeed God in very nature (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, 2:5a). His equality with God (2:6b τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ "the being-equal-with-God) was not something He had to grasp at. YET DESPITE THIS or else BECAUSE OF THIS ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν -- "He emptied Himself" (2:7a). Being in the form of God, he took the opposite position to that: He took upon Himself exactly the opposite position, or life: that of a slave, a servant. He left the highest place (being God) in order to take the lowest place (being a slave, a servant). The immense contrast shows His immense humility and confidence in God. (And, confidence AS God.)


For some reason, which I have failed to understand, rejoice44 wants to render "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (RSV) or "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (NASB) as "could not grasp equality with God" (post #69) That is it appears that the RSV and NASB rendering is understood by rejoice44 as saying that Christ Jesus was unable to be equal with God. But there is no such modal verb in there -- no "can" nor "could" -- no indication that it is about possibility or impossibiity. That is the very opposite of what is said. Rather the point is that Christ Jesus was, eternally, in His very nature God. He was God (and is and ever shall be!) But even though He was God, He was willing to take the very lowest place rather than clinging to His position as God. OR Just exactly because He was God, He was willing to take the very lowest place rather than clinging to His position as God. It's not that Jesus could not be equal to God: He already was God, for Pete sake. Rather it is that, being God, Jesus did not shy away from also taking the very lowest place, as a slave, as a criminal, as one condemned to death (a death of shame and pain). This is, the Christological Hymn is telling us, the very expression of His greatness and glory, the very outworking in human circumstances of the Love of God, that is, of Jesus' God-ness, Jesus being fully God.

Of course there is a "but". He was indeed God, but He was willing to give that up (empty Himself). He was indeed God, but he also took the very opposite nature to his own: a servant, a slave, rather than Ruler-of-all. Despite being God, he was willing to be a slave, a servant, a crucified criminal.

Along with the "despite" there is simultaneously a "because". It's His being-God which made Him want to, and able to, retain His very being and person while utterly emptying himself -- operating as a man rather than as God, a baby without a home learning human basics, a man rejected by his people, one condemned as a criminal, one tortured to death, one from whom God turns His face away. Only God could be that brave, that humble. Thus it's a "because He was God" as well as an "although He was God" (or, "despite being God").

The utter contrast is there, and the sameness, or identicalness, is there because the ability to (as Wesley put it) be one who "emptied Himself of all but love" is the very mark of His being truly God.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 22nd 2013, 01:12 AM
The self-humbling of the Christological Hymn and the structure of Paul's situation and letter

It should also be noted that the themes of the Christological Hymn -- self-humbling, rejoicing in God's exaltation of the humble, the willingness to come to the lowest level as the expression of love, the vindication of God and His Gospel and His Kingdom through this voluntary self-humbling -- are present not only in the Hymn itself and its immediate context, but in the letter and the structure of the letter as a whole.

Paul himself is facing death as a criminal. Is he downcast about it? No, he rejoices, because through this the Gospel is advanced.
Paul also rejoices because if he does die, he goes to be with the Lord -- which is far better than life on earth.
Does Paul then want what is most pleasant for himself (die and be with Jesus)? No, he'd rather stay behind and help the Philippians!


The self-humbling of the Christological Hymn versus the Fall of Man

Again, it should be noted that the statement of the Hymn -- God Himself became a man, and a condemned man --
which I take to be more or less the master statement of Scripture, and most fundamental truth of the universe --
is a crucial reversal of the Fall.

In the Fall (and the Babel narrative), human beings seek to take the highest place
and in the process bring disaster and confusion upon themselves, and upon others.
In the Incarnation God seeks to take the lowest place,
and in the process brings healing, and clarity, and salvation for others.

God needs no self-exaltation -- no exaltation at all! He is God! He is above all.
Therefore, He, more than any other, can humble Himself.


Who is like the Lord our God, who dwells on high
Yet humbles Himself to behold the heavens and the earth

He raises the poor from the dungheap, and makes him to sit with princes ...
He make the barren woman a joyful householder and mother of children! (Ps. 113:5-9, exerpts)


The self-humbling of the Christological Hymn and the Nature of God

Thus, I think, the fullness of the contrast -- fully God and fully man -- most exalted and most humble --
expresses God's own nature. The fullness of His love. The sacrifice he made for us.

"This is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us,
and gave his only Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (I John 4:10)

Therefore, in telling of Christ's self-humbling, His kenosis (emptying Himself), His death, His torture,
in Phil 2:6-8 Paul is precisely emphasizing Jesus's Divinity, His eternal place as God.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 22nd 2013, 01:13 AM
I have answered rejoice44's question to the best of my ability.

Now, rejoice44, I want to speak with you about your approach.


It seems that your central concern is that you think non-KJV Bibles weaken the Bible's teaching that Christ Jesus is God.
First off, I want to applaud your deep concern for our understanding the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity.

This is a very important thing!! There is only one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!!
Each is God, fully, and they are different from one another -- they talk and listen and take counsel with one another --
but God is One, and in God's complete oneness that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in dialogue together,
and that they do all that they do for us. Thanks for caring about it so deeply!!


But second, we need to consider what is the best way to preserve and transmit this vital, this life-giving truth about God?

Constant arguing about translations does not really defend the doctrine of Christ's being God, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is only likely to convince people weak in faith, or not yet Christians, that they cannot trust the Bible.
Also: it is not really a rejoicing in the truth. It's a constant fault-finding. (cf. Phil. 2:14, etc.) That can't be right.
Love rejoices not in wrong-doing, but rejoices in the truth. (I Cor. 13:6)


Instead of attacking translations, or various now-dead figures, why not give our voice strongly to explaining
and giving praise to, the many passages in Scripture which do show that Jesus is God!?
Why not spend time in Philippians 2, without criticizing translations, simply explaining from the text
the life-giving, life-creating, awesome mystery of God's wonderful and eternal life, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Why not actively extol and promote the life-creating Trinity, and the wonderful design of God
by which Jesus is both God and man? Why not just give thanks to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- one God --
and in our thanks to the Blessed Trinity help others, who wrestle with that, see the face of God in our good deeds
(as Jesus commanded us to do! (Matt 5:16))?

Why live in the fusty and dim world of endless criticism and attacks?
And why not instead start living in praise, and wonder,
and in awareness of my own ignorance, weakness, and sin,
and of God's overwhelming goodness and grace which helps us day by day?

Marco Polo
Feb 22nd 2013, 08:31 PM
Recently, two new threads have arisen attacking new translations. One attacks the translations directly calling them "counterfeit" and the other thread attacks the Greek text that is most often used in translating the New Testament in the new versions.

I would like to point out as I have in the past, it isn't people who use the new versions starting threads to attack the KJV. The assault against translations is heavily one-sided from strong adherents to the KJV attacking the Bible in more recent translations. With that happening, I'm starting a new thread by an old title and will paste my most relevant posts from the old thread.

I am all for an easy to understand bible; I really am. What I dont like is a new bible that says important scripture in the wrong way. What also seems to be possible is looking up; "NLT exposed" and I can see a large amount of what seems very seriously wrong with the NLT. Im not trying to be ignorantly bashing on any new versions; its when new versions says a serious amount of scriptures in what i think of as a disturbing manner. I would want to display "NLT exposed" so everybody good get a good look; but would that do any good? If somebody could explain to me through scriptural comparisons that Im wrong in what I think of as "counterfeits"; I would confess any such mistake on my part, and i would stop.

Marco Polo
Feb 22nd 2013, 08:45 PM
I have answered rejoice44's question to the best of my ability.

Now, rejoice44, I want to speak with you about your approach.


It seems that your central concern is that you think non-KJV Bibles weaken the Bible's teaching that Christ Jesus is God.
First off, I want to applaud your deep concern for our understanding the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity.

This is a very important thing!! There is only one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!!
Each is God, fully, and they are different from one another -- they talk and listen and take counsel with one another --
but God is One, and in God's complete oneness that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in dialogue together,
and that they do all that they do for us. Thanks for caring about it so deeply!!


But second, we need to consider what is the best way to preserve and transmit this vital, this life-giving truth about God?

Constant arguing about translations does not really defend the doctrine of Christ's being God, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is only likely to convince people weak in faith, or not yet Christians, that they cannot trust the Bible.
Also: it is not really a rejoicing in the truth. It's a constant fault-finding. (cf. Phil. 2:14, etc.) That can't be right.
Love rejoices not in wrong-doing, but rejoices in the truth. (I Cor. 13:6)


Instead of attacking translations, or various now-dead figures, why not give our voice strongly to explaining
and giving praise to, the many passages in Scripture which do show that Jesus is God!?
Why not spend time in Philippians 2, without criticizing translations, simply explaining from the text
the life-giving, life-creating, awesome mystery of God's wonderful and eternal life, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
My choice is "God was manifest in the flesh" or "He appeared in a body" 1 Timothy 3:16

Why not actively extol and promote the life-creating Trinity, and the wonderful design of God
by which Jesus is both God and man? Why not just give thanks to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- one God --
and in our thanks to the Blessed Trinity help others, who wrestle with that, see the face of God in our good deeds
(as Jesus commanded us to do! (Matt 5:16))?

Why live in the fusty and dim world of endless criticism and attacks?
And why not instead start living in praise, and wonder,
and in awareness of my own ignorance, weakness, and sin,
and of God's overwhelming goodness and grace which helps us day by day?

While at the same time; judgement day in from of the Holy One is very serious business. What if 1 finds out at that time; they have to explain why they had a bible with a serious amount of faults?
I dont live in that fusty, dim world. My world is the genuine Geneva and KJ, and even the Proper name version KJ using the name of Yahweh more often that "God". I do live in praise and wonder.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 22nd 2013, 09:01 PM
yada yadaWhile at the same time; judgement day in from of the Holy One is very serious business.
What if 1 finds out at that time; they have to explain why they had a bible with a serious amount of faults?

The logic of the situation as I see it

Logically speaking, your answer is -- it seems to me -- beside the point.
(My aim here is just to understand the matter clearly: not to criticize your reply.)

Person A thinks that attacking new translations is the thing to do (in order to deal with making sure people realize Jesus is God).
Person B thinks that working with most translations, and explaining how, using them, people may come to see that Jesus is God, is the right thing to do.

SO ...
WHAT IF ...
Person A gives an explanation of why person B is wrong. B replies: but on the judgement day I must give account of why I didn't work with those translations.
OR
Person B gives an explanation of why person A is wrong. A replies: but on the judgement day I must give account of why I didn't keep attacking a Bible with defects.

The situation is symmetrical. Pointing out that it's a serious business, and that ultimately one must answer to God is true.
But it doesn't decide between different accounts of which approach is erroneous, and which approach may be better.

So if the matter is serious, we must pay attention to the arguments.

Sheth
Feb 23rd 2013, 12:37 AM
One only has to take a look at the statement of one of the translators of the Revised Version, written in a book in 1881. "At all events, it will be seen that the changes which have been introduced in the revised version have in several conspicuous instances, an important bearing upon theological doctrine, as usually derived from the New Testament. It is the design of the present Tract to point out some of these instances, and to offer a few remarks in elucidation of their theological import." Introduction page 6---------Read Online (http://archive.org/stream/textsmarginsofre00smit) -----------Conclusion page 45. "Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view;--in other words, that the great doctrines of popular theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the revision. How far this assertion is correct, the careful reader of the foregoing pages will be able to judge for himself."

Rejoice, I wanted to thank you for the link to Smith's book. I enjoy reading commentaries by translators. But, again, I think his influence on the NASB is practically insignificant. And, his book doesn't really show influence on the predecessor of NASB, as much as him just trying to spin what would have been written even without him around. You can easily see the primary purpose of his book is to promote Unitarianism, which he would have done even if he weren't a translator. But, Jesus is still Christ. The NASB still says the Word was God. It still says Jesus was in the form of God before the form of a man. It still says that before Abraham Jesus was.

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2013, 02:44 AM
If I was told tonight I was being whisked away to Saudi Arabia and I had a choice - take a bible or go without - I would choose to go WITH a bible. And I would not quibble with anyone if I ended up with The Message or The Living Bible or any other reputable translation or transliteration. ANY bible is better than NO bible.

Sheth
Feb 23rd 2013, 03:37 PM
If I was told tonight I was being whisked away to Saudi Arabia and I had a choice - take a bible or go without - I would choose to go WITH a bible. And I would not quibble with anyone if I ended up with The Message or The Living Bible or any other reputable translation or transliteration. ANY bible is better than NO bible.

