The Greatest Man Alive (Biblical translations Book 1)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Greatest Man Alive (Biblical translations Book 1) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Greatest Man Alive (Biblical translations Book 1) book. Happy reading The Greatest Man Alive (Biblical translations Book 1) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Greatest Man Alive (Biblical translations Book 1) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Greatest Man Alive (Biblical translations Book 1) Pocket Guide.

The reader should be aware, however, that in spite of BeDuhn's objection, there are a large number of well respected Greek scholars who have defended the wording "and the Word was God. However, BeDuhn makes another statement which we will follow up on later. It is very significant, and I think that ultimately it helps in resolving the conflict. However, it is not a new argument.

This brings us back to John I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded a definite. So if the meaning of "the Word was a god," or "the Word was a divine being" is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings, then we could translate the phrase as "the Word was divine.

BeDuhn says more on John , but I need to leave that to serious readers who will obtain their own copy of Truth in Translation. Let me simply close with his summary paragraph. Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NWT translation of John is superior to that of the other eight translation we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work.

No translation of John that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NWT achieves this, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun.

I have no expertise which allows me to compare BeDuhn's thesis against that of other Greek scholars who insist that the English wording "and the Word was God" is correct So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that BeDuhn's analysis of John is correct. He presents a powerful argument declaring the deity of Jesus. If we will recall, the debate regarding the nature of Jesus in the early centuries centered on whether or not He was "of the same substance as the Father. Of course, we understand that when John uses "a god" in the sense of the English adjective "divine," he is not using it in the colloquial English sense of "delightful.

That was the sense of the early assertion that Jesus was "of the same substance" as the Father. Therefore, a very literal translation of John using this English adjective would say,. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was divine. I agree with BeDuhn that I do not want my translation interpreted for me. But I would understand the above translation to be saying,. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was of the same substance as God. Again, for the sake of argument, let's present the case as though BeDuhn's thesis is the more accurate.

John is powerfully declaring that Jesus has the nature of God because he uses terminology which identifies Jesus' qualitative character as that of the Almighty. We should not resort to bias in any area of our English translations; we should allow the biblical author to speak for himself.

Let our translators not bias John with "and the Word was God. Unless there are other factors to consider such as the imposter "god" in 2 Thessalonians , the subjects of each reference must be given similar rank. In most cases, this may require the use of footnote explanations. After we have first corrected our own biased English translations, then we can expect the New World Translation translators to correct theirs.

According to what BeDuhn is telling us, the Greek construction kai theos en ho logos "and god was the word" means something substantially different from that which is implied using the lower case English words "a god. By being mechanically literal, the New World Translation has achieved a biased translation which substantially reduces the impact of John's statement. As noted in paragraph 3 above, it is incumbent on the New World Translation translators to consistently render this construction in English in a way which similarly identifies any to whom this Greek form applies.

Chapter The Spirit Writ Large. This chapter is concerned with the way in which the Greek word pneuma spirit is translated into English in the New Testament. The reader is undoubtedly aware that the written Greek used in the autographs consisted of only upper case letters. Thus, the New Testament writers could not use upper case letters to make a distinction between "Spirit" and "spirit" in order to identify the subject as a person or an object.

To complicate translation further, the word pneuma has a number of meanings. It could mean "wind," "breath" or "life-spirit," "a level of reality," or "spirit creatures. The word "spirit" in the New Testament is, therefore, a ready made arena for translation-bias debates. As a result of these conditions, many modern translators read the Holy Spirit into passages where it does not actually appear, verses where "spirit" is used to refer to other "spiritual" things.

At the same time, they confine the Holy Spirit within human concepts of personhood by altering the meaning of Greek pronouns from neuter to masculine. The real danger here is that the Holy Spirit as it is actually found in the New Testament will be misunderstood and distorted by adding to it qualities it does not have and attributing to it acts that the biblical authors actually ascribe to other kinds of "spirit. BeDuhn then analyses a number of biblical passages from the above perspective. Needless to say, because the New World Translation avoids any recognition of "personhood" of the spirit, BeDuhn strongly favors its wording when translating "spirit" or "holy spirit.

I must simply leave the reader to make his or her own judgment on this chapter after reading it carefully in Truth in Translation. Many readers of Truth in Translation will feel that BeDuhn has brought a strong personal, theological bias to this chapter. Yet, he does raise an interesting problem in translating New Testament Greek into English.

The absence of upper case letters in Greek, and the grammatical necessity of identifying proper nouns in English with capitals, will force every English translator to produce a "biased" translation. Yet it is an entirely unjust accusation to say that a capitalized "Spirit" is always biased, and a lower case "spirit" is not.

It is more correct to say that anytime the word pneuma occurs in which a meaning such as "wind," "breath," etc. Bias in this case is unavoidable for any translation from Greek to English. Of course, this does not permit improper translation of personal pronouns and the like. Even with that, however, one word in upper case letters in a lower case sentence tends to bias in one direction, whereas all lower case letters clearly biases in the other. I must simply leave it at that.

