The Bible Has Been Translated Too Many Times to be Trusted?
- Thread starter Hyvent
- Start date
-
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.
I know what you mean! I feel it is a language to be learned, that the usage of some words has changed since the time of King James but to find that out only adds to the depth of meaning when you come across the meaning of a word that doesn't initially seem to fit. I was given an NIV when I was first saved but moved to a KJV when I discovered it was generally regarded as more scholarly. I struggled at first with the language but over the years I have found it has really grown on me, and I can read it aloud now with confidence and understanding. It was worth pressing on!
Hi Dave,
There is no place for misogyny in the body of Christ. The warning you have given me here only shows that there are some personal issues you need to address, the least being that you need to read properly for yourself what is written and not add things to the quote which simply are not there.
I offered you respect in my letter. You however most disrespectfully trashed what I said in order to bully me with your "superior" understanding, adding false accusations to make your point.
I know I am in Christ. My point is that many do not have that personal revelation but when you do, you know that in Christ there is no male or female. In Christ there is none more important than any other (1 Cor 12) or didn't you read that part of the Bible? We all have a role as born again believers but it is not up to you to tell women what their role is. That is taking false authority. If we know who we are in Christ there remains one thing: to be that person and to do what He calls us to do with all our heart mind and strength. It is not up to you to tell me what God cannot do in my life so get over it.
There is no place for misogyny in the body of Christ. The warning you have given me here only shows that there are some personal issues you need to address, the least being that you need to read properly for yourself what is written and not add things to the quote which simply are not there.
I offered you respect in my letter. You however most disrespectfully trashed what I said in order to bully me with your "superior" understanding, adding false accusations to make your point.
I know I am in Christ. My point is that many do not have that personal revelation but when you do, you know that in Christ there is no male or female. In Christ there is none more important than any other (1 Cor 12) or didn't you read that part of the Bible? We all have a role as born again believers but it is not up to you to tell women what their role is. That is taking false authority. If we know who we are in Christ there remains one thing: to be that person and to do what He calls us to do with all our heart mind and strength. It is not up to you to tell me what God cannot do in my life so get over it.
No, what Russell said was to expose what you in your total lack of empathy and sensitivity are unable to see. He did it as a man BTW knowing you would not take it from a woman because you wouldn't humble yourself in that event. He already understood what the problem was and so do I.
In order to reach for some better outcome of this interchange, from what I have read in your other posts you appear to have a prophetic element to your writing. That needs to be encouraged obviously but my observation over some 16 years of moving in the prophetic community is that prophets can be blunt and harsh. Sometimes this is necessary but not for our own purposes, to make us feel superior. Harshness may be needed on some occasions but if it has come to that it is because of deepening furrow of rebellion in another who is not going to respond to tender coaxing of the soil of their heart because it has gone too far. If it does come to that, it is not for our good that we deliver it, but for theirs. We do not hurt others to make ourselves feel better; we do not trash others to make ourselves look the more godly one. Wrong move.
In order to reach for some better outcome of this interchange, from what I have read in your other posts you appear to have a prophetic element to your writing. That needs to be encouraged obviously but my observation over some 16 years of moving in the prophetic community is that prophets can be blunt and harsh. Sometimes this is necessary but not for our own purposes, to make us feel superior. Harshness may be needed on some occasions but if it has come to that it is because of deepening furrow of rebellion in another who is not going to respond to tender coaxing of the soil of their heart because it has gone too far. If it does come to that, it is not for our good that we deliver it, but for theirs. We do not hurt others to make ourselves feel better; we do not trash others to make ourselves look the more godly one. Wrong move.
There is a Hebrew version. The problem is that we don't have a version which dates past the 12th century. The Hebrew version would be more rare then the Greek. They found the Hebrew version in an ancient synagogue library. It was used as a reference to dispute the Christianity. There are copies of it on line for free. If not I can provide you with one.
Dave you are trying to balance out contradictions. You can't have it both ways. You say a woman should not usurp the authority of a man yet say you'd listen to a prophetess. I understand why you are and what you are doing. You want to to be faithful to the text and I don't blame you, but you are trying to reconcile un-reconcilable text.
I assume you're referring to the Shem Tov edition. No need to link it, I already have a scan of it.
We actually don't have a version of it that dates earlier than the 15th century, although it it is a 14th century text text from Iberia (modern Spain). I'm still not entirely sure why you think this is the original, rather than, conversely, being a translation of the Greek (or more likely, Latin) text?