If I were starving to death on a deserted island, I'd eat any food I could get. But, until I'm on that island, I'm going to be a bit more picky about what I eat. Nope, no The Message or The Living Bible for me. Not even in Saudi Arabia, where I'd still have Internet access and could download at least the KJV.

rejoice44
Feb 23rd 2013, 06:30 PM
If I was told tonight I was being whisked away to Saudi Arabia and I had a choice - take a bible or go without - I would choose to go WITH a bible. And I would not quibble with anyone if I ended up with The Message or The Living Bible or any other reputable translation or transliteration. ANY bible is better than NO bible.

I am amazed how tolerant some are. While most translations have changed master to teacher The Message goes a step farther, and changes Lord to master. The Unitarian on the Revised Version translation committee bragged how they had changed "at the name of Jesus" to "in the name of Jesus", and many say the modern translations didn't follow the ERV and the ASV, but look at how crafty "The Message" is in Philippians 2:10. The translator eliminates the choice between "at" or "in", by saying, "will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ".

Most people will not understand the difference, but the translators will understand the difference. The inference by the translator is that while they are bowing before "this Jesus" the worship is directed at the Father. By the slight of hand of words the worship of Jesus has been removed. The object of the Unitarians is to reduce, or if possible remove all worship of Jesus, and often done by changing pronouns or conjunctions.

G. Vance Smith said that the translation committee, by changing "at the name of Jesus" to "in the name of Jesus" had altered the text in a manner that nothing could make up for this loss,"As indeed, it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ." If you ask what is the difference between "at" and "in", "at" eludes to the location, which is Jesus, whereas "in" refers to a conduit to another location. The Unitarians don't mind that Jesus is a pipeline through which worship flows to the Father, but they do not want the Son to be the object of the worship. The same application applies to the words "by" and "through", which will be also discussed. It should be noted that while the ERV and the ASV did change "at" to "in", the following editions did not. With Smith's words speaking so loudly in print they could hardly have followed the ERV and the ASV, in regards to "in" and "at", but in many other places that did follow the Unitarians wishes.

Smith went onto say--"The word Atonement disappears from the New Testament, and so do the connected phrases, 'faith in his blood', and 'for Christ's sake'. While all the new translations have removed the word atonement, only "The Message" has removed all three.

The preposition which was used to transfer worship from the Son to the Father is the preposition "through". "By" indicates the active force and "through" indicates a channel through which the force goes. In the act of creation in John 1:10 and Colossians 1:16 the new translations have substituted "through" for "by". You only need to look at the Old Testament and see what pronoun they used to describe the work of the arm of God, and you will see it was "by" and not "through". You only need to read Isaiah 53:1 to see that the arm of God is our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Is their a bias against the Deity of Christ in some translations, or was G. Vance Smith right, that the New Testament does not sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ?

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2013, 07:49 PM
I am amazed how tolerant some are. While most translations have changed master to teacher The Message goes a step farther, and changes Lord to master. The Unitarian on the Revised Version translation committee bragged how they had changed "at the name of Jesus" to "in the name of Jesus", and many say the modern translations didn't follow the ERV and the ASV, but look at how crafty "The Message" is in Philippians 2:10. The translator eliminates the choice between "at" or "in", by saying, "will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ".

Most people will not understand the difference, but the translators will understand the difference. The inference by the translator is that while they are bowing before "this Jesus" the worship is directed at the Father. By the slight of hand of words the worship of Jesus has been removed. The object of the Unitarians is to reduce, or if possible remove all worship of Jesus, and often done by changing pronouns or conjunctions.

G. Vance Smith said that the translation committee, by changing "at the name of Jesus" to "in the name of Jesus" had altered the text in a manner that nothing could make up for this loss,"As indeed, it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ." If you ask what is the difference between "at" and "in", "at" eludes to the location, which is Jesus, whereas "in" refers to a conduit to another location. The Unitarians don't mind that Jesus is a pipeline through which worship flows to the Father, but they do not want the Son to be the object of the worship. The same application applies to the words "by" and "through", which will be also discussed. It should be noted that while the ERV and the ASV did change "at" to "in", the following editions did not. With Smith's words speaking so loudly in print they could hardly have followed the ERV and the ASV, in regards to "in" and "at", but in many other places that did follow the Unitarians wishes.

Smith went onto say--"The word Atonement disappears from the New Testament, and so do the connected phrases, 'faith in his blood', and 'for Christ's sake'. While all the new translations have removed the word atonement, only "The Message" has removed all three.

The preposition which was used to transfer worship from the Son to the Father is the preposition "through". "By" indicates the active force and "through" indicates a channel through which the force goes. In the act of creation in John 1:10 and Colossians 1:16 the new translations have substituted "through" for "by". You only need to look at the Old Testament and see what pronoun they used to describe the work of the arm of God, and you will see it was "by" and not "through". You only need to read Isaiah 53:1 to see that the arm of God is our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Is their a bias against the Deity of Christ in some translations, or was G. Vance Smith right, that the New Testament does not sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ?

You missed the whole point.

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2013, 07:50 PM
If I were starving to death on a deserted island, I'd eat any food I could get. But, until I'm on that island, I'm going to be a bit more picky about what I eat. Nope, no The Message or The Living Bible for me. Not even in Saudi Arabia, where I'd still have Internet access and could download at least the KJV.

Yep. The Internet. That's the answer.

rejoice44
Feb 23rd 2013, 08:44 PM
You missed the whole point.

Isn't the point that "The Message" is justified because you might be stuck in the desert, and be only left with "The Message". Hardly a rationale for the justification of such a corrupt book. One could stand up for the right of a man to write such a book, but not for a Christian to endorse it.

He who sits for all things, stands for nothing.

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2013, 09:13 PM
Isn't the point that "The Message" is justified because you might be stuck in the desert, and be only left with "The Message". Hardly a rationale for the justification of such a corrupt book. One could stand up for the right of a man to write such a book, but not for a Christian to endorse it.

He who sits for all things, stands for nothing.

If I had a choice between NO bible or A bible, I would choose A bible.

I'd leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

Why is it that we seem to not be thankful for the plethora of choices available to those who seek?

He who judges with no foundation is asking for a divine thumping.

rejoice44
Feb 23rd 2013, 11:47 PM
Why is it that we seem to not be thankful for the plethora of choices available to those who seek?

He who judges with no foundation is asking for a divine thumping.

Choices are not always necessarily good. We could choose Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or Christianity, among the number of religions of the world.

Perhaps a better example would be having the choice of used cars. One might have a cracked block, another might have water in the oil pan, and another may have a transmission ready to slip. They are all going to give you trouble down the road. Isn't it better to investigate, and find the one that you can depend on?

Speaking of foundations, what do you think of The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn?

Sheth
Feb 24th 2013, 02:48 AM
I am amazed how tolerant some are. While most translations have changed master to teacher The Message goes a step farther, and changes Lord to master. The Unitarian on the Revised Version translation committee bragged how they had changed "at the name of Jesus" to "in the name of Jesus", and many say the modern translations didn't follow the ERV and the ASV, but look at how crafty "The Message" is in Philippians 2:10. The translator eliminates the choice between "at" or "in", by saying, "will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ".

That's all true. However, the NASB agrees with the KJV, not the Revised version, and says "at the name of Jesus." But, "in" is a legitimate translation (this is even the KJV's prefered translations of this Greek word in other places). Just because a Unitarian spins this for his theology doesn't make the translation choice wrong.

You're doing what a lot of KJV-only people do, you're often quibbling over legitimate translation choices and insisting these changes change theology, when they don't really change anything. If the KJV used "in the name of Jesus" and a later translator used "at the name of Jesus", you might be complaining that "at" reduces Jesus' name to a trumpet sound. At the name of Jesus bow your knees. At the beep, leave a message. Then you'd point out that good Christians pray "in the name of Jesus" not "at the name of Jesus."

There are bad translations, and bad translation choices in fairly good translations. And, outside of the KJV-only movement, you won't meet a person more hostile to bad translations than myself. (The KJV-only movement isn't really about how good a translation is, just how well it conforms to the KJV).

I haven't provided any examples because I don't want to see anyone defending those bad translations. If on another topic, someone appeals to a bad translation of a verse, I'll tell them their translation is wrong, where only the verse is at issue.

rejoice44
Feb 24th 2013, 03:43 AM
That's all true. However, the NASB agrees with the KJV, not the Revised version, and says "at the name of Jesus." But, "in" is a legitimate translation (this is even the KJV's prefered translations of this Greek word in other places). Just because a Unitarian spins this for his theology doesn't make the translation choice wrong.

I have already clarified your statement and agree with you.


You're doing what a lot of KJV-only people do, you're often quibbling over legitimate translation choices and insisting these changes change theology, when they don't really change anything. If the KJV used "in the name of Jesus" and a later translator used "at the name of Jesus", you might be complaining that "at" reduces Jesus' name to a trumpet sound. At the name of Jesus bow your knees. At the beep, leave a message. Then you'd point out that good Christians pray "in the name of Jesus" not "at the name of Jesus."

First, the objection is raised to you calling me a KJV-only person. You could say I am a one translation person per language. If a language changes in its meaning, then that translation should change along with it, but there never should be more than one translation per language. I am sure you wouldn't agree to having ten or twelve variations in the Greek or in the Hebrew all being floated around at the same time, neither should their be ten or twelve English translations.

You want to know what the problem is for me? I learned from one translation, and in fact as far as I knew there was only one translation. There was no disputes over translations in the world that I resided in. Much of the bible I memorized, and now in the present day that I now find myself in there is confusion due to that memorization. As an example, I work with a children's program where we teach the children bible verse memorization. They started with the KJV, switched to the NIV, and again switched the ESV. Have you ever tried to learn verses from three different translations, and keep them straight in your head? They override one another. It is called confusion, not so much for the children, but for the teachers that work with the children. I teach a non-denominational bible class. Every time a different translation is read from by the attendees it disrupts the whole class. You can't tell them there translation is faulty because many of them are either unsaved or babes in Christ.

Second, there is a difference between "at" and "in". It is true that often one can be used in place of the other. Just as "at" and "in" are different, so are "by" and "through". "By" points to the actor, and "through" points to the mode of transmission. As "by Christ" points to Christ, "through Christ" points to the Father. Now either way is correct since they are one, but when a translation continually uses conjunctions and prepositions that point away from Christ, and to the Father in regards to worship there is a problem. Many students say that it doesn't matter what a translator believes as long as he is a proper linguist. Well if they believe G. V. Smith is a proper linguist then they have to accept that there is a difference between "at" and "in" which affects the worship of Jesus.


There are bad translations, and bad translation choices in fairly good translations. And, outside of the KJV-only movement, you won't meet a person more hostile to bad translations than myself. (The KJV-only movement isn't really about how good a translation is, just how well it conforms to the KJV).

I believe those people get a bad rap, the ones that are called KJVO. Just because some of them are a little over zealous does not mean that all of their statements are not true, in fact if one truly researches it without a bias they will be surprised at how much is actually true.


I haven't provided any examples because I don't want to see anyone defending those bad translations. If on another topic, someone appeals to a bad translation of a verse, I'll tell them their translation is wrong, where only the verse is at issue.

TrustGzus
Feb 24th 2013, 04:16 AM
In regard to "at" or "in" in Philippians, it might be worth pointing out that the Wycliffe, Purvey and Tyndale translations all go with what George Vance Smith says. They all have "in the name of Jesus . . . "

So this translation of that preposition existed in this verse centuries before George Vance Smith.

Just another example of things that make it hard for me to accept the hard AV/KJV stance as reasonable.

Sheth
Feb 24th 2013, 04:54 AM
First, the objection is raised to you calling me a KJV-only person. You could say I am a one translation person per language. If a language changes in its meaning, then that translation should change along with it, but there never should be more than one translation per language. I am sure you wouldn't agree to having ten or twelve variations in the Greek or in the Hebrew all being floated around at the same time, neither should their be ten or twelve English translations.

One of the best arguments for the KJV is as a common coin, a common Bible. When you quote it, we know you're quoting it. We don't have to wonder which translation you're using or even wonder what the verse is because the translation is so different it's unrecognizable. Its language and eccentricities are well mapped, a known quantity. And, as you learn about the KJV's quantity, you don't have to relearn the quantities of a new translation. It's a good Bible and that is why it has stood for 400 years, in spite of anyone's objections to it.