Every English translation will be biased in the translation of the word pneuma. That is just as true of the New World Translation as it is of any other translation. Is there any solution? But it is difficult to read and I am not giving it as a serious suggestion. That translation the English portion is, after all, still a translation has an awkward solution to this problem.

Who wrote the book?

It uses nothing but upper case letters for the entire text. There is no bias favoring "Spirit" or "spirit. Chapter A Final Word. In his final chapter, BeDuhn gives a thought provoking analysis of translation bias. It is natural, I think, for people to assume that translations produced by individuals, or by members of a single religious group, would be more prone to bias than translations made by large teams of translators representing a broad spectrum of belief.

But our assumptions also have been challenged. Translations produced by single denominations can and do defy our expectations of bias. Let's review the outcome of our investigation. BeDuhn: In chapter Four, we saw that the NWT and NAB handle the Greek word proskuneo most consistently, accurately translating it as "give homage" or "do obeisance" rather than switching to "worship" when Jesus is the recipient of the gesture.

Comment: The word proskuneo is used of individuals prostrated before man, before Jesus and before God. We can excuse any translation for not using "worship" when homage before man is described. Yet, it is no more, or no less, bias if that same translation then uses "worship" with either one or both Jesus and God. It is equally a bias when a translation selects between Jesus and God to use "homage" or "obeisance" with one and "worship" with the other.

Thus, the New World Translation is just as biased as any other translation in its use of the word "obeisance" in reference to Jesus. In the New World Translation , the translators have interpreted proskuneo as though Jesus is not divine but God is. In most other translations, the translators have interpreted proskuneo to mean that both Jesus and God are divine. The only unbiased translation which would be free of interpretation would use "homage" or "obeisance" with both Jesus and God and then let the context interpret the word to the reader.

In many of these passages, the Bible writer described actions which are consistent with worship, including giving praise and glory. But that determination should be left to the reader and not be interpreted by the translator. BeDuhn: In chapter Five, the NWT was shown to have the most accurate translation of harpagmos , offering "seizure" consistent with its handling of other words derived from the verb harpazo.

The other translations, which along with the NAB do not indicate additions to the text in any way, slip interpretations and glosses into the text. Comment: We cannot allow BeDuhn to side-step the seven "[other]" references in this New World Translation passage as being anything other than unmitigated bias.

As BeDuhn infers, an absence of the word [other] places Jesus outside of creation page Since Paul does not qualify his "other" statements, the translator must not do that for him. To do otherwise is interpretation. That is particularly true when the passage is read in context, seeing how forcefully Paul describes Jesus as the creator of everything. The notion of "[other]" is contrary to the otherwise all-inclusive tone of the passage when the New World Translation says, " all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

All [other] things have been created through him and for him. But Jesus created everything else and therefore, everything else belongs solely to Jesus. In other words, God owns Jesus, but Jesus owns the cosmos because it was created "for him. BeDuhn: In chapter Eight and Nine, no translation could be judged inaccurate, since either way of translating the passages is possible.

But the weight of probability in chapter Nine favored the NWT's way of handling the verse discussed there. BeDuhn: In chapter Ten, it was revealed that only the NWT and LB render the verbal expression ego eimi [I am] into a coherent part of its larger context in John , accurately following the Greek idiom. BeDuhn: In chapter Eleven, I demonstrated at length that only the NWT adheres exactly to the literal meaning of the Greek clause theos en ho logos [god was the word] in John The other translations have followed an interpretive tradition that ignores the nuance in John's choice of expression.

Comment: If we assume that BeDuhn's statement is true, we are then confronted with Harner's statement, "that ho logos no less than ho theos had the nature of theos.

We also commented that the New World Translation introduced their own bias by importing a word-literal Greek sentence structure in "a god" when this same word-literal form is not translated similarly in other verses referring to God in the New World Translation. BeDuhn: In chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit. Comment: However, the Greek of the New Testament autographs used only upper case letters whereas English requires that a lower case letter be used for a common noun and an upper case letter be used for a proper noun.

It is therefore impossible for any English translation to entirely avoid bias because either adding or eliminating the capital "S" on spirit biases the translation. It cannot be said, therefore, that the New World Translation is less biased because it does not capitalize the word "spirit. BeDuhn's argument regarding relative and demonstrative pronouns is considerably stronger in categorizing the bias of the translations he evaluated. While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.

Both of these are translations produced by single denominations of Christianity. I have pondered why these two translations, of all those considered, turned out to be the least biased. The reason might be different in each case. But, at the risk of greatly oversimplifying things, I think one common element the two denominations behind these translation share is the freedom from what I call the Protestant's Burden. In addition—as we will see in discussing the appendix—does he assume that replacing the word "Lord" to distance passages from Jesus when there is no ancient New Testament textual support of any kind is not a translation bias of the highest order?

