-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The bible even in it's most meager translation is still the bible. The power is not in the printed page but the Holy Spirit of God who acts upon it. There are places on this earth where bibles are rare and even a poor translation is better than none.
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Correct. But we should take this one step further. From the late 18th century to the late 19th century the trend among textual scholars was to treat the Bible text in a naturalistic manner and at the same time to promote the false idea that "the oldest manuscripts are the best" when they should have actually said "the oldest manuscripts are THE WORST" because they had been subjected to deliberate Gnostic corruption (as well as pure blunders) and survived only because they had been discarded.
However, there were some honest textual scholars such as Burgon and Scrivener in the 19th century who actually collated the Greek manuscripts and also examined all the other textual evidence (including ancient versions and lectionaries) and arrived at the conclusion that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts did indeed represent the autographs (the inspired writings) while the minority text represented the corrupted Bible.
Ever since 1881, when Westcott and Hort published their revised Greek text based primarily upon Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) all the critical texts have presented the corrupted Bible. And thus all modern translations since 1881 contain thousands of variations from the true text, of which at least 1,500 have doctrinal significance.
Getting back to John 6:69 we can compare the Traditional Texts with the Critical Texts and see that there has been a doctrinal change:
TRADITIONALΚαὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἴ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος
CRITICALκαὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Tischendorf 8th Edition
καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.
When you go through the New Testament you will find that only demons addressed Christ as "the Holy one of God". On the other hand "the Christ, the Son of the living God" is what the apostles believed and proclaimed. In view of this, Christians must take a good hard look at all modern translations (including the ESV) and compare them with the King James Bible which has stood the test of time for over 400 years.
However, there were some honest textual scholars such as Burgon and Scrivener in the 19th century who actually collated the Greek manuscripts and also examined all the other textual evidence (including ancient versions and lectionaries) and arrived at the conclusion that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts did indeed represent the autographs (the inspired writings) while the minority text represented the corrupted Bible.
Ever since 1881, when Westcott and Hort published their revised Greek text based primarily upon Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) all the critical texts have presented the corrupted Bible. And thus all modern translations since 1881 contain thousands of variations from the true text, of which at least 1,500 have doctrinal significance.
Getting back to John 6:69 we can compare the Traditional Texts with the Critical Texts and see that there has been a doctrinal change:
TRADITIONALΚαὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἴ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος
CRITICAL
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Tischendorf 8th Edition
καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.
When you go through the New Testament you will find that only demons addressed Christ as "the Holy one of God". On the other hand "the Christ, the Son of the living God" is what the apostles believed and proclaimed. In view of this, Christians must take a good hard look at all modern translations (including the ESV) and compare them with the King James Bible which has stood the test of time for over 400 years.
Last edited:
Some of these new bibles can say anything u neva know these days like the message. its da best to stay with the King James Bible its been here for 400 years for english speaking peoples stick with it. no reason to compare translations and buy da newest version pick one and believe it. the version shopping preachers dont believe in da authority of God's word so they have to quote different translations to make it fit their doctrine. if someone goes back to da greek and is always correcting the bible thats a warning sign too especially if they dont even speak greek.
Absolutely correct. In this case the minority view is the view that is supported by the vast MAJORITY of documents (manuscripts, translations, lectionaries, and the writings of the Church Fathers quoting Scripture).
The way to look at this issue is to ask ourselves that in a group of 1,000 witnesses, if 995 witnesses agree together and 5 witnesses seriously diverge from this agreement (as well as among themselves), whom should we trust?
The doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Bible must also be supported by the doctrine of the Divine preservation of the Bible. And the provision which God made is that over 5,000 documents of the New Testament are extant, and 95% of them agree to form the TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts. These documents extend over many centuries and over a vast geographical area and are in various languages. But they all agree (except in very minor details). There are some excellent books which provide an in-depth explanation.
The way to look at this issue is to ask ourselves that in a group of 1,000 witnesses, if 995 witnesses agree together and 5 witnesses seriously diverge from this agreement (as well as among themselves), whom should we trust?
The doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Bible must also be supported by the doctrine of the Divine preservation of the Bible. And the provision which God made is that over 5,000 documents of the New Testament are extant, and 95% of them agree to form the TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts. These documents extend over many centuries and over a vast geographical area and are in various languages. But they all agree (except in very minor details). There are some excellent books which provide an in-depth explanation.
Well there is no denying that truth is always important. A major hoax was perpetrated on the Christian world but unfortunately there were only a few who saw through it, and even to this day many Christians are not aware of what really happened with the Bible and to the Bible. As to people getting saved, even a Gospel tract will often suffice. But that is not the issue.
You neva no wot sum peeple are on about wen day reed da bible an don evun no wot a translasion is vice verse da paraphrase.
Perhaps some edukayshun about the principles of translation would disavow the unlearned of such ideas.