They started with the KJV, switched to the NIV, and again switched the ESV

Given where the updated NIV has gone, they had to dump it. That's one of the perils of using a modern translation that isn't set in stone as is the KJV. It's likely going to be changed (I'm glad I never memorized wording of verses that are no longer in print), and maybe for the worse.


I believe those people get a bad rap, the ones that are called KJVO. Just because some of them all a little over zealous does not mean that all of their statements are not true, in fact if one truly researches it without a bias they will be surprised at how much is actually true.

Most KJVO people never even touch on my biggest objections to most modern translations. It has nothing to do with not having "holy" in front of another word each and every time that word is used. It has nothing to do with "at" vs "in". It has to do with modern versions being designed to promote modern values and doctrines. They insert words not to clarify the text (English does have different grammar than Greek) but to promote their agenda or use translation choices with no legitimacy. One of the least (yes, least) controversial examples is gender neutrality, such as adding "sister" where sister doesn't appear in the original text. Translators might leave out "holy" because the source documents they believe to be the most reliable don't say holy in a given instance. They might change "at" to "in", or vice versa, but those are both valid translations of the same word. But, when they add "sister" to brethren, they're not doing it because their manuscript does it or because sister is a valid translation of the Greek word for brother. They're doing it because they want to change the Bible.

rejoice44
Feb 24th 2013, 12:30 PM
In regard to "at" or "in" in Philippians, it might be worth pointing out that the Wycliffe, Purvey and Tyndale translations all go with what George Vance Smith says. They all have "in the name of Jesus . . . "

So this translation of that preposition existed in this verse centuries before George Vance Smith.

Just another example of things that make it hard for me to accept the hard AV/KJV stance as reasonable.

I have previously stated that in most cases either word could be correct, since the Father and Son are bonded in one. Often the preposition directs the worship to either the Father or the Son. If a translation chooses to direct the worship to the Father over the Son in a preponderance of situations, then it could be said that it has a bias since the Father wants the Son to be glorified.

It is to the Authorized Version's credit that it used "at" in Philippians 2:10. The translators were instructed to be consistent with its predecessor (The Geneva Bible.) as much as possible, which is not the case with new translations. The new translations continually look for new words to use so that their translation can be recognized as a distinct translation, which by the way only adds to confusion. In the bibles prior to the Revised Version the words were kept quite consistent. You wouldn't find six to eight various English words for one Greek, or Hebrew word.

Marco Polo
Mar 5th 2013, 01:39 AM
Norm, there are so many things I stated that you are not addressing. I'm not going to run around in circles with you about the few points that you think support your view while you ignore multiple other points.

In the post prior to your newest you stated . . .



Now you write . . .



You don't want to talk about Alexandrian readings individually. You want to sweep them away collectively in this post. I addressed in my last post that besides Sinaiticus and Vaticanus there are also many papyri, church fathers and other ancient versions (several languages of which I listed for the 1 John 5:7 passage). There is too much evidence for many (not all, but many) of the Alexandrian readings.

And you are making fallacious arguments in that paragraph. You say there is no record of the Alexandrian "stream" in the church. Are you reading me at all? THE CHURCH FATHERS! Read them and you will find all sorts of Alexandrian readings. Did you read my paragraph about 1 John 5:7 and all the ancient foreign versions that don't contain it. There is loads of evidence of Alexandrian readings in the church.

Why is English the rule for textual determination? That is the standard you use for some reason. I want what John wrote. I want what Luke wrote. I want what Paul wrote. I'm not interested in retaining errors in English versions just because the errors have been there for centuries. Why would you want to retain errors in English? If the English had an error for 600 years, then I want it fixed. I want what the apostles wrote. Let me add here that the errors are largely minor anyway. No core doctrine is undermined in either a KJV (or prior versions) or a modern version.

And then in that paragraph above you talk about there not being a stream of evidence. Again, are you reading my posts at all?!?!?!?

I asked you about the stream of evidence for manuscript 221 which contains 1 John 5:7. Or do you only need a stream when something doesn't agree with you?

How come you didn't address Beza and his textual change that made it into Revelation 16:5 of the KJV and into no other English translation prior to it?

How does Simonides initializing parts of Sinaiticus proof he made it? If that story is true, that proves nothing more than he handled it. Anyone who handles it could pull that off. How come no one buys this story except KJV extremists (and not all of them use this)? Most fields of knowledge grow when one person stands against the crowd with a new idea. They meet lots of resistance and often persecution in the field. However, the experts in the field test the ideas and eventually the true ideas get accepted. This hasn't happened with Simonides. Paleographers recognized multiple hand writings and have the corrective hand writings dated over a millennium prior to Simonides. You need a lot better evidence than internet cut-and-paste paragraphs from self-serving websites trying to prove their point to prove what experts in that field universally reject.

And I will repeat, even if everything with Simonides is true, Vaticanus is dated older than Sinaiticus, the papyri are older, the church fathers are older and you have all the ancient versions. Did Simonides forge all the church fathers and the ancient versions? Then there are others like Alexandrinus which is dated after Sinaiticus dates but is Alexandrian in non-gospel material. Simonides cannot help you. The evidence is so much more than a single uncial.

Is Metzger off the table now? Did we want to talk about his 2005 book?

What about the Unitarian in the other thread?

Which is more important: to have a correct doctrine of the Trinity yet carry a Bible with "He" in 1 Timothy 3:16 or to have a "correct" 1 Timothy 3:16 yet believe heretical views of the godhead?

Modern versions don't teach Unitarianism. I don't have an ERV, but I can't help but doubt that this translation did either. I do have the ASV and that doesn't teach it. Why not start a thread explaining the errors of Unitarianism instead of threads attacking translations? Wouldn't that be a much better use of the time God has given you? On something like that we could work together instead of going through these gyrations.

I have repeatedly pointed out that anyone who takes a committee based translation that is on the market today, if they employ proper hermeneutics, will arrive at proper, Christian theology. The argument for KJV superiority requires isolating verses out of context (because often the context makes everything clear) and then using a collection of logical fallacies and double-standards when the same argument works against KJV superiority and helps out modern translations. Nothing you have said changes any of that.

I'd like to end by quoting 2 Timothy 2:14 from the KJV of course . . .



Norman, you have spent 2-1/2 years in these forums violating this command. You have been attacking the Bible, striving about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers by undermining their trust in the Bibles they have in their hands. While I keep coming behind explaining why Christians here can trust their NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.

I am charging you before the Lord to quit striving about words to no profit and subverting the hearers (or readers in this case). Quit attacking the Bible and obey this verse instead. We've got all the new atheists to attack the Bible. We don't need Christians at Bibleforums.org helping in attacking the Bible. Find the real calling for your life. Over the last several months I haven't seen any modern version user start a thread attacking the KJV or Geneva or any other older version. If KJV/AV extremists will obey 2 Timothy 2:14, this subject will be virtually, if not entirely, unheard of at these forums. It's time to move on to something more profitable, Norman.

Is "only begotten"; as you have revealed that should've been; "only unique"; or "only one of a kind"; a worse translation than, "one and ONLY"? To me, "one and only" implies Jesus way differently, than the translation that had to win in the Geneva and KJ.

TrustGzus
Mar 5th 2013, 02:44 AM
Is "only begotten"; as you have revealed that should've been; "only unique"; or "only one of a kind"; a worse translation than, "one and ONLY"? To me, "one and only" implies Jesus way differently, than the translation that had to win in the Geneva and KJ.

Marco, I'm not sure what you're asking here. I would point out that Tyndale had "only son" in his translations in the 1500's prior to the Geneva and KJV. It's not unique to modern versions. Was Tyndale guilty of producing counterfeit Bibles?

rejoice44
Mar 6th 2013, 05:56 PM
[QUOTE=TrustGzus;[/QUOTE]

You say none of the changes affect doctrine, and yet there is a current thread on the Trinity that obviously defies this statement.

TrustGzus
Mar 7th 2013, 12:33 AM
You say none of the changes affect doctrine, and yet there is a current thread on the Trinity that obviously defies this statement.

Norman, I disagree entirely. The reason I disagree is because I teach the Trinity very easily from any committee based newer version. Be more objective on this issue.

I think the reason there is so much confusion on the Trinity isn't due to Bible translations, I think it's due to the fact that churches are too busy teaching series on how to have a better marriage or how to handle conflict and other things like this.

Church sermon series are so often more like self-help books. Now these things are important. But in 26 years and having been a member of a handful of churches, I don't know that I've ever heard a good sermon dedicated to the Trinity that in the sermon takes the time to give a proper definition and then gives a sound defense from the Bible.

And even if such a sermon is given, if it's given once and then not preached but say once a decade, how can the body know and defend this doctrine against attacks? If anything, this kind of topic might more likely be covered in a class a church offers, but not in a sermon to the general congregation. Pastors need to teach way more theology from the pulpit than they do. That's a huge difference between the church of today and say a couple hundred years ago.

The problem is shallow teaching in much of the body. Blaming new translations is pure balderdash. I know this because as I said in the first paragraph, if you hand me an NASB, NIV, HCSB, ESV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV and others and I will easily prove the Trinity. I can prove with any reputable new version that there is one God and that the Father is God and that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. And I can prove that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. And if you prove those points, then you've proven the Trinity. And those points are easily demonstrated.

You contend that 1 John 5:7 is essential for this, but 1 John 5:7 doesn't teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. I could be a Unitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism) and hold to 1 John 5:7. So your premise misses the mark.

May I suggest that you read any of the following:

Christian Theology by Millard Erickson
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology Vol. 2 by Norman Geisler
The Forgotten Trinity by James White

All of these clearly teach the Trinity and all of them use modern versions. And these are just a small sample size. Therefore, they prove your premise false.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2013, 01:26 AM
Norman, I disagree entirely. The reason I disagree is because I teach the Trinity very easily from any committee based newer version. Be more objective on this issue.

I think the reason there is so much confusion on the Trinity isn't due to Bible translations, I think it's due to the fact that churches are too busy teaching series on how to have a better marriage or how to handle conflict and other things like this.

Church sermon series are so often more like self-help books. Now these things are important. But in 26 years and having been a member of a handful of churches, I don't know that I've ever heard a good sermon dedicated to the Trinity that in the sermon takes the time to give a proper definition and then gives a sound defense from the Bible.

And even if such a sermon is given, if it's given once and then not preached but say once a decade, how can the body know and defend this doctrine against attacks? If anything, this kind of topic might more likely be covered in a class a church offers, but not in a sermon to the general congregation. Pastors need to teach way more theology from the pulpit than they do. That's a huge difference between the church of today and say a couple hundred years ago.

I agree with you here.


The problem is shallow teaching in much of the body. Blaming new translations is pure balderdash. I know this because as I said in the first paragraph, if you hand me an NASB, NIV, HCSB, ESV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV and others and I will easily prove the Trinity. I can prove with any reputable new version that there is one God and that the Father is God and that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. And I can prove that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. And if you prove those points, then you've proven the Trinity. And those points are easily demonstrated.

The only verse that actually declared the three to be one was removed after a thousand years of its unquestioned authority by the church.


You contend that 1 John 5:7 is essential for this, but 1 John 5:7 doesn't teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. I could be a Unitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism) and hold to 1 John 5:7. So your premise misses the mark.

I do not contend it is essential, only that its existence removes much of the debate.

You couldn't be a Unitarian such as Vance Smith and hold to 1 John 5:7


May I suggest that you read any of the following:

Christian Theology by Millard Erickson
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology Vol. 2 by Norman Geisler
The Forgotten Trinity by James White

All of these clearly teach the Trinity and all of them use modern versions. And these are just a small sample size. Therefore, they prove your premise false.

My premise is that if 1 John 5:7 had not been removed it would have negated much of the argument over the Trinity.

TrustGzus
Mar 7th 2013, 02:15 AM
I agree with you here.

That's great. I think you and I would agree about more things than we disagree. It doesn't appear that way though since our conversations revolve around translational issues.


The only verse that actually declared the three to be one was removed after a thousand years of its unquestioned authority by the church.

I do not contend it is essential, only that its existence removes much of the debate.

You couldn't be a Unitarian such as Vance Smith and hold to 1 John 5:7

My premise is that if 1 John 5:7 had not been removed it would have negated much of the argument over the Trinity.