You see, Protestant forms of Christianity, following the motto of sola scriptura , insist that all legitimate Christian beliefs and practices must be found in, or at least based on, the Bible. That's a very clear and admirable principle. The problem is that Protestant Christianity was not born in a historical vacuum, and does not go back directly to the time that the Bible was written.

For the doctrines that Protestantism inherited to be considered true, they had to be found in the Bible. And precisely because they were considered true already, there was and is tremendous pressure to read those truths back into the Bible, whether or not they are actually there.

Catholicism, while generally committed to the idea that what the Church believes can be proven by and is grounded in the Bible, maintains the view that Christian doctrine was developed, or brought to more precise clarity on key points, by the work of theologians over time. It is not necessary, from the Catholic point of view, to find every doctrine or practice explicitly spelled out in the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are more similar to the Protestant in their view that the Bible alone must be the source of truth in its every detail.

So you might expect translators from this sect to labor under the Protestant Burden. But they do not for the simple reason that the Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism.

This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. For those of us who come from this Protestant tradition, let's take a break and talk about some of the issues that we face in translation bias. I think BeDuhn makes a valuable observation regarding that which has formed our expectations of our own Bible translations.

We do want the Bible to include verification of everything we believe. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we put the Bible in first place and let our theology follow. But we need to be extremely careful that we do not let our expectation take us beyond what the Scripture writers actually said. That is true in both the development of our theology and in our demand for new Bible translations.

There is an interesting corollary to the above paragraph. For a number of centuries, the western mind has searched for "truth" rooted in empirical data. We want to be "scientific" and base our lives on verifiable information. In fact, we compliment ourselves much too highly. In very little of life do we actually live that way.

Yet, the development of religious thought within conservative Protestantism strongly reflects this empirical ideal. We want a chapter-and-verse foundation for every doctrine. As a result, we have developed "systematic theology. Unfortunately for our western frame of mind, the New Testament authors did not necessarily comply with our desire for a systematic theology. It is true that Paul gives a fair amount of "theology" in his writing, but his epistles are much more than pure theology. They are, after all, personal letters. More to the point, the Gospel writers including Acts frustrates us most because where we want crisp doctrinal teaching surrounding the life of Jesus, they are content to give us narrative.

With our "systematic theology" approach to the Bible, we have gone to both the Old and New Testaments to "prove" that Jesus is God and that "holy spirit" is "the Holy Spirit. Why did the original writers not make this clear? Why did the question wait for several hundred years before the "deity of Jesus" was reduced to a theological equation?

In other areas of this website I make reference to a two year study from the Kingdom Interlinear Translation in which I compared the occurrences of Kurios Lord in the New Testament with their immediate context and, when applicable, with their Old Testament references. I saw an amazing development. But they were not doing it with theology. They were doing it with narrative. They were quoting Old Testament passages which could be understood only of Jehovah Yahweh Himself, and then applying those same attributes or prerogatives directly to Jesus.

The message was perfectly clear to first century Jews. That same narrative "proof" was carried directly to the Gentile world with only a slight amount of "theology" added. Now we can close the loop. It was important because this was the very foundation on which the first century Christians viewed the person of Christ.

I strongly disagree with BeDuhn's statement that, " The Jehovah's Witnesses [approached] the Bible with a kind of innocence, and [built] their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. The translation work took place between and with a public release in However, when that edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures was first released, the entire system of "J references" and footnotes to the Hebrew versions was fully intact.

They simply could not translate many of the verses as "Lord" without verifying the deity of Jesus. Nathan Knorr, and especially Fredrick Franz, could not have missed that obstacle to producing their own translation. Their theology demanded that a majority of these passages read "Jehovah" rather than "Lord.

In certain instances, a given passage will have alternate wording possibilities from assorted ancient manuscripts. The textual apparatus will cite alternate wordings as an aid to the translator in selecting the most probable word s used by the original writer. Hebrew versions are not, in fact, part of a textual apparatus for the New Testament.

Nonetheless, the "J references" have been incorporated into the translation of the New World Translation Christian Greek Scriptures with that weight. Before I continue, I must warn my readers that the following paragraphs are pure conjecture on my part. To my knowledge, aside from Ray Franz's brief account of the translation process in Crisis of Conscience , there is no record of the inside events leading up to the publication of the New World Translation.

Therefore, give the following conjecture no more weight than it merits. Do not underestimate the importance of the "J reference" textual apparatus, nor the time it must have taken to develop it. To begin with, it was a fresh idea. To my knowledge, the entire system of textual support for "Jehovah" citations in Hebrew versions had never before been suggested. No matter what anyone may think of the outcome, developing the "J reference" tool required the highest caliber of innovative genius.

It must certainly have been the work of Fredrick Franz the recognized Watch Tower Society intellect of the time. Then, developing the initial idea into a system of references to thousands of citations in Hebrew versions required a huge number of man hours in the days prior to computer searches. Probably no such search of rare Hebrew versions has ever been undertaken before or since.