We actually don't have a version of it that dates earlier than the 15th century, although it it is a 14th century text text from Iberia (modern Spain). I'm still not entirely sure why you think this is the original, rather than, conversely, being a translation of the Greek (or more likely, Latin) text?
This was likely the real intent of creating new versions because common English speech has changed so much since the time KJV. Technology has made translating texts much easier too. Also, there are mistakes in KJV such as Hebrews 4:8 KJV, "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." This verse is really referring to Joshua not Jesus and is very wrong because Jesus IS where we get that rest to come. However, modern versions have issues as well, so best to pick the version you like and do some research on issues that might be found in that version.
The reason there is so many versions is that translating from Hebrew/Greek to English is really not an exact science where there is this perfect one to one translation. So, translators have to add words, pick words, and make choices on how best to convey what was written into English -- this leaves room for errors. Second is that different versions target a different set of people -- some children, some teenagers, etc. Sadly, there is also the money factor because bibles are a huge seller.
The reason there is so many versions is that translating from Hebrew/Greek to English is really not an exact science where there is this perfect one to one translation. So, translators have to add words, pick words, and make choices on how best to convey what was written into English -- this leaves room for errors. Second is that different versions target a different set of people -- some children, some teenagers, etc. Sadly, there is also the money factor because bibles are a huge seller.
(1) And not having anything earlier than the 12th century would be but one indicator that we don't have earlier Hebrew versions because it wasn't originally written in Hebrew.
(2) Matthew heavily uses material from Mark and "Q," which were originally Greek. The material unique to Matthew is mostly various teachings and parables of Jesus. Perhaps some of those were originally spoken in Aramaic before being written down in Greek, but most of Matthew is decidedly, originally Greek.
(3) When Matthew quotes the OT, he seems to be using the LXX, not a Hebrew version - a further indication that Matthew used Greek.
The evidence of the entire New Testament being written in Greek is pretty overwhelming.
I would be curious as to which manuscript you're referencing.
Are you referring to canonical Mark or Shem Tov Mark re the translation? Can you give an example?
EDIT: And if Mark has priority over Matthew and Luke, as virtually every biblical scholar of any theological persuasion agrees, your second last sentence doesn't mean anything anyway. No one suggests Mark was originally composed in Hebrew, and so if Mark came first, the first of the gospels was in Greek anyway.
EDIT: And if Mark has priority over Matthew and Luke, as virtually every biblical scholar of any theological persuasion agrees, your second last sentence doesn't mean anything anyway. No one suggests Mark was originally composed in Hebrew, and so if Mark came first, the first of the gospels was in Greek anyway.
Last edited:
As pointed out by Nick, this version of Matthew that you speak of is a versional witness. It was transcribed many years after the Greek NT was written. All it is, is a NT translated into the Hebrew language. We have many versional witnesses, such as the Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Armenian versions.
One problem I have with your position is that you forget why, where, and to who the letters of the NT were written. The language most appropriate for spreading the gospel message would be one that was most widely known throughout all nations.
Further, I think what stands out even more is if Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew then there would be no need to explain certain Hebrew or Aramaic phrases (i.e., Matthew 27.46), for it would be utterly redundant.
One problem I have with your position is that you forget why, where, and to who the letters of the NT were written. The language most appropriate for spreading the gospel message would be one that was most widely known throughout all nations.
Further, I think what stands out even more is if Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew then there would be no need to explain certain Hebrew or Aramaic phrases (i.e., Matthew 27.46), for it would be utterly redundant.
I'm not sure how to take this. I was simply challenging what I saw as some hidden assumptions and definition questions in the post to which I was replying.
(a) What did the poster mean by "trust?" What exactly are we trusting? If we discover error, does that imply that we cannot trust something? It seems I trust many people who make errors all the time, and since I have yet to meet a person who doesn't makes no errors, I bet you trust people who make errors too. So I'm not sure what he means by "trust."
(b) The assumption that multiple translations somehow implies that "trust" cannot be obtained. I'm not sure how that is supposed to follow.
(a) What did the poster mean by "trust?" What exactly are we trusting? If we discover error, does that imply that we cannot trust something? It seems I trust many people who make errors all the time, and since I have yet to meet a person who doesn't makes no errors, I bet you trust people who make errors too. So I'm not sure what he means by "trust."
(b) The assumption that multiple translations somehow implies that "trust" cannot be obtained. I'm not sure how that is supposed to follow.