Briefly on the Vance Smith point, let's not debate over the Unitarian definition as the word is normally used today that I provided and whatever was meant by Smith being a Unitarian. Vance is a red herring in these couples newest posts. That debate won't forward the discussion.

We could use the word Unitarian or Modalist.

Norm, you have to admit, if you are honest, that 1 John 5:7 teaches an incomplete definition of the Trinity. If we take 1 John 5:7 literally and by itself, it teaches nothing more than Unitarianism or Modalism. 1 John 5:7 does not teach the distinction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is an essential part of the Trinitarian definition. You must have more.

Or you could interpret in another way. You could interpret it as that they are distinct but that they are one in purpose or goal. But then you have tritheism. No matter how you slice 1 John 5:7, it needs support. It does not teach Trinitarian theology by itself.

In this sense, the KJV/NKJV have no advantage over other new versions. All Bible translations need a deductive, systematic approach in which a person gathers a variety of verses to teach the Trinity.

I can agree that 1 John 5:7 could potentially limit the debate, but as I state above we can come up with two different heresies we could use it to support. So it can support a biblical view with assistance from other verses or it can also support two different heresies since it only contains a partial defintion of the Trinity and since 1 John doesn't explain what is meant by "these three are one." One being? One person? One in purpose?

So give me any committee based translation, and I can prove the three pronged definition of the Trinity:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God; Jesus is God; Holy Spirit is God.
3. Father is not the Son; Son is not the Holy Spirit; Holy Spirit is not the Father.

To deny any of those, a person must deny very clear passages in any translation be it KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.

The biggest point where we disagree is that I think the proof of the originality of 1 John 5:7 is deplorable. And you've never said nothing that convinces me otherwise.

You say it was removed after a millennium of unquestioned authority. I think you're factually mistaken. I see it not really becoming prominent at all until after an entire millennium.

The Early Church Fathers

In a recent thread, I expressed all of this to you. You have one church father (Cyprian) who quotes a passage that sounds like 1 John 5:7. However, you have no mention by that father of John being the author or any of the context to place it in 1 John. And that is the entire evidence in the church fathers. So this evidence is ambiguous at best. It's far from crystal clear to place it in 1 John as authentic.

On the other hand, you have multiple church fathers that skip right over it. What's the best explanation for that? The best explanation is that it didn't exist.

The Greek Manuscripts

The Greek manuscript evidence is terrible. You know this. Eight manuscripts. All of them very late. Half of them have it in the margin. That's terrible evidence. You know this very well. You can't provide any earlier manuscripts with this because none have this. Now what's the best explanation for this terrible Greek manuscripts support and that the support is late and in very few manuscripts? The best explanation is that it wasn't authentic with John.

The Early Versions

As I mentioned in the other thread, this verse is entirely absent from Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, and Jerome's Vulgate. It doesn't appear in Old Latin or the Vulgate until after the sixth century. What's the best explanation of this incredible lack? That is wasn't authentic in John.

The Creeds and Councils

In ancient debates that are recorded about the Trinity, 1 John 5:7 is never used. Why not? As you state, it wouldn't it help support the case? What's the best explanation for this lack? That it wasn't authentic with John.

John's Purpose in Writing 1 John

Lastly, a piece of internal evidence. 1 John is a writing refuting docetism, that Jesus was a spirit without a body. John's epistle focuses heavily on evidence for Jesus having a bodily. That's what the water and blood prove. 1 John 5:7 seems like an awkward break that doesn't support the case he's trying to make.

I have nothing against the verse. I accept John 10:30 which says the same thing about two members of the Trinity. Why fight this? The reason is because for me to accept it as authentic, I have to fight against all those circumstances I mentioned above. Basically, it seems to accept 1 John 5:7 is an act of blind faith or tradition. Neither are good reasons to me.

Norman, grace and peace to you.

Joe

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2013, 02:26 PM
---Briefly on the Vance Smith point, let's not debate over the Unitarian definition as the word is normally used today that I provided and whatever was meant by Smith being a Unitarian. Vance is a red herring in these couples newest posts. That debate won't forward the discussion.

You stated that a Unitarian could accept 1 John 5:7, and my reply was that the Unitarian on the Revised Version committee could not accept 1 John 5:7, and that that Unitarian was instrumental in helping remove it. That is a fact, and not a red herring.


The biggest point where we disagree is that I think the proof of the originality of 1 John 5:7 is deplorable. And you've never said nothing that convinces me otherwise.

You say it was removed after a millennium of unquestioned authority. I think you're factually mistaken. I see it not really becoming prominent at all until after an entire millennium.

If 1 John 5:7 was added as you have stated, what Century was it added?

TrustGzus
Mar 8th 2013, 01:56 AM
You stated that a Unitarian could accept 1 John 5:7, and my reply was that the Unitarian on the Revised Version committee could not accept 1 John 5:7, and that that Unitarian was instrumental in helping remove it. That is a fact, and not a red herring.

Norman, I would say it's a red herring because I don't know a single person who cares what Vance Smith said. My view of 1 John 5:7 has nothing to do with what Vance Smith said. I listed for you 5 categories of why I think 1 John 5:7 is problematic. None of them have anything to do with Vance Smith. Thus, Vance Smith is a red herring in the discussion since I don't know anyone who's opinion is impacted by him. The only people that quote him in regard to textual issues are AV extremists on internet sites. I don't know anybody who uses modern versions and appeals to Vance Smith as having anything to do with their reasoning for not accepting 1 John 5:7 as authentic. Now if the modern version proponents don't use Vance Smith as a piece of their reasoning, and then AV enthusiasts try to use Vance Smith as the reason for new versions being the way they are, then the AV enthusiasts are employing a straw man presentation. They keep attacking the straw man of Vance Smith while the modern version adherents look on the sideline and just shake their heads as the AV enthusiasts attack a "piece of evidence" that isn't employed by the modern version adherents.

If you want to do so, you are welcome to it. I'll keep watching you tackle straw men as long as you want to attack them.


If 1 John 5:7 was added as you have stated, what Century was it added?

Added to what? The Greek? The Greek goes almost a millennium without it. If I don't have a specific century, this doesn't nullify the five lines of reasoning I presented to you above.

What I am presenting is an inference to the best explanation case here. And if you want to really take on why 1 John 5:7 isn't in modern versions and prove modern versions wrong, then you need to tackle the real reasons adherents don't accept 1 John 5:7. It's not Vance Smith.


You need to provide solid reasoning why only Crypian uses the phrase and why multiple churches fathers skip the verse.
You need to provide solid reasoning for why it's only in eight very late manuscripts with four of those even hinting at the dubious nature of it by it being in the margin.
You need to provide solid reasoning for why it's completely absent in all of those ancient versions I mentioned.
You need to provide solid reasoning why the early church fathers didn't employ the verse in debates about the Trinity.
You need to provide solid reasoning why it fits the context of John countering docetism.


But your reasoning in all of these really doesn't need to be merely solid, it needs to be a better explanation than the simple idea that 1 John 5:7 isn't original. If it is not original, then all of these things make perfect sense. It accounts for all of those circumstances. I can't think of a better explanation. What explanation can you give that is better that accounts for the overwhelming absence of this verse. John 1:1 is a controversial idea to many people. Many reject the deity of Jesus. We don't find textual dispute over this. John 10:30 is controversial to many people and similar to 1 John 5:7. There is no textual dispute over this.

As I said earlier, I'm all for it if it's original. You don't see me or anyone else trying to "omit" John 10:30. Why would we oppose 1 John 5:7 especially if we're Trinitarians?

Is there an ounce of humility in you that would accept that you could be wrong on this verse? I'm completely open to being wrong. But I must be convinced against the reasons I hold my view and not by attacks against reasons which don't affect why I hold it.

My arguments are based on pieces of evidence, on historical documents, --- manuscripts, foreign versions that don't have it, early fathers that don't quote it, etc. You don't counter these things. Your arguments are based on attacking persons involved in conspiracy --- Vance Smith, Hort, Westcott, Simonides. All my arguments rely on documents that predate the birth of these men. Since my view doesn't depend on these personalities, again, I just sit and watch you knock down all these supposed reasons why modern versions don't have these verses when neither I, nor anyone else I know who holds a similar view, uses any of these personalities as a defense for the view.

Back to the original comment you made a handful of posts above, I haven't interacted with Nick on the Trinity. But if I did, I could provide clear verses for each of the three premises I have mentioned to defend the Trinity. The concepts are clear and the verses are not in textual dispute. The reason people reject the Trinity isn't because of the absence of 1 John 5:7. If it was, then the same reasoning applies to all of the history I provided for you in the five problems above. And this frankly brings another argument I could use. The Trinity was debated hotly in the early centuries. You stated in a post that including 1 John 5:7 would help to minimize that. Perhaps all the battles in the early church over this doctrine point to the idea that 1 John 5:7 wasn't really original. If it was, then as you stated, it should have minimized the controversy. Why was the Trinity so controversial in discussions if 1 John 5:7 was there? Again, a simple explanation --- it wasn't there. What simpler answer can you offer?

Norm, grace & peace to you.

Joe

Protective Angel
Mar 8th 2013, 02:09 AM
A little humor.


Well the movie has came out. (Well mini-series)

TrustGzus
Mar 8th 2013, 02:11 AM
A little humor.


Well the movie has came out. (Well mini-series)

Sidetrack . . . Protective Angel, what part of Illinois are you from? I live in Illinois.

Protective Angel
Mar 8th 2013, 03:01 AM
Sidetrack . . . Protective Angel, what part of Illinois are you from? I live in Illinois.

Shelbyville.

It's 35 miles south of Decatur

rejoice44
Mar 8th 2013, 03:52 AM
Norman, I would say it's a red herring because I don't know a single person who cares what Vance Smith said. My view of 1 John 5:7 has nothing to do with what Vance Smith said. I listed for you 5 categories of why I think 1 John 5:7 is problematic. None of them have anything to do with Vance Smith. Thus, Vance Smith is a red herring in the discussion since I don't know anyone who's opinion is impacted by him. The only people that quote him in regard to textual issues are AV extremists on internet sites. I don't know anybody who uses modern versions and appeals to Vance Smith as having anything to do with their reasoning for not accepting 1 John 5:7 as authentic. Now if the modern version proponents don't use Vance Smith as a piece of their reasoning, and then AV enthusiasts try to use Vance Smith as the reason for new versions being the way they are, then the AV enthusiasts are employing a straw man presentation. They keep attacking the straw man of Vance Smith while the modern version adherents look on the sideline and just shake their heads as the AV enthusiasts attack a "piece of evidence" that isn't employed by the modern version adherents.

If you want to do so, you are welcome to it. I'll keep watching you tackle straw men as long as you want to attack them.

Joe greetings.

We know when 1 John 5:7 was taken out, and the names and beliefs of the men that were involved. If you knew when, and the names of the men that you claim added it you would hardly be silent.


Added to what? The Greek? The Greek goes almost a millennium without it. If I don't have a specific century, this doesn't nullify the five lines of reasoning I presented to you above.

OK, so you don't have any clue as to what Century it was added. Doesn't this go to show how little evidence we have of what happened in the first thousand years after the resurrection? It was added at some unknown time in history by some unknown person, having some unknown reason. In any courtroom wouldn't this relate to reasonable doubt.


You need to provide solid reasoning why only Crypian uses the phrase and why multiple churches fathers skip the verse.




The UBS 1st Edition lists Cyprian, Priscillian, Varimadum, Fulgentius, Cassian, and Ansbert, as supporting 1 John 5:7.





You need to provide solid reasoning for why it's only in eight very late manuscripts with four of those even hinting at the dubious nature of it by it being in the margin.

There is just as much evidence for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 as there is for the Hebrew Bible.


You need to provide solid reasoning for why it's completely absent in all of those ancient versions I mentioned.

I believe someone needs to explain how all this evidence for the Alexandrian Greek text shows up when there is so little other evidence for other languages.


You need to provide solid reasoning why the early church fathers didn't employ the verse in debates about the Trinity.

They did employ it in the Council of Carthage A.D. 415. Eusebius representing more than 300 church bishops stated, "It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."


You need to provide solid reasoning why it fits the context of John countering docetism.

Why?