But as any new idea, it was not a simple matter of looking up prescribed verses in Hebrew Bibles. The idea must have required constant revision as it was developed. Hence, it simply could not have been done quickly. Yet, by the time the New World Translation Christian Greek Scriptures was completed in , the entire "J reference" textual apparatus was entirely functional. Though it certainly may have been edited and perfected prior to its first publication in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. The "J references" were expanded somewhat for the Kingdom Interlinear Translation edition.

This work all needed to be complete before the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures could be published. On this basis alone, it would be impossible to maintain that the New World Translation Christian Greek Scriptures simply emerged as an unbiased translation from the Greek text.

Irrespective of whether or not we agree with his examples, I believe BeDuhn has made valuable observations regarding the need to produce translations of the New Testament which are as unbiased as possible. Our objective should be to determine what God actually said in His word. That should be true even when it will remove the "bias" from our translations which makes it easier for us to understand our own point of view. BeDuhn's warning should be taken to heart by all of us who read the New Testament, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike.

Any who attempt to cite Truth in Translation as vindication of the New World Translation 's freedom of translation bias must also realize that BeDuhn equally removes the legitimacy of the New World Translation 's claim that the Tetragrammaton was used in the autographs. As a result, even though Truth in Translation is an important ally of the New World Translation regarding translation bias, in this appendix BeDuhn completely discredits the New World Translation 's most important claim that the name Jehovah has been appropriately restored in the Christian Scriptures.

I am uncomfortable in quoting so much material from Truth in Translation in this section. However, I also do not want to distort what the author has said by eliminating important statements. Therefore, hopefully with both his and the readers' understanding, this will give the author the opportunity to state his argument and avoid taking what he says out of context. BeDuhn: Having concluded that the NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears.

But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. Comment: If it stood alone, I would take great exception to the statement which says, " I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of [the New World Translation],.

However, the author's sentence must be taken in the greater context of the Appendix as a whole. At the end of the Appendix, BeDuhn partially answers my objection in regard to Old Testament quotations. The majority represent verses such as Revelation mentioned above which juxtapose Jesus with some quality or attribute which can only be ascribed to Jehovah. This unfortunate mistake probably happened when a scribe misread the uncial letters. God bless, Herman of bibledifferences.

Dear mr. MackQuigley, I just love it when one can make a decision and stick to it, but then that decision should be grounded on sound and true facts. There was a time when devout Christians honestly believed that the earth was flat and stood on pillars. Those who opposed this conviction were considered heretics and severely punished.

Yet facts proved the real truth. But on what grounds? Because my dad used it? Or because I am used to it? Or because I have come to this conviction by studying all the facts available? In some cases the KJV is the best translation in English. For in that area we all fail! Rather look at the facts and correct the mistake some scribe made many years ago and build your faith on the true instruction Jesus gave and is found in most modern Bibles based on the oldest and most reliable Greek manuskripts. By the way, in about differences in versions of the Bible that I have already studied, this one in Revelation is the only one that touches on Biblical doctrine.

But do not reject other versions based on better true facts. Dr Dan, I am really curious to know this; as you attempt to prove that those so called popularly known as literal best word-for-word translations of NASB, Kjv etc are having more so much more words than the greek in the NT. So what exactly acc to you is the reason behind this misconception that NASB is indisputably known as word-for-word closer translation, even acc to many scholars.

How can this be possible? Mr Quigley, my dear brother in Christ! How is it possibly that I expressed myself so bad that I could be understood completely wrong? Give me one example except for the mistaken verse of Rev. We are saved solely by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Then I would have been a heretic! The book of James is almost completely dedicated to the importance that our deeds must confirm our faith! God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? And as I said, the only difference I found that impact on the truth of the message of the Bible, is in fact Rev.

God bless, Herman. Do you love Jesus Christ? I already have Jesus Christ living inside me and the fountain of living water springing out of me — so why would I care for half a minute whether or not I get to eat from any tree? And New Jerusalem is my home — who will dare stop me from entering my own home? The verse is a doctrinal statement that applies to future generations born after the millennium. You misapplied Rev to this age and then tried to alter it to match Church-age doctrines like Ephesians and Romans Never change the AV text, it is always right exactly as written.

The King James Bible is all we need. Hello Herman, and kindest regards to you. But we must also believe the words of Heb. And another book was opened which is the Book of Life. Therefore, while God provided what man could never have provided for his salvation, the sending of His Son as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, He also required a response on the part of man — a lifelong response of obedience to His many commands and instructions written in the book that we call the Bible. It is unthinkable that obedience to these commands — which implies a LOT of work in carrying them out — has nothing to do with our salvation and again, I reference Heb and Rev.

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Dear Chris, What you are putting on the table to me is one of the greatest riddles of the Bible and salvation. Yet this is not by a mere proclamation of our mouth alone. The authenticity of our accepting of that salvation is proved by the change and outcome of the rest of our lives. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. And that is the point about Rev. How many times in Romans and Galatians does God say no man will be justified by the works of the law?