Tradition (400 years of the KJV) is no assurance of reliability of translation. The Vulgate was the standard for 1100 years. The KJV is not the standard, and never was. It's an adequate translation if you are comfortable with the archaic language; many people aren't. If you have any concern about the accuracy of a given translation, then it is worthwhile doing some homework rather than simply defaulting to what you think (but don't really know) is reliable.
Perhaps some edukayshun about the principles of translation would disavow the unlearned of such ideas.
Tradition (400 years of the KJV) is no assurance of reliability of translation. The Vulgate was the standard for 1100 years. The KJV is not the standard, and never was. It's an adequate translation if you are comfortable with the archaic language; many people aren't. If you have any concern about the accuracy of a given translation, then it is worthwhile doing some homework rather than simply defaulting to what you think (but don't really know) is reliable.
It is worth emphasising that the KJV is NOT a standard!
It never was and never will be.
As has been said already it is a translation and therefore subject to the limitations that ANY translation will have.
The KJV was a good translation given the tools and manuscripts available at the time.
It is true that more modern translations use different manuscripts to those used for the KJV. That is because they are much earlier in date and therefore closer to source.
It anyone want to really investigate this then the buzzword to chase is 'textual criticism' - this a study of the manuscripts to determine their dating and accuracy.
Another frequently misunderstood issue is the fact that it is possible to get more than one correct translation from a piece of text.
The grammar of Greek, in particular, is full of nuances that cannot be easily replicated in English. Of course it is possible to write an essay on each passage that fully explains all these nuances, but if one is creating a translation of the Bible then this is NOT a practical option. And so choices need to be made!
My suggestion is NOT to go around highlighting the differences in various English translations - learn the original languages FIRST, and then, properly equipped with that knowledge one will be in a position to properly evaluate the translation choices that have been made! My guess is that armed with that real knowledge it will quickly become apparent that no translation is perfect in all respects...
All to frequently, on this forum particularly, I see people vociferously arguing points from complete ignorance and are completely unamenable to sensible correction.
Yes, I agree that not all currently available English translations are all that good, but there are plenty that are just fine too!
It never was and never will be.
As has been said already it is a translation and therefore subject to the limitations that ANY translation will have.
The KJV was a good translation given the tools and manuscripts available at the time.
It is true that more modern translations use different manuscripts to those used for the KJV. That is because they are much earlier in date and therefore closer to source.
It anyone want to really investigate this then the buzzword to chase is 'textual criticism' - this a study of the manuscripts to determine their dating and accuracy.
Another frequently misunderstood issue is the fact that it is possible to get more than one correct translation from a piece of text.
The grammar of Greek, in particular, is full of nuances that cannot be easily replicated in English. Of course it is possible to write an essay on each passage that fully explains all these nuances, but if one is creating a translation of the Bible then this is NOT a practical option. And so choices need to be made!
My suggestion is NOT to go around highlighting the differences in various English translations - learn the original languages FIRST, and then, properly equipped with that knowledge one will be in a position to properly evaluate the translation choices that have been made! My guess is that armed with that real knowledge it will quickly become apparent that no translation is perfect in all respects...
All to frequently, on this forum particularly, I see people vociferously arguing points from complete ignorance and are completely unamenable to sensible correction.
Yes, I agree that not all currently available English translations are all that good, but there are plenty that are just fine too!
First of all, I'm not looking for "just fine" when it comes to God's word. I'm looking for God's perfect, pure and holy preserved words to read and study.
Second, when is language a barrier with our Lord? What was the original of the following passage:
Genesis 42
14 And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies:
15 Hereby ye shall be proved: By the life of Pharaoh ye shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither.
16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.
17 And he put them all together into ward three days.
18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God:
19 If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison: go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses:
20 But bring your youngest brother unto me; so shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die. And they did so.
21 And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.
22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.
The so called "original" of this passage was written in Hebrew, but honesty, what was spoken by Joseph was originally in Egyptian and translated into the Hebrew text. Was this an issue with God? Not at all. God can and has provided a translation of Scripture that is just as good or even better than the originals. Let us not put more emphasis on the originals than God. God's pure and perfect word is not bound by "original" languages.
Second, when is language a barrier with our Lord? What was the original of the following passage:
Genesis 42
14 And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies:
15 Hereby ye shall be proved: By the life of Pharaoh ye shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither.
16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.
17 And he put them all together into ward three days.
18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God:
19 If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison: go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses:
20 But bring your youngest brother unto me; so shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die. And they did so.
21 And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.
22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.
The so called "original" of this passage was written in Hebrew, but honesty, what was spoken by Joseph was originally in Egyptian and translated into the Hebrew text. Was this an issue with God? Not at all. God can and has provided a translation of Scripture that is just as good or even better than the originals. Let us not put more emphasis on the originals than God. God's pure and perfect word is not bound by "original" languages.