But your reasoning in all of these really doesn't need to be merely solid, it needs to be a better explanation than the simple idea that 1 John 5:7 isn't original. If it is not original, then all of these things make perfect sense. It accounts for all of those circumstances. I can't think of a better explanation. What explanation can you give that is better that accounts for the overwhelming absence of this verse. John 1:1 is a controversial idea to many people. Many reject the deity of Jesus. We don't find textual dispute over this. John 10:30 is controversial to many people and similar to 1 John 5:7. There is no textual dispute over this.

Precedence! It has been in the church bible for a known 700 years. Faithful bible teachers didn't remove it, but rather some scholars with questionable beliefs and motives.


As I said earlier, I'm all for it if it's original. You don't see me or anyone else trying to "omit" John 10:30. Why would we oppose 1 John 5:7 especially if we're Trinitarians?

Why are you not trying to omit "The Adulterous Woman" of the gospel of John. There is more evidence for "God manifested in the flesh", than there is for those twelve verses in John. It seems like there is a lot of hypocrisy here.


Is there an ounce of humility in you that would accept that you could be wrong on this verse? I'm completely open to being wrong. But I must be convinced against the reasons I hold my view and not by attacks against reasons which don't affect why I hold it.

You need to remove the odor that is associated with the Alexandrian manuscripts, and the people who promote them, in order for me to consider that I am wrong. I don't believe that society is getting smarter, but rather more corrupt.


My arguments are based on pieces of evidence, on historical documents, --- manuscripts, foreign versions that don't have it, early fathers that don't quote it, etc. You don't counter these things. Your arguments are based on attacking persons involved in conspiracy --- Vance Smith, Hort, Westcott, Simonides. All my arguments rely on documents that predate the birth of these men. Since my view doesn't depend on these personalities, again, I just sit and watch you knock down all these supposed reasons why modern versions don't have these verses when neither I, nor anyone else I know who holds a similar view, uses any of these personalities as a defense for the view.

You do not have those manuscripts or writings in their original with which you can examine them for yourself, you are trusting in others, and who are the others that have this information in their hand.


Back to the original comment you made a handful of posts above, I haven't interacted with Nick on the Trinity. But if I did, I could provide clear verses for each of the three premises I have mentioned to defend the Trinity. The concepts are clear and the verses are not in textual dispute. The reason people reject the Trinity isn't because of the absence of 1 John 5:7. If it was, then the same reasoning applies to all of the history I provided for you in the five problems above. And this frankly brings another argument I could use. The Trinity was debated hotly in the early centuries. You stated in a post that including 1 John 5:7 would help to minimize that. Perhaps all the battles in the early church over this doctrine point to the idea that 1 John 5:7 wasn't really original. If it was, then as you stated, it should have minimized the controversy. Why was the Trinity so controversial in discussions if 1 John 5:7 was there? Again, a simple explanation --- it wasn't there. What simpler answer can you offer?

To deny that 1 John 5:7 was the most powerful verse in the bible on the Trinity is irrational and inconsistent with those that so desired to remove it.

I believe it was there, and to take it out leaves a grammatical error in the gender of the nouns associated with 1 John 5:6-8.

Marco Polo
Mar 8th 2013, 05:25 PM
Marco, I'm not sure what you're asking here. I would point out that Tyndale had "only son" in his translations in the 1500's prior to the Geneva and KJV. It's not unique to modern versions. Was Tyndale guilty of producing counterfeit Bibles?

Im asking; is "only begotten"; a worse translation than "one and only"? That you TrustGzus; seem to have no malfunction with. In my opinion; Jesus isnt the "one and only" son; since the bible tells us God has sons everywhere.

TrustGzus
Mar 9th 2013, 04:07 PM
Is "only begotten"; as you have revealed that should've been; "only unique"; or "only one of a kind"; a worse translation than, "one and ONLY"? To me, "one and only" implies Jesus way differently, than the translation that had to win in the Geneva and KJ.

Marco, I think the objection you make to one and only is fair. Rejoice44/Norman has argued the same thing with me and as I have looked into this objection, I think it's a valid point.

I am not satisfied with either only begotten, nor one and only. Your asking me which one is worse. Well, how can I say one inadequate translation is worse or better than another.

I've mentioned many times already that the idea of begotten isn't even in the Greek term μονογενής. For only begotten, the Greek should have been μονογέννητος. Both words are compound words. Both begin with monos. So both ways of translating get the idea of one or only correct. But the back half of the word, genos, is at best misleading in the KJV/Geneva or at worst mistranslated. Genos has to do with a category or class or race it has nothing to do with begetting. One and only doesn't translate genos at all. For example in Matthew 13:47 when they cast their net into the sea, they collected fish of every genos. Fish of every kind. Nothing to do with begetting. I can give over a dozen examples from the KJV.

So Marco, your question is really asking me is Is it better to mistranslate or not translate at all?

As I've said, a good biblical example of why it can't be only begotten is that the same Greek word is used of Isaac being Abraham's μονογενής son in Hebrews 11:!7. But it's easily demonstrated by reading Genesis that Abraham had many sons. Isaac was his unique or one of a kind son but not his only begotten son. So Jesus was God's unique or one of a kind son. Now unlike Isaac, it's true that Jesus was God's only begotten son while the rest of us are adopted. However, if the Greek word doesn't mean only begotten, then we shouldn't translate it that way, even if the mistranslation happens to be a true statement. It isn't what John wrote. The only reason to have it be only begotten is if you believe in tradition over truth. That line of thinking says since it has been traditionally translated only begotten, let's keep it that way. If you are more interested in tradition over truth, knock yourself out. You are welcome to do whatever you want.

I think a lot of criticism of new translations is due to a traditionalist stance. Such-and-such a verse has read this way for so many centuries (in English only I might add) and so why are we changing it? Well, if we find that a word is mistranslated or at least could be translated more accurately, shouldn't we make that adjustment? If a word or concept was omitted, shouldn't we put it back? If a word or concept was added, shouldn't we take it out? The extreme AV/KJV/TR view values tradition and assurance over truth. They want to believe their Bible is as perfect as what they apostles and prophets penned. It's simply not that way. Transmission and translation has have given us many reliable English Bibles, but never a perfect one. And so even the KJV and Geneva, since they are not perfect, must be corrected at times. And often, the Bible you are calling counterfeit provide that needed correction.

So, I'm not satisfied with the KJV, Geneva, NIV, or any number of translations that in some cases mistranslate half the word or don't translate half the word at all. The best rendering is in the footnote of the NASB. I don't know why it's not in the text rather than the footnote and why more translations haven't jumped on to that much more accurate rendering.

rejoice44
Mar 9th 2013, 09:24 PM
--I am not satisfied with either only begotten, nor one and only. Your asking me which one is worse. Well, how can I say one inadequate translation is worse or better than another.

I've mentioned many times already that the idea of begotten isn't even in the Greek term μονογενής. For only begotten, the Greek should have been μονογέννητος. Both words are compound words. Both begin with monos. So both ways of translating get the idea of one or only correct. But the back half of the word, genos, is at best misleading in the KJV/Geneva or at worst mistranslated. Genos has to do with a category or class or race it has nothing to do with begetting. One and only doesn't translate genos at all. For example in Matthew 13:47 when they cast their net into the sea, they collected fish of every genos. Fish of every kind. Nothing to do with begetting. I can give over a dozen examples from the KJV.

Joe isn't it true that most Hebrew and Greek words have multiple English words, that in context are proper to use?


As I've said, a good biblical example of why it can't be only begotten is that the same Greek word is used of Isaac being Abraham's μονογενής son in Hebrews 11:!7. But it's easily demonstrated by reading Genesis that Abraham had many sons. Isaac was his unique or one of a kind son but not his only begotten son. So Jesus was God's unique or one of a kind son. Now unlike Isaac, it's true that Jesus was God's only begotten son while the rest of us are adopted. However, if the Greek word doesn't mean only begotten, then we shouldn't translate it that way, even if the mistranslation happens to be a true statement. It isn't what John wrote. The only reason to have it be only begotten is if you believe in tradition over truth. That line of thinking says since it has been traditionally translated only begotten, let's keep it that way. If you are more interested in tradition over truth, knock yourself out. You are welcome to do whatever you want.--

In Hebrews 11:17 we find that the ESV, the ASV, and the NASB, all have only begotten son. Isn't the truth of the matter that Jesus is the only son that proceeded out from the Father, and that all other sons of God are by adoption? You are quibbling over a Greek word when we have no absolute proof of what language all the books of the New Testament are written in. What makes Jesus unique is that he proceeded directly from the Father. Isn't that the same as the English word begotten?

Isn't the problem that all new translations have to be unique in order to have an identity? In reality isn't begotten the best word to use to describe the relationship of Jesus with the Father? The new translations, in order to have their own uniqueness, have played hopscotch with the words. For example, both the NASB and the NIV changed "begat" into "became the father" in the Old Testament. How do they justify inserting the word father, when there is no Hebrew word for father in these verses? Also if Enoch became the father of Methuselah, was it by adoption, or by what means? So much for their concern for truth.

Then look at John 1:18, where they change "in the bosom" to "along side of", so much for truth. When they removed "only begotten Son" they opened a can of worms that they are still trying to contend with.

Sheth
Mar 10th 2013, 12:29 AM
Joe isn't it true that most Hebrew and Greek words have multiple English words, that in context are proper to use?

Yes, words in any language often have several meanings. And, practically all words are used in a verity of different, even if similar, ways. This makes exact translations impossible, even without considering the obscurity with which we understand ancient languages. So, the translator is stuck deciding which of a few technically legitimate options to translate a word or verse, and always settling for a word that is no better than just a close approximation.


You are quibbling over a Greek word when we have no absolute proof of what language all the books of the New Testament are written in.

No competent scholar doubts all, or nearly all, the NT was written in Greek.

The issue with quibbling is that it's being done mostly over legitimate variations. We should reserve our real concern for blatant paraphrasing, as done in such "translations" as the NLT and the Message. Even some popular translations fall into this error at times.

rejoice44
Mar 10th 2013, 01:10 AM
Yes, words in any language often have several meanings. And, practically all words are used in a verity of different, even if similar, ways. This makes exact translations impossible, even without considering the obscurity with which we understand ancient languages. So, the translator is stuck deciding which of a few technically legitimate options to translate a word or verse, and always settling for a word that is no better than just a close approximation.

Tell us what need there is for another translation of the Bible into English. First they have to rearrange all of their words so that they don't match one of their competitors, and this is the exact opposite attitude from the translators in the early English translations. Those early translators were fearful that they might be in conflict with Revelation 22:18-19, where they were told if they added to the bible they would be plagued, and if any man took away from the word, his part in the book of life would be taken away. There seems to be no fear of God today with the translators. One such translator, Bruce Metzger by name, solved this problem by merely removing Revelation 22:18-19 from his bible.


No competent scholar doubts all, or nearly all, the NT was written in Greek.

Yes, and the majority of the people in the U.S. think Obama is a great president. We find that only three percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Greek, and they allegedly come from 200 BC to 200 AD. Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrews, trying to impress on them the truth of Christ. Do you really believe that Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees would write a letter to Orthodox Jews in Greek, when he wanted all their attention. Many say Matthew was not written in Greek. What physical proof do you provide to back up your claim? (ADDED LATER--Look up the definition of Hebrew, for it refers to their language)


The issue with quibbling is that it's being done mostly over legitimate variations. We should reserve our real concern for blatant paraphrasing, as done in such "translations" as the NLT and the Message. Even some popular translations fall into this error at times.

But the claim of these translators is that they want a more accurate bible. How do you get a more accurate bible when you add words like "became the father", in place of begat, when there is absolutely no textual evidence for placing father in the text.

guero
Mar 10th 2013, 01:14 AM
I think it is always useful to consult the English translations of Greek commentaries on the NT that are available. Even if you don't agree with the theology of the commentaries, they are helpful in understanding how Greeks interpreted the Greek. The KJV translators consulted Chrysostom and Theophylact. Both are in English translations now. Chrysostom is in the public domain at CCEL and elsewhere.

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2013, 01:23 AM
Joe isn't it true that most Hebrew and Greek words have multiple English words, that in context are proper to use?

Yes, but that doesn't mean any word can mean anything. Genos does not mean begotten. Gennao does mean begotten. John used genos.


In Hebrews 11:17 we find that the ESV, the ASV, and the NASB, all have only begotten son.

No, the ESV has only, not only begotten in Hebrews 11:17. You are correct about the ASV and NASB. And again, unique or one of a kind would have been better there in all three cases. I'm an equal opportunity critic here. I don't usually discuss issues in the ESV or NASB because there aren't too many ESVO nor NASBO threads going around here. I really don't care much about what the ASV says. Who carries an ASV around with them?