We must be careful and put things in their right place. You must get Christ first then you can work for Him. I did not create the alteration in Rev. It was done more than years ago! If you are happy to embrace this alteration some unknown guy did to the Word of God, good for you! If you think you will achieve that goal and be saved by yourself keeping the commandments of God in order to be saved, as your altered Bible purports, I feel so sorry for you.

If you do achieve it, you will be the first after Christ to live a sinless life! Rather wash your robes in the blood of the Lamb and be sure of salvation. Then go out and do the commandments to prove your gratitude for salvation by grace and not by works as the rest of the Bible says. Great information on Bible Translation, Dr.

Reblogged this on Mark Block. Pingback: The myths of Bible Translation lukefourteenthirtythree. Thank you, Dr. Very helpful for me and those with whom I minister. I had not heard of you until seeing this featured by Dr. Edward Fudge on his blog. Bob Mize, Lubbock, TX. This is compounded by the different wording in the synoptic gospels and the consideration that Jesus was likely speaking Aramaic. I am a verbal plenary inspirationist, but this seems to lend a measure of support for those who hold a dynamic view.

Recently, I have switched to the ESV for a lot of my reading. I find the ESV to be easier to read. When you read chapters at a time like I have done for class assignments, that easier reading goes a long way. My thanks to Daniel for the article. Most new versions of the bible are originated in this heresy. The king James, Geneva, and only a few others are derived from the Textus Receptus the received word which is why I choose the King James over any version. And to bible gateway, the reason there are so many bible versions is Money. Money is the root of all evil and I hope you are not pushing all these other versions just to collect a paycheck.

In your zeal to address all of the myths surrounding the KJV your selective focus failed to address a few other important and pertinent myths:. Early texts are always the best. There is no guarantee the earliest textual fragments are the most accurate. Early fragments are as likely to contain bias as later ones, and selective preference for early fragments is an arbitrary choice made by modern critical scholars. Paraphrased and thought for thought translations are able achieve levels of translational objectivity approximating those achieved by literal and word for word translation.

Lets face it, if word for word and literal translations are defective because of debates about meaning and semantic scope.

THE BIBLE: Which Version?

Yet these type of problems only compound when this scales up to translation of idioms, analogy, metaphor, and nuance of expression. Defective or not, objectivity is lost by greater degrees the further one gets from literal and word for word translation. Critiquing red-letter editions by pointing out the words recorded do not directly represent words spoken by Jesus is only a concern if there is some evidence this record represents corruption. No such evidence exists. Actual words or not, Red-letter versions are not worthless.

Decisions to translated gender inclusive language is simply an effort driven by benevolent efforts to remain clear in modern English, and remain current in linguistic fashion. Both the ancient Greek and Hebrew embed gender loaded words and expressions in the original languages. Reblogged this on Some Random Bloke and commented: Some Bible translation myths from a leading scholar.

Worth a read. Reblogged this on Bible differences.

How Accurate Is the Bible?

Thank you for this article. I am proceeding prayerfully and with caution. Pingback: Vyftien mites Bybelverskille. I only use the KJV because when I teach I need to know how some of the people are viewing the passage. My favorite study version is the NASB. However, I have to give the KJV a few thumbs up. True, modern English confuses the meanings, but if one is English, and one wants to know what God is teaching the Israelites in the O.

Talk about sniggle factors! I have one question that popped into my head the other day that relates to the last myth. Who named each book? An excellent question. Pingback: Anyone know anything about the NIV? King James Bible Cambridge Ed. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;. One man is wearing gold rings and fine clothes; the other man, who is poor, is wearing shabby clothes. American King James Version For if there come to your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;.

American Standard Version For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing;. Douay-Rheims Bible For if there shall come into your assembly a man having a golden ring, in fine apparel, and there shall come in also a poor man in mean attire,. Darby Bible Translation for if there come unto your synagogue a man with a gold ring in splendid apparel, and a poor man also come in in vile apparel,. English Revised Version For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing;.

Weymouth New Testament For suppose a man comes into one of your meetings wearing gold rings and fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man wearing shabby clothes,. World English Bible For if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in filthy clothing also comes in;. There seems to be no excuse translating Synagogue to be Assembly or Meeting. The word Synagogue is translated Synagogue in other places in all translations. I translate James as convention, with this footnote: a regularly scheduled meeting of the assembly of believers.

The only Bible translation that seems to be talked about in the negative by most so called experts is the KJV. Question: Has the world gotten better or worse with all the modern bibles and the confusion they cause? The ground work for the antichrist is being laid. I believe the modern translations of the bible have been influential to this end. There are certainly myths about the KJV, but I never said that it was worthless or a terrible translation.

Your reaction actually reveals that you do seem to blindly follow the KJV. Very sad. It differs in 8 places from the critically received Majority Test. Why do so many people have a problem with it? Nestle-Aland bases most of its readings on Aleph and B, and in the places where they do not agree, mostly B. One or two manuscripts is not a good foundation on which to build certainty. The TR differs from the MT is nearly places. And although Aleph and B provide the staple basis for readings, they are almost always joined by other important witnesses.