The HCSB got it best in Hebrews 11:17.


Hebrews 11:17 (HCSB)
17*By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. He received the promises and he was offering his unique son,




Isn't the truth of the matter that Jesus is the only son that proceeded out from the Father, and that all other sons of God are by adoption?

Yes. I said that in my post.


You are quibbling over a Greek word when we have no absolute proof of what language all the books of the New Testament are written in.

Norman, no one of any repute agrees with your idea that we don't know the original language it was written in. This is conjecture on your part.


What makes Jesus unique is that he proceeded directly from the Father. Isn't that the same as the English word begotten?

No. Unique and begotten are two different words with two different meanings. It is true that being begotten is a unique quality of Jesus as the rest of us are adopted. But that's not what John said. You don't believe we should mistranslate words even if the "translation" happens to be a true statement, do you? If we took a passage that in Greek said Jesus went up on a mountain to pray but translated it as Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and is truly God and truly man, that would be a true statement, but not a translation at all. John didn't say begotten. You need to accept that the KJV is inaccurate here. Other modern versions such as the NASB are too at this point. I suspect the NASB has the correct reading in the margin because of the concern over uproar that might have started back when it was done if they messed with John 3:16.


Isn't the problem that all new translations have to be unique in order to have an identity?

That is not a problem. It is true that versions must have differences. But they don't have to be different in every verse. Look at John 1:1 and see how similar so many translations are.


In reality isn't begotten the best word to use to describe the relationship of Jesus with the Father?

So we should translate monogenes incorrectly. Who cares what the word means. Because it's been wrong in the English for 700 years, let's keep it wrong. Right, Norman? So you prefer tradition over truth then, correct?


The new translations, in order to have their own uniqueness, have played hopscotch with the words. For example, both the NASB and the NIV changed "begat" into "became the father" in the Old Testament. How do they justify inserting the word father, when there is no Hebrew word for father in these verses? Also if Enoch became the father of Methuselah, was it by adoption, or by what means? So much for their concern for truth.

Why do you think "father" is an insertion? Talk to a Hebrew expert and they won't agree with you. We have a Hebrew word --- יָלַד. I have a interlinear that is produced by a person that does not like modern versions. He's a KJV man. He has "fathered" for this word in the interlinear. Norm, I'm the one quibbling. At this point, it would appear you are. Fathered, became the father, begat are not nearly as different as unique v. begotten.

Can you admit to any errors in the KJV? I'm demonstrating right now that I don't see the new versions as untouchable and above reproach. As usual, instead of asking what does this word really mean? you are starting with the KJV. The KJV says begat, therefore father is an addition not realizing that it can be perfectly valid for one word in Hebrew to mean a three word phrase in English --- became the father. In regard to Genesis 5, I don't care which of these it is. They're all fine. It should be translated whatever way is a combination of being faithful to the text and at the same time is clear to the reader of today.


Then look at John 1:18, where they change "in the bosom" to "along side of", so much for truth. When they removed "only begotten Son" they opened a can of worms that they are still trying to contend with.

No one is contending except for KJV extremists. You know, Norman, if they were so concerned and "contending with a can of worms", they could have changed the NASB rendering in 1995. Or they could have done another revision in the last 18 years since then.

I assume you know that only one word is different in the Greek texts - God or son. That the text says God is beyond a reasonable doubt. Besides Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which you reject), p66 and p75 also have this which puts it beyond reasonable doubt. Toss in a couple papyri and you are trying to climb a high mountain to overthrow it, Norm. As I type this, I am looking at a passage in Igantius and he uses this phrase in his epistle to the Philadelphians. Clement of Alexandria . . . Origen . . . Norman, I can keep going on. It's all over the church fathers. I own them. I'm looking at them. Can't blame Westcott, Hort, Simonides or that Unitarian Vance Smith when it's in so many church fathers. Some fathers quote John 1:18 as son instead of God. So Norm, feel free to disagree with A & B and p66 and p75 and numerous church fathers and side with the church fathers and later manuscripts that read like the KJV, but know that it is absolutely true that the KJV rendering is a long way from being solid. You shouldn't pound the pulpit too hard on John 1:18. But the fact that the English has read one way for 700 years means nothing to me when numerous Greek texts which are the oldest of the manuscripts and numerous church fathers match modern versions.

The ESV and HCSB have bosom in the notes. They let the English reader know what they Greek says, but realizing the Greek is phrased in a way that sounds weird to English speakers if done literally, they translated in a way that sounds more conventional to the English ear. Now if you want to condemn that, go ahead and do that but get ready to condemn the KJV for doing the same thing too multiple times.

I plan on getting back to your previous post, but I responded to Marco first and now I'm responding to your response to my response to Marco.

rejoice44
Mar 10th 2013, 01:50 AM
Norman, no one of any repute agrees with your idea that we don't know the original language it was written in. This is conjecture on your part.

Joe, I don't know how many of the church fathers are Jewish, do you know? I ask this because logic would dictate that if they were not Jewish, that they most likely would write in a language other than Hebrew.

When Paul wrote to the Hebrews (And most believe it was Paul) he was defining their language by calling them Hebrew. Why would a Jew who was fluent in Hebrew write to Hebrews in Greek? We know Paul had to be fluent in Hebrew because he sat at the feet of Gamaliel.

Why would only three percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls be written in Greek?

Just because someone says they were written in Greek, when logic dictates that it was very unlikely that the majority of the books would have been written in Greek, is no reason to accept their conclusion without physical proof.

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2013, 02:21 AM
Norm, is this the only point you want to talk about from my post? The original languages and your claim that no one knows what the original language was . . . sigh


Joe, I don't know how many of the church fathers are Jewish, do you know? I ask this because logic would dictate that if they were not Jewish, that they most likely would write in a language other than Hebrew.

I don't know the ethnicity of each church father. I don't see that it's relevant. They most likely didn't write in Hebrew. I don't see the point.


When Paul wrote to the Hebrews (And most believe it was Paul) he was defining their language by calling them Hebrew. Why would a Jew who was fluent in Hebrew write to Hebrews in Greek? We know Paul had to be fluent in Hebrew because he sat at the feet of Gamaliel.

You have to accept Pauline authorship because if you don't, then the KJV has an error in it. I do not have to accept that and I don't. Why would anyone write to Hebrews in Greek? Because it was the universal language of the day thanks to Alexander the Great. Most Hebrews spoke Aramaic too. Cough up Aramaic manuscripts.


Why would only three percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls be written in Greek?

Most likely because they come from a community of Essenes. I don't see how this proves that you know what you're talking about and all of the scholars don't know what they are talking about.


Just because someone says they were written in Greek, when logic dictates that it was very unlikely that the majority of the books would have been written in Greek, is no reason to accept their conclusion without physical proof.

Logic? What kind of logic, Norman? Deductive? Inductive? Abductive? Layout your syllogisms or other logical means to make the case that we are clueless to the original languages of the biblical documents and that the scholars have no idea what they're talking about.

The inscription over Jesus' head on the cross had Greek as one of the languages. Why in that Jewish/Roman culture would they put it in Greek? Greek was the universal language of the day. And since the apostles wanted to get their message out to the entire world, why not use the universal language of the day. It would have been perfectly reasonable to write in Greek.

rejoice44
Mar 10th 2013, 02:27 AM
Norm, is this the only point you want to talk about from my post? The original languages and your claim that no one knows what the original language was . . . sigh



I don't know the ethnicity of each church father. I don't see that it's relevant. They most likely didn't write in Hebrew. I don't see the point.



You have to accept Pauline authorship because if you don't, then the KJV has an error in it. I do not have to accept that and I don't. Why would anyone write to Hebrews in Greek? Because it was the universal language of the day thanks to Alexander the Great. Most Hebrews spoke Aramaic too. Cough up Aramaic manuscripts.



Most likely because they come from a community of Essenes. I don't see how this proves that you know what you're talking about and all of the scholars don't know what they are talking about.



Logic? What kind of logic, Norman? Deductive? Inductive? Abductive? Layout your syllogisms or other logical means to make the case that we are clueless to the original languages of the biblical documents and that the scholars have no idea what they're talking about.

The inscription over Jesus' head on the cross had Greek as one of the languages. Why in that Jewish/Roman culture would they put it in Greek? Greek was the universal language of the day. And since the apostles wanted to get their message out to the entire world, why not use the universal language of the day. It would have been perfectly reasonable to write in Greek.

Just as I thought, there is no evidence. It is just a matter of trust me. Which of the church fathers stated that the original autographs were in Greek?

rejoice44
Mar 10th 2013, 02:34 AM
Norm, is this the only point you want to talk about from my post?

I wondered what the point is, when no evidence is provided.

In regard to "begat" meaning "became the father", if this is true do you realize how many women fathered children in the bible?

Sheth
Mar 10th 2013, 03:12 AM
Tell us what need there is for another translation of the Bible into English.

Need or not, here they are. And, here they'll stay.


First they have to rearrange all of their words so that they don't match one of their competitors, and this is the exact opposite attitude from the translators in the early English translations.

I understand the NKJV originally started as a project of doing nothing more than updating the language of the KJV. But, then they found that that wasn't sufficient to get copyright protection. So, they made other changes for the sake of making changes.


Yes, and the majority of the people in the U.S. think Obama is a great president. We find that only three percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Greek, and they allegedly come from 200 BC to 200 AD.

If there's any fragments of the NT among them, it would be in the Greek 3%. But, this was apparently a militantly Jewish group that stashed the materials in the caves, and there's nothing from the NT among them (and, most of the scrolls predate the time of Christ by a century or two).


Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrews, trying to impress on them the truth of Christ. Do you really believe that Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees would write a letter to Orthodox Jews in Greek, when he wanted all their attention. Many say Matthew was not written in Greek. What physical proof do you provide to back up your claim? (ADDED LATER--Look up the definition of Hebrew, for it refers to their language)

Translations have glaring qualities that show them to be translations. Hebrews, and the rest of the NT, lack these things. Hebrews is written originally in excellent Greek, and is not a translation. You ignore the evidence within the language of Hebrews and instead prejudicially believe it was written in Hebrew due to your belief that the intended audience spoke primarily Hebrew.

As with the rest of the NT, the author of Hebrews quotes the Greek LXX. So, do you propose that the Greek translator decided against translating the Hebrew scripture quotes and instead replaced them with Greek LXX quotes? That's a big assumption.

Another kind of evidence is how many of the words, syntax, and style one one language that doesn't reflect that of another language. (I don't mean idioms, because idioms have nothing to do with language, they're cultural). For example, Hebrews uses the word Church (ecclesia). There's no an ancient Aramaic or Hebrew word that means church. If it were translated, the author paraphrased. The more you have to appeal to paraphrasing, the weaker your position gets. The language and syntax of Hebrews looks thoroughly Greek in origin.


But the claim of these translators is that they want a more accurate bible. How do you get a more accurate bible when you add words like "became the father", in place of begat, when there is absolutely no textual evidence for placing father in the text.

I'm glad you don't like paraphrasing, either.

rejoice44
Mar 10th 2013, 12:56 PM
If there's any fragments of the NT among them, it would be in the Greek 3%. But, this was apparently a militantly Jewish group that stashed the materials in the caves, and there's nothing from the NT among them (and, most of the scrolls predate the time of Christ by a century or two).

The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Hebrews spoke Hebrew and not Greek. Your assuming the New Testament would have been in Greek.

[QUOTE]Translations have glaring qualities that show them to be translations. Hebrews, and the rest of the NT, lack these things. Hebrews is written originally in excellent Greek, and is not a translation. You ignore the evidence within the language of Hebrews and instead prejudicially believe it was written in Hebrew due to your belief that the intended audience spoke primarily Hebrew.

Can you exhibit some of these glaring qualities.

The fact that Pontius Pilate listed Hebrew first over the cross is a glaring testimony as to the language of the Jews.

The bigotry that was exhibited against the Jews could well account for the present day schools preferring the Greek language over the Hebrew.


As with the rest of the NT, the author of Hebrews quotes the Greek LXX. So, do you propose that the Greek translator decided against translating the Hebrew scripture quotes and instead replaced them with Greek LXX quotes? That's a big assumption.

And the evidence for the LXX is where? If the LXX is right and the Hebrew is wrong, what happened to Methuselah while Noah was in the Ark? Have you considered that the New Testament does not read the same as the Old Testament because when they translated the New Testament from Hebrew to Greek, that the translation wouldn't read the same as the Old Testament when translating into English. Since the evidence for the LXX is so scanty and corrupt we have no reason to believe that it is an accurate copy from the 2nd Century BC LXX, but rather a revised edition matching the translated New Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek.

I know this goes against everything you have been taught, but then your teachers had premises, so why can't I have mine?


Another kind of evidence is how many of the words, syntax, and style one one language that doesn't reflect that of another language. (I don't mean idioms, because idioms have nothing to do with language, they're cultural). For example, Hebrews uses the word Church (ecclesia). There's no an ancient Aramaic or Hebrew word that means church. If it were translated, the author paraphrased. The more you have to appeal to paraphrasing, the weaker your position gets. The language and syntax of Hebrews looks thoroughly Greek in origin.

What you are saying is that Hebrews isn't really Hebrew?

Sheth
Mar 10th 2013, 03:20 PM
The HCSB got it best in Hebrews 11:17.


No, the HCSB got it wrong. Monogenes doesn't mean unique. It means only begotten. The HCSB says Abraham had no other children like Isaac. The author of Hebrews says Isaac was Abraham's only offspring.


The HCSB is more a paraphrase than a literal translation. And, as the bad paraphrase that this version is, it often chooses words that are are neither the simplest or most accurate. "Only son" is better than "unique son".

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2013, 06:45 PM
No, the HCSB got it wrong. Monogenes doesn't mean unique. It means only begotten. The HCSB says Abraham had no other children like Isaac. The author of Hebrews says Isaac was Abraham's only offspring.


The HCSB is more a paraphrase than a literal translation. And, as the bad paraphrase that this version is, it often chooses words that are are neither the simplest or most accurate. "Only son" is better than "unique son".


Sheth, on what basis should I go with what you're saying. Wayne Grudem doesn't agree with you just to name one scholar. Tell me why I should take your exposition of monogenes over Grudem's.

guero
Mar 10th 2013, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE=Sheth;2963072] If there's any fragments of the NT among them, it would be in the Greek 3%. But, this was apparently a militantly Jewish group that stashed the materials in the caves, and there's nothing from the NT among them (and, most of the scrolls predate the time of Christ by a century or two).

The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Hebrews spoke Hebrew and not Greek. Your assuming the New Testament would have been in Greek.



Can you exhibit some of these glaring qualities.

The fact that Pontius Pilate listed Hebrew first over the cross is a glaring testimony as to the language of the Jews.

The bigotry that was exhibited against the Jews could well account for the present day schools preferring the Greek language over the Hebrew.



And the evidence for the LXX is where? If the LXX is right and the Hebrew is wrong, what happened to Methuselah while Noah was in the Ark? Have you considered that the New Testament does not read the same as the Old Testament because when they translated the New Testament from Hebrew to Greek, that the translation wouldn't read the same as the Old Testament when translating into English. Since the evidence for the LXX is so scanty and corrupt we have no reason to believe that it is an accurate copy from the 2nd Century BC LXX, but rather a revised edition matching the translated New Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek.

I know this goes against everything you have been taught, but then your teachers had premises, so why can't I have mine?



What you are saying is that Hebrews isn't really Hebrew?


Not sure exactly where this fits in, but I thought folks might be interested in the following, which appears in the preface to the Jewish Publication Society version of the Old Testament (Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text):

"Bible translation began about 2,200 years ago, in the third century B.C.E., as the large Jewish population of Alexandria, Egypt, came under the influence of Hellenism. When the Greek language replaced Hebrew and Aramaic as their vernacular, and the Torah in its Hebrew original was no longer commonly understood, a translation into Greek was made for the Jewish community of Alexandria. This translation came to be known as the Septuagint, Latin for “seventy,” because of the legend that the committee of translators numbered seventy-two, six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.
In the last few centuries B.C.E., the Jews who lived to the north and east of Judea also found the Hebrew Bible difficult to understand, for their spoken language had become largely Aramaic. Translations into Aramaic, first of the Torah and then of the rest of the Bible, became known as the Targums.
The Septuagint and the Targums are not only the oldest translations of the Bible but also the most influential. Down to our own day, virtually every Christian translation has followed the methods of the Jewish translators who created the Septuagint, and generally followed their renderings of the Hebrew as well. The Christian translators also were influenced by the interpretation of the Hebrew text set forth in the Targums (much of it in oral form at the time) and by the writings of the Jewish philosopher-interpreter Philo of Alexandria (died about 45 C.E.)."

From this I think we can infer that the Hellenists and the Hebrews that are mentioned in Acts 6:1 would have read Scripture in Greek and Aramaic as well as Hebrew.

Also there are many here much better versed than I on Biblical geography and anthropology, but I believe Saul was from Tarsus, which, as part of Asia Minor, would have been Greek-speaking. Apparently, this did not preclude him from being a Pharisee.

Sheth
Mar 10th 2013, 07:38 PM
The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Hebrews spoke Hebrew and not Greek. Your assuming the New Testament would have been in Greek.

I just pointed out that Essenes were apparently a militant Jewish group and that most of the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the time of Christ by a century or two. Both of these would have made the scrolls less Greek than Jews in general. Add to that, Jesus and the Apostles weren't from Judea in the first place. They would have been more Greek yet.


Can you exhibit some of these glaring qualities.

I just pointed out two examples in Hebrews show its Greek origin (quotes from the Greek LXX, use of words like "church" that don't exist in Hebrew). What do you think you've been reading?


The fact that Pontius Pilate listed Hebrew first over the cross is a glaring testimony as to the language of the Jews.

I've always held that Aramaic was the "Hebrew language" of the first century. I've argued that this is because of its relatively exclusivity to the Jews, not because of primacy among the Jews at the time of Christ.


And the evidence for the LXX is where? If the LXX is right and the Hebrew is wrong, what happened to Methuselah while Noah was in the Ark? Have you considered that the New Testament does not read the same as the Old Testament because when they translated the New Testament from Hebrew to Greek, that the translation wouldn't read the same as the Old Testament when translating into English. Since the evidence for the LXX is so scanty and corrupt we have no reason to believe that it is an accurate copy from the 2nd Century BC LXX, but rather a revised edition matching the translated New Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek.

OT quotes throughout the NT, including Hebrews, very closely match the LXX, much more so than any Hebrew or Aramaic OT. (BTW, what's the name of that Aramaic translation in the first century that these Aramaic-speaking Jews used?) This is the best of our knowledge and so this evidence favors a Greek origin of Hebrews.

I doubt that most first century Jews could even read OT Hebrew (aside from maybe Paul). OT Hebrew was a dead language by the first century. Only 1% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in OT Hebrew, and those would have greatly predated the time of Christ. So, the idea that the NT authors quoted from the Hebrew OT is a non-starter, even before we note that OT quotes in the NT appear to come from the Greek LXX.


What you are saying is that Hebrews isn't really Hebrew?

Aramaic is a language that the Jews picked up in Babylonian captivity. It doesn't even use the same alphabet as OT Hebrew. For a first century Aramaic-speaking Jew to read OT Hebrew would be like you trying to read Chinese.

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2013, 08:40 PM
I'm going to post something from the beginning of the thread to bring this back to the original idea. Because now, not only have KJVO/AVO responses turned this thread into exactly what I'm trying to say shouldn't be done at Bible Forums, now we have non-KJVO types tossing out several modern versions.


Now how about we quit attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org?

Do you like the KJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.

Do you like the NKJV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.

Do you like the NASB? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.

Do you like the NIV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.

Do you like the ESV? Great! Read it cover-to-cover. Then do it over and over again.

Let's leave Bible attacks to Bart Ehrman and the new atheists. Let's not have Christians attacking Bibles at Bibleforums.org

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2013, 08:59 PM
Just as I thought, there is no evidence. It is just a matter of trust me. Which of the church fathers stated that the original autographs were in Greek?

Norm, this is a pathetic response. You are not handling nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts yourself. You aren't digging in the sands looking for documents. You point a finger at me stating that I'm taking things from others writings as a matter of trust, but you are doing nothing different! As you point your finger at me, three of your own are pointing back at you for doing the same thing. You aren't out there doing any kind of first hand research. You are reading what others have written. Those who don't agree with you, you appear to simply toss out. Those who agree with you and the KJV, those you accept. If another translation translates a word differently, then they have "added" to the Bible because your case is entirely circular. Start with your conclusion, and anything that differs is wrong.

In regard to your question above, if the NT was in Greek, and the church fathers wrote in Greek (at least the earliest ones), then why should we expect them to comment on the "original language" since it's the same language they were writing in? If someone writes an English review of a book in English, I don't expect their review to make the comment that the "original language" of the book is in English.

If you have any evidence from church fathers suggesting otherwise, put it on the table before us. I see no reason if you present a theory but have no evidence, that I should do all the leg work to satisfactorily answer any and every question you come up with when it goes against 99% or more of scholarship. But do it in another thread because this is completely off topic in this thread.

Sheth
Mar 10th 2013, 09:08 PM
I'm going to post something from the beginning of the thread to bring this back to the original idea. Because now, not only have KJVO/AVO responses turned this thread into exactly what I'm trying to say shouldn't be done at Bible Forums, now we have non-KJVO types tossing out several modern versions.

Wouldn't a Bible forum be the most appropriate place to discuss differences between Bible versions?

Given the importance of the Bible, isn't guarding it against corrupt translation be of high priority?

Translation debate is much different than Atheist attacks on the Bible. Also, translation debate is very fruitful in educating us about the text behind the translations.

TrustGzus
Mar 10th 2013, 11:02 PM
Wouldn't a Bible forum be the most appropriate place to discuss differences between Bible versions?

Given the importance of the Bible, isn't guarding it against corrupt translation be of high priority?

Translation debate is much different than Atheist attacks on the Bible. Also, translation debate is very fruitful in educating us about the text behind the translations.

Sheth, I agree. I think differences should be discussed. However, I don't agree with sweeping attacks throwing entire translations under the bus with very little commentary and saying that version X, Y or Z is a paraphrase or person A, B or C had some large or small part to due with an English version. All of them paraphrase to some degree. And guilt by association isn't a logical reason to reject a translation. If you haven't, read my OP. This thread was many pages long when you joined in and is far removed from where I started it. In the OP I talk about how I think these things should be discussed. For the seven years that I've been here I've watched constant attacks where people discard entire versions with not enough thought put into it and without realizing how much the translation(s) they favor is guilty of the same at various points to various degrees of whatever criticism is being leveled.

rejoice44
Mar 11th 2013, 01:58 PM
Norm, this is a pathetic response. You are not handling nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts yourself. You aren't digging in the sands looking for documents. You point a finger at me stating that I'm taking things from others writings as a matter of trust, but you are doing nothing different! As you point your finger at me, three of your own are pointing back at you for doing the same thing. You aren't out there doing any kind of first hand research. You are reading what others have written. Those who don't agree with you, you appear to simply toss out. Those who agree with you and the KJV, those you accept. If another translation translates a word differently, then they have "added" to the Bible because your case is entirely circular. Start with your conclusion, and anything that differs is wrong.

In regard to your question above, if the NT was in Greek, and the church fathers wrote in Greek (at least the earliest ones), then why should we expect them to comment on the "original language" since it's the same language they were writing in? If someone writes an English review of a book in English, I don't expect their review to make the comment that the "original language" of the book is in English.

If you have any evidence from church fathers suggesting otherwise, put it on the table before us. I see no reason if you present a theory but have no evidence, that I should do all the leg work to satisfactorily answer any and every question you come up with when it goes against 99% or more of scholarship. But do it in another thread because this is completely off topic in this thread.

Joe you don't have to be a surgeon to investigate a surgeon. You can compare the number of deaths to the number of patients, taking in to account their ages and types of disease. The same can be true of the bible. You don't necessarily have to be a scholar to determine if a manuscript is genuine.

When you investigate the languages and content of the bible translations there are many parameters to consider. One thing we know is that the scholars come out of the universities, therefore there programs and personnel of the universities are subject to scrutiny. When you discover things like Harvard being a hotbed for Unitarians in the 19th century, that is a parameter for consideration. Then you discover that Greek studies started in the middle of the nineteenth century at Harvard, but Hebrew studies didn't start until after the middle of the twentieth century, that becomes another parameter for consideration. Then you have to throw in the bigotry against the Jew for almost forever and that becomes another parameter. Then you throw in the fact that so little study is done on the Hebrew Old Testament compared to the New Testament that becomes another parameter, especially in light of the fact that without the Old Testament, the New Testament is meaningless.