There are very, very few places in which a single MS is the basis for the reading of the NA28, and Aland himself argued against such readings as a matter of principle. Pingback: The proof of the pudding. Why do Baptist always want to go to the Greek to understand the Bible? When God promised to preserve his Word…did he really mean that he would only preserve it on 2, year old parchment and papyrus in ancient forms of Greek and Aramaic??

How is that possible? It defies common sense. Seriously, every time I get into a discussion about Biblical translation with a Baptist he starts in with the genitive case nonsense. Instead of all this ancient Greek nonsense, which Baptists seem to have a fixation on, I suggest that every Christian layperson do this:. Obtain a copy of four different English language translations of the Bible. You do NOT need to read the ancient Greek text unless you want to delve into the study of ancient Greek sentence structure or some other nuance. Dear Gary, Your comment is most interesting.

May I ask what precipitated it? Additionally has the Greek text made a difference in the way you understand, for example, John ? It did for me. Sincerely, David. You might find it interesting. Herman of bibledifferences. I was once a Baptist. I remember each Sunday the Pastors 2 brothers would proclaim the superiority of their ritual by blasting other protestant denominations that believed differently. This precipitated a two year study that culminated in a 40 page report. For the metaphor, there must be a relationship of the components and the effects of the action.

The use of Plato had a motivating force an interesting situation, a vessel Plato himself, and a substance filling the vessel curiosity. The usage of Plutarch had a motivating force his arm drawing the cup, a vessel the cup, and a substance filling the cup wine. There is perfect correlation; the agent of baptism fills the receptacle. Water cannot be the agent of Christian baptism, or else one would need to be filled with it on completion of the act. The believer is the receptacle, God is the motivating force, and the Spirit is the agent that fills the believer.

What is the result of this baptism? The believer is identified by God with the Spirit of God that was in Jesus. When Jesus made the relationship to God individual, then public acknowledgement was unnecessary, hence the water baptism in any form lost validity. Analyzing Greek words is good and fine, but if you cannot grasp the ideas they illustrate, then your study is in vain.

The problem is that people made translations especially in english designed to slightely change the words of the bible so that for instance gays are no longer seen as sinners or that Sodom was not burned down for homosexuality and many others. Basically they change the words slightely so that the sentence does not rely anymore the words of God but their world view. Are you referring to a particular translation that you feel changed words to soften the sin of homosexuality?

Ok, first of all let me give you a bit of background information. I come from Romania and our language is from a group of latin languages. Based on my observations usually for each language there have been a maximum of two translations. The referred method was using the archaic word and then have a footnote explaining it. This way you can be sure that the original meaning does not get lost.

Also being in the same group of languages like latin and greek the translation is more reliable. On the other hand english a germanic language has at least a dozen different translations. I can give you examples as I do not really sit so much evaluating every single verse as it is in each version.

As a general note I found that KJV is one of the most accurate translations in english even though not perfect. But of course this is picking on minor details. Once again Dr. Wallace I find your work to be accurate, agreeable, and accommodating to the conservative evangelical. You made an error. The NLT is not a paraphrase, but a translation. The LB Living Bible was the paraphrase. And even though all of those versions have errors in translation of their own, I would far more trust the translators of those versions than the versions that are inclined to add words that are not in fact supported by the Greek text.

To a new Christian or others who have not studied the scriptures enough to know, that sounds like Jesus is saying that He would build His church on Peter as the rock, the foundation. Wallace, Very good article! But, one small correction on the article. This link gives a good overview of the NLT translation methodology. Pingback: Recommended Media Thanks very much for the ammunition. I will hopefully be dispensing it with love work.

I knew quite a bit about the points all ready and that was reassuring since I sell Bibles for a living. It is sold and branded as a translation with over 80 Bible scholars taking it from a Paraphrase like the Good New and Message, to a translation. Translators, whether aware of it or not, labor with Him when they work.

Wallace jkinak God is not the author of confusion. I hear over and over that the KJV is hard to understand, and that we need all these translations to properly understand Gods word and his will. I have never participated in a discussion on line before and it is obvious from reading this entire dialogue that there is a lot of intelligent thought shared here.

I would not call this arguing but a sharing of thought and I can just imagine our brother Paul being right in the middle of this. I do not sense in any way that there is any attack on any one translation of scripture. If you understand the Gospel in the KJV praise God, If you have come to faith from reading the NIV praise God, if you have allowed Jesus to become Lord in your life through the NASB praise God, but our problem is putting God in a box and saying He will only work in this way, or only speak through this text, or only this denomination has it right.

This is only allowing the evil one to play his game and spread his gospel of lies, and effecting those whom are hungering and thirsting for the truth. Dialogue is good, knowledge is a wonder, and we serve an awesome infinite God who in spite of us and our issues, problems and short comings will build His church for His glory. Both of these versions have been altered out of sin, and yet either of these versions can be correctly understood to be the same when reading is applied with the Holy Spirit. We are saved, because every word of God is an instruction or a commandment and we are commanded to live by faith, love thy neighbor, turn thy cheek, forgive others, and help the poor and down those in need.

The Word says we are not saved by works, but faith without works is dead. Here I will give a small example of what that means in this life. I was at a horrific accident scene in Louisiana where one young black girl lay in a ditch in the medium which was on fire. The weeds were so high that the fire could not be put out and the girl was about to burn.

My entire career depended on me being free of any criminal charges because I had a secret clearance with the military that I had to keep to do my job, any criminal offense would render everything I worked to achieve for my family absolutely lost with my job. Up until that day, following the law was easy. As a follower of Jesus Christ I abided by what the authorities told me to do, and so I was trusted. The responsibility I was entrusted with was incredible and so I understood I must behave in a law abiding manner.

I felt the Holy sprit move in me knowing this might change the rest of my life I knocked him to the ground, and he never said another word to me while I moved the girl out of the fire. In faith I struck a police officer in Louisiana knowing I could be shot, put in prison, or lose my job. That is what it means to love your neighbor more than yourselves and I was following the Commandment of Jesus Christ.

The faith must come first and to live by faith is in obedience to the Word of God which tells us to live in faith. Those who live by every Commandment are those that live by every word of God, and such is the interpretation. I tell you the truth I would have died inside and lost all faith that day if my faith were not backed up with deeds of the Spirit.

You are Commanded to more than just belief, for if it were so why give money to the poor, help the widows, preach the Word, give ear to the preacher, give time and money to the church, love thy neighbor, or feed the hungry? Dear Richard, We need more Servants of Christ like you in our world. But I do have a comment on your first paragraph. I do an in depth study of the reasons or causes for the differences in the Versions of the Bible. In about differences that I have already studied, I found a logical explanation for each. What is more important is that only one difference touched on a doctrinal aspect in the Christian Faith.

That is the very verse you quote — Revelation God cares for His Word and saw to it that there had been enough ancient manuscripts survive to enable us to discover the original words of the Bible. Wallace Paul Coleman. Wallace - The Warrior's Defense. No responses??? I have been reading the Robinson Pierpont Majority Text lately. It is fascnating, but by Dr. Using the Bibleworks program to compare them, I find most are variations of one letter in a word, or the juxtaposition of words in a sentence. All in all, it will be hard to tell which document a translation is from unless the translator notes it at the start.

It has puzzled me for years, and I have less confidence in modern appraisals of trustworthiness than ever before. The version we read now is not the version in any case; there have been revisions to it. About a month ago I learned that sometimes a preference for a red letter edition can be taken by some as having a bias against the apostle Paul! Wonders never cease…. My favorite translation and the one my pastor most often uses in sermons is the NKJV. He says the best translation, however, is whichever one you will actually READ. I also find that the NKJV probably does the best job of presenting alternate manuscripts in its footnotes.

I just like the NKJV but also like some other translations based on other manuscripts. Basic Christian doctrine is the same in all the manuscripts. Related to that, I also agree with the poster who pointed out that we can get too hung up on which translation is most accurate or best. Many people in the past have been tortured and have given their lives to make the word of God available to lay persons.

We are extremely blessed to have readily available Bibles. I am also thankful for the author of the article and for every poster here. Like Liked by 2 people. I would like to comment on your statement 3. The word almah in the Hebrew demonstrates the difficulty of translation which is often more an art than a science.

Ah, if only the concepts of maid, maidenly, maidenhood were understand by our current culture! And the masculine equivalents, of course. Good day, Schroera I fully agree with you. I myself have been studying the causes for he differences between the older translations of the Bible like the KJV and modern translations like the NIV and published more than results on my blog. I elaborated on this very same verse in Isaiah 7. This should not be. Only One child had ever been conceived via the Holy Spirit, and that was Jesus through the true virgin Mary.

The young woman or maiden not virgin conceived through normal relationship with her husband. Thank you brethren for all! I am so satisfied!!! Good job all of you!!! I will make comment on!. I believed there are relations of confusion with regard to any translation, Doubtless, whether from the Greek Septuagint or the Roman Vulgate, a word for word can still be a confusion in various texts or citations. Pingback: Lost in Translations Biblical Cogitations.

I am a former Christian. I loved being a Christian. I loved Jesus and I loved the Bible. Then one day someone challenged me to take a good, hard look at the foundation of my beliefs: the Bible. I was stunned by what I discovered. The Bible is not inerrant. It contains many, many errors, contradictions, and deliberate alterations and additions by the scribes who copied it. One can harmonize anything if you allow for the supernatural.

Don't Miss a Story!

How do we know that the New Testament is the Word of God? Did Jesus leave a list of inspired books? Did the Apostles? The answer is, no. The books of the New Testament were added to the canon over several hundred years. Answer: the ancient catholic Church voted these books into your Bible. Who wrote the Gospels? We have NO idea! The belief that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is based on hearsay and assumptions—catholic tradition.