There appears to be a worship of the Greek in comparison to the Hebrew. One could conclude that this is due to the fact that Greek was given a place of honor in the universities above the Hebrew. On the cross the Hebrew was listed first, and it was done by a non-Hebrew. I submit the following as an educated opinion from one Hebrew.




HEBREW AS THE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN



LANGUAGE IN THE LAST DAY OF THE SECOND TEMPLE



JEHOSHUA M. GRINTZ



JERUSALEM, ISRAEL


It is the prevailing view that at the time of the second temple Aramaic was the only popular language of Palestine. Even when contemporary sources attest to the actual use of “Hebrew”, this is taken as a reference not to Hebrew itself, but to the Aramaic dialect current in Palestine. Our intention is to demonstrate that this opinion, which has been dominate for about a century and a half, is quite erroneous and should be discarded, The common view has been successfully challenged by scholars who reached conclusions similar to those advocated here. Among them a prominent place must be accorded to M. H. Segal and E. Ben-Yehuda, who based their arguments upon the mishnaic literature, the most important Hebrew monument of those times. Our approach is from a different angle, however, derives from source material: contemporary data written during or shortly after the period under consideration. These, it is true, have been transmitted to us in Greek garb, yet according to the allusions of the authors or to the statements made by near contemporaries, they were written first in Hebrew. We refer to the language of the first edition of Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum, and to the original language of the Gospel according to Matthew. Our conclusion is—we anticipate at this point the evidence—that whenever the word “Hebrew” is used to designate the spoken or written language, the reference is to the Hebrew and no other language. In our view, it was the main vehicle of speech in Jerusalem and the surrounding country, as well as the language most used for literary purposes during this period.

Sheth
Mar 11th 2013, 03:38 PM
When you investigate the languages and content of the bible translations there are many parameters to consider. One thing we know is that the scholars come out of the universities, therefore there programs and personnel of the universities are subject to scrutiny. When you discover things like Harvard being a hotbed for Unitarians in the 19th century, that is a parameter for consideration.

Harvard is extremely liberal, as are many of the more elitist universities, and even mainstream universities. Atheists, Jews (mostly Atheist, not orthodox), and Liberal Christians are highly represented among their scholars. These people do not treat scripture with reverence. They treat scripture as the fruit of human superstition.

(They're not liberal because they're educated. They're Liberal because Liberals are intolerant. Universities are like Hollywood, they subject students to a constant bias against Christianity. The longer you're there the more liberal you become, even if all do is take art classes. And, if you're a known Bible believer, you're going to have a lot tougher time getting hired as a professor.)

rejoice44
Mar 12th 2013, 12:44 PM
Harvard is extremely liberal, as are many of the more elitist universities, and even mainstream universities. Atheists, Jews (mostly Atheist, not orthodox), and Liberal Christians are highly represented among their scholars. These people do not treat scripture with reverence. They treat scripture as the fruit of human superstition.

(They're not liberal because they're educated. They're Liberal because Liberals are intolerant. Universities are like Hollywood, they subject students to a constant bias against Christianity. The longer you're there the more liberal you become, even if all do is take art classes. And, if you're a known Bible believer, you're going to have a lot tougher time getting hired as a professor.)

Are you referring to men like Joseph Henry Thayer, chairman of the editorial committee for the New Testament of the ASV? He was a Unitarian Harvard Professor. Likewise was Ezra Abbott another Harvard Unitarian on the ASV committee.

rejoice44
Mar 16th 2013, 01:14 PM
I'm going to post something from the beginning of the thread to bring this back to the original idea. Because now, not only have KJVO/AVO responses turned this thread into exactly what I'm trying to say shouldn't be done at Bible Forums, now we have non-KJVO types tossing out several modern versions.

Joe the attackers of the Bible are the ones that keep wanting to change the wording. Every time a new translation comes out, it is an attack on the Bible.

Sheth
Mar 16th 2013, 03:12 PM
Joe the attackers of the Bible are the ones that keep wanting to change the wording. Every time a new translation comes out, it is an attack on the Bible.

I agree with that, but not in principle. In practice, modern translators feel freer than ever to change and add words to impose their views upon the Bible.

TrustGzus
Mar 16th 2013, 04:05 PM
Joe the attackers of the Bible are the ones that keep wanting to change the wording. Every time a new translation comes out, it is an attack on the Bible.

Really? We can't let this thread die? It made it's point and then got abducted into just another out of dozens of KJV threads regurgitating the same things over and over again.

Norman, you've already given this response. And I replied that if every time a translation comes out it is an attack on the Bible, then the KJV is an attack on the Bible since over a dozen versions existed prior to the KJV. Once the second translation was made, it was an attack based on this line of reasoning.

In making this response, you are using attack in a different way than I am so you're equivocating to my original idea anyway and really staying on the topic of the OP.

rejoice44
Mar 16th 2013, 07:13 PM
Norman, you've already given this response. And I replied that if every time a translation comes out it is an attack on the Bible, then the KJV is an attack on the Bible since over a dozen versions existed prior to the KJV. Once the second translation was made, it was an attack based on this line of reasoning.

Your statement does not portray a true picture. There was a starting point for the translation of the Bible into English. In the beginning those that tried to translate the Bible into English were attacked. They rarely had adequate resources or time, as they were persecuted. The printing press became a reality in the 15th century, and by the beginning of the 17th century there was a translation that was authorized by the king of the English speaking people. That English translation became recognized as the sole translation of all English speaking churches. 270 years from its inception along came a group of men, of which many didn't believe in the Deity of God, with the sole purpose of creating a new English translation, different from every English translation in the past 500 plus years. What was different about it? They decided that some verses had been added which falsely attributed Deity to Christ. They set out to find new material that they could use to create a new translation without all those verses that related to Christ's Deity.

What was there number one manuscript for this purpose? It was Codex Sinaiticus, designated (01) by these same people. This manuscript was declared a forgery by the greatest forger of the 19th century, and though denied as a forgery by these people, it was never satisfactorily proven. The founder fittingly claimed he found it in the trash bin. What about the rest of the material that they used? They came up with, figuratively speaking, tons of pre-tenth century material for the Alexandrian Greek New Testament. What about the Alexandrian Greek Old Testament? Hardly nothing. What about the New Testament in Latin? Nothing, or at least they didn't present it. What about Hebrew? Nothing, or at least nothing outside of the DSS. What about other languages? Nothing.

It doesn't pass the smell test, and yet every new translation after translation comes out with their material that deleted the major verses on the Deity of Christ. We went from one English translation accepted by all churches, to all churches with many translations. It added debate after debate and confusion after confusion as to what really is the Word of God. Some people claim this is a good thing. They are mostly the people whose lively hood is connected, in some form or another, to the creating of these translations.

Many people did not know this when they picked up their first bible. All of these translations have God's word within their covers, and therefore many are offended when you make such statements that cast a cloud on their translation, because they see it as an attack on their bible. But they should still know the story behind all of these translations, which includes who these people were, and what their motives were.

Boo
Mar 17th 2013, 10:05 AM
Yet we totally ignore the motive behind the KJV.

Liquid Tension
Mar 17th 2013, 03:05 PM
Yet we totally ignore the motive behind the KJV.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rejoice44
Mar 18th 2013, 10:49 AM
Yet we totally ignore the motive behind the KJV.

We know their motive was not to remove the Deity of Christ from the Bible.

RabbiKnife
Mar 18th 2013, 01:43 PM
The purpose was to destroy those that dissented from the Anglican Church. particularly the dissenters and the anabaptists.

Liquid Tension
Mar 18th 2013, 03:20 PM
The purpose was to destroy those that dissented from the Anglican Church. particularly the dissenters and the anabaptists.

You mean it wasn't about proving unicorns exist?? :hmm:

rejoice44
Mar 18th 2013, 05:01 PM
The purpose was to destroy those that dissented from the Anglican Church. particularly the dissenters and the anabaptists.

You lost me here. What scripture are you referring to that destroyed the dissenters of the Anglican Church, and the anabaptists?

RabbiKnife
Mar 18th 2013, 05:02 PM
You lost me here. What scripture are you referring to that destroyed the dissenters of the Anglican Church, and the anabaptists?

What Scripture are we referring to that authorized the translation of the Scripture by the King James committee?

All of reality does not exist in Scritpure. There's a lot of reality outside of it.

rejoice44
Mar 18th 2013, 05:14 PM
What Scripture are we referring to that authorized the translation of the Scripture by the King James committee?

All of reality does not exist in Scritpure. There's a lot of reality outside of it.

You made a statement, but do you not have chapter and verse to back it up?

RabbiKnife
Mar 18th 2013, 05:24 PM
You made a statement, but do you not have chapter and verse to back it up?

Abraham Lincoln lived and died, but I don't have chapter and verse for that, either.

There are no "chapter and verse" citations for authority for the King James committee to be formed, either.

rejoice44
Mar 18th 2013, 05:30 PM
Abraham Lincoln lived and died, but I don't have chapter and verse for that, either.

There are no "chapter and verse" citations for authority for the King James committee to be formed, either.

You made this statement.
RabbiKnife "The purpose was to destroy those that dissented from the Anglican Church. particularly the dissenters and the anabaptists." And you will not give us the chapter and verse to back it up? What scripture was included in their translation that destroyed the dissenters?

Liquid Tension
Mar 18th 2013, 05:38 PM
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/091/b/f/double_facepalm_by_patchy684-d3cy054.png

TrustGzus
Mar 18th 2013, 11:17 PM
You mean it wasn't about proving unicorns exist?? :hmm:

Don't forget about the cockatrice in Isaiah 11:18, 14:29, 59:5 and Jeremiah 8:17. Picture's kind of small. Click on it for a larger view.

11657

rejoice44
Mar 19th 2013, 12:20 AM
Don't forget about the cockatrice in Isaiah 11:18, 14:29, 59:5 and Jeremiah 8:17. Picture's kind of small. Click on it for a larger view.

11657

NIV Revelation 9: 7-11 The cockatrices looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

TrustGzus
Mar 19th 2013, 01:10 AM
NIV Revelation 9: 7-11 The cockatrices looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

Norm, I got the 1984 NIV, TNIV and 2011 NIV in front of me. None of them say that. What are you quoting from? You offer no link. You offer no copyright info. Seriously? The only other version I own that uses cockatrice other than the KJV is one usage in Young's Literal.

rejoice44
Mar 19th 2013, 01:27 AM
Norm, I got the 1984 NIV, TNIV and 2011 NIV in front of me. None of them say that. What are you quoting from? You offer no link. You offer no copyright info. Seriously? The only other version I own that uses cockatrice other than the KJV is one usage in Young's Literal.

You see that is the point. No the NIV does not have Cockatrice, but then have you ever seen a locust that had long hair and a man's face?

TomH
Mar 19th 2013, 02:24 AM
You see that is the point. No the NIV does not have Cockatrice, but then have you ever seen a locust that had long hair and a man's face?


So, you're saying it couldn't happen?

http://phys.org/news/2011-02-robot-hummingbird-flight-video.html

Liquid Tension
Mar 19th 2013, 02:30 AM
As far as I know, the NIV doesn't have unicorns either.........

Liquid Tension
Mar 19th 2013, 02:31 AM
Don't forget about the cockatrice in Isaiah 11:18, 14:29, 59:5 and Jeremiah 8:17. Picture's kind of small. Click on it for a larger view.

11657

Looks like that would be a cool pet! :eek:

TomH
Mar 19th 2013, 02:35 AM
Looks like that would be a cool pet! :eek:


I had a Banty rooster one time that woulda whooped his butt.

TrustGzus
Mar 19th 2013, 02:52 AM
You see that is the point. No the NIV does not have Cockatrice, but then have you ever seen a locust that had long hair and a man's face?

Are you implying that cockatrice, a mythical beast from the 12th century after Christ, is the correct English word for the passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah?

rejoice44
Mar 20th 2013, 02:55 AM
Are you implying that cockatrice, a mythical beast from the 12th century after Christ, is the correct English word for the passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah?

I am saying maybe it is the correct word for the locust in Revelation 9.