Protestants denounce most of the traditions of the Catholic Church but have retained two of the most blatant, evidence-lacking traditions, which have no basis in historical fact or in the Bible: the canon of the NT and the authorship of the Gospels. The only shred of evidence that Christians use to support the traditional authorship of the Gospels is one brief statement by a guy named Papias in AD that someone told him that John Mark had written a gospel. It is well known to historians that it was a common practice at that time for anonymously written books to be ascribed to famous people to give them more authority.

For all we know, this is what Irenaeus did in the case of the Gospels. The foundation of the Christian Faith is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. If the story of the Resurrection comes from four anonymous books, three of which borrow heavily from the first, often word for word, how do we know that the unheard of, fantastically supernatural story of the re-animation of a first century dead man, actually happened?? We just do not know for what purpose these books were written! I slowly came to realize that there is zero verifiable evidence for the Resurrection, and, the Bible is not a reliable document.

After four months of desperate attempts to save my faith, I came to the sad conclusion that my faith was based on an ancient superstition; a superstition not based on lies, but based on the sincere but false beliefs of uneducated, superstitious, first century peasants. The faith of many, however, is not based on texts but rather on the person of Jesus. I hope you meet him someday. How do you know that your faith in Jesus is not misplaced? Do you base your faith on your intense feelings about Jesus?

Your intuition about Jesus? Your own personal experiences? Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus report the same intense feelings, intuition, and experiences about their gods. If there is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, only feelings, intuition, and experiences, your faith is no different than the faith of any other religious person. You then have no basis upon which to say that Christianity is the one and only true faith other than personal opinion. Dear Gary, Thank you for sharing your struggle with the Christian religion and specifically Jesus as the risen Christ anointed One.

But if you consider the fact that over all the centuries, even to this date something binds people, not only illiterate peasants to Jesus to such an extent that they would rather be burned to death or beheaded, than deny Him as the risen savior! But in my own life I have experienced so many times myself the love of Jesus and the reality of his presence in my life and those of others, that I cannot doubt!

I am so grateful for what I daily experience. I wish the same for you! And that God used humans in spite of their frailty and mistakes causing faults and variations in the transposing of the New Testament I am very aware of. I pray for a real meeting between you and the Risen Christ! Nothing can be compared with that! May God bless you and keep you until that glorious day! You believe in Jesus because of your subjective feelings, intuition, and experiences. When I speak to Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus, they give the exact same answer.

Therefore, there is no way to know which of these exclusivist religions is correct. If I told you that yesterday I saw a dead man walk out of his grave, eat a broiled fish lunch with his friends, and then levitate into outer space you would think I was nuts. However, you stake your life on the belief that this same alleged event occurred 2, years ago on little, if any, evidence. Sincere belief does not mean that the belief is true. There is no good evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. We have four anonymous books and the word one vision-proned Jewish Pharisee, who never says he saw a resurrected body.

If you want to believe in Jesus because of your internal subjective feelings and experiences, I have no issue with that. But Christians need to admit that there is no real evidence for their supernatural belief, only blind faith. Jesus said how all those who are for the truth will hear his voice. His death was necessary and happened, as did his resurrection in defeating death.

All those prophecies that pointed to his first coming and all that apostolic teaching that resonates with truth as to why it was necessary and why Jesus is the only way to God and is him himself fully God. The truth, when sought and listened to, confirms this in our spirits; in our hearts.

Jesus called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth. He is the Truth. This sets us free. Nothing else can or will. His Word is Truth. Is Religious Faith an Emotional Crutch? The Bible has much to say about faith. Yet nowhere does it encourage us to be gullible or naive. Nor does it condone mental laziness. On the contrary, it labels people who put faith in every word they hear as inexperienced, even foolish. Proverbs , 18 Really, how foolish it would be for us to accept an idea as true without checking the facts! That would be like covering our eyes and trying to cross a busy street just because someone tells us to do it.

I rarely comment on blogs and I am busy enough already, as a pastor and doctoral student. But these arguments are nothing new and they have been aptly answered by scholars with much greater knowledge than I have. But I digress. Thanks Dan, for an excellent resource. At least a couple times I emailed someone at DTS about a particular translation in John and received no reply. I know they are busy. Foxe, John Actes and Monuments. Kenyon, Sir Frederic The story of the Bible. Lindberg, Carter The European Reformations.

Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Luther, Martin In Hans J. Grimm, W. Lambert ed. The Freedom Of A Christian. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press. Partridge, A. English Biblical Translation. Pollard, Alfred W. Records of the English Bible. Kent: Wm. Teems, David Thomas Nelson publishers. The Bible in English New York: Cornell University Press.

Bible Tyndale. English-language translations of the Bible. Wycliffe Middle English Bible translations. Smith Parker Translation. Worrell Phillips. Four Prophets Phillips. New English Translation. Glasgow LOLCat. Bible portal Christianity portal.