A few myths about different Bible translations

  • 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.
S

SparkleEyes

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2013
771
21
18
If you are interested to learn a bit about your favorite Bible translations, give this a read: 15 Myths about Bible Translations from the Christian Post website.

The author of this blog posting is Daniel B Wallace. He is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Wallace served as a consultant for the following Bible translations: ESV, TNIV, New King James Bible, and New English Translation.

:cool:
 
SparkleEyes said:
If you are interested to learn a bit about your favorite Bible translations, give this a read: 15 Myths about Bible Translations from the Christian Post website.

The author of this blog posting is Daniel B Wallace. He is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Wallace served as a consultant for the following Bible translations: ESV, TNIV, New King James Bible, and New English Translation.

:cool:
Click to expand...



Hello there ma'am, Daniel B. Wallace is a bible correcter. He is very unstable.

Daniel B. Wallace has made his own mind and preferences his final authority.

Brandon Staggs has written a good article exposing Mr. Wallace's hypocrisy and fickle nature.

You can see it here:


Why you shouldn't care what Daniel Wallace thinks about the King James Bible

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: phil112
LT said:
this is not a scholarly article, just a rant. Find a new one.
Click to expand...

Thanks, LT.

I will add that I trust the opinion of a prof at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts much more than a discussion on a random website. :cool:
 
Daniel Wallace wrote the 2nd year text for Greek in Seminaries. I think you can trust what he says!
 
"15. Chapter and verse numbers are inspired. These were added centuries later. Chapter numbers were added by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the early 13[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Verse numbers were not added until 1551. Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Stephanus), a Parisian printer, added verse numbers to the fourth edition of his Greek New Testament. The pocket-sized two-volume work (which can be viewed at www.csntm.org) has three parallel columns, one in Greek and two in Latin (one Erasmus’s Latin text, the other Jerome’s). To facilitate ease of comparison, Stephanus added the verse numbers. Although most of the breaks seem natural enough, quite a few are bizarre. Neither chapter numbers nor verse numbers are inspired."


I remember actually bringing this up in a sermon I was preaching for my preaching class. All the commentators said that the verses were divided wrongly between Matt 19 and Matt 20 and one of the other students criticized me for "undermining the faith of the congregation."

The divisions are not inspired!
 
phil112 said:
To say that, you need to point out the errors in it. Is Staggs wrong? Where and why?
Click to expand...
I don't even need to go into it. The comparison of the two articles is black and white.

here are some quotes that show the level of scholarship in this rant by Staggs:

"Okay, if that's the standard, let's dismiss Wallace's work right here: The NET is the worst translation ever made."

"Wallace is lying anyway."

"The reality for us simpler folk is that the Bible does tell us, many times, how God will preserve his word. One simple verse from the antiquated KJV should be enough:Psalms 100:5 "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
The Bible plainly tells us that his truth will endure to all generations. Just in case one is unsure about "truth," the Bible also says:
John 17:17 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

^This one is my favorite. Logic... just left the building.

"Whether or not "most" critics support this proposition is irrelevant. This is an attempt by Wallace to slip in an argument of authority -- a 'people who know better than KJV believers have already decided otherwise' kind of thing. What is relevant is the logic (or lack of logic) behind the assertion that "older is better."
 
Angela53510 said:
"15. Chapter and verse numbers are inspired. These were added centuries later. Chapter numbers were added by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the early 13[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Verse numbers were not added until 1551. Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Stephanus), a Parisian printer, added verse numbers to the fourth edition of his Greek New Testament. The pocket-sized two-volume work (which can be viewed at www.csntm.org) has three parallel columns, one in Greek and two in Latin (one Erasmus’s Latin text, the other Jerome’s). To facilitate ease of comparison, Stephanus added the verse numbers. Although most of the breaks seem natural enough, quite a few are bizarre. Neither chapter numbers nor verse numbers are inspired."


I remember actually bringing this up in a sermon I was preaching for my preaching class. All the commentators said that the verses were divided wrongly between Matt 19 and Matt 20 and one of the other students criticized me for "undermining the faith of the congregation."

The divisions are not inspired!
Click to expand...
and they are often misleading, breaking up passages that are consecutive thoughts.
 
LT said:
I don't even need to go into it. The comparison of the two articles is black and white.

here are some quotes that show the level of scholarship in this rant by Staggs:

"Okay, if that's the standard, let's dismiss Wallace's work right here: The NET is the worst translation ever made."

"Wallace is lying anyway."

"The reality for us simpler folk is that the Bible does tell us, many times, how God will preserve his word. One simple verse from the antiquated KJV should be enough:Psalms 100:5 "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
The Bible plainly tells us that his truth will endure to all generations. Just in case one is unsure about "truth," the Bible also says:
John 17:17 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

^This one is my favorite. Logic... just left the building.

"Whether or not "most" critics support this proposition is irrelevant. This is an attempt by Wallace to slip in an argument of authority -- a 'people who know better than KJV believers have already decided otherwise' kind of thing. What is relevant is the logic (or lack of logic) behind the assertion that "older is better."
Click to expand...
You gave me where but not why. In your opinion, Staggs is wrong. The bible needs to be the measuring stick. I asked why he was wrong, not simply that you believed him to be wrong.
 
phil112 said:
You gave me where but not why. In your opinion, Staggs is wrong. The bible needs to be the measuring stick. I asked why he was wrong, not simply that you believed him to be wrong.
Click to expand...
oh, I didn't post where he was wrong, just where he showed his lack of intellectual integrity.
Wallace did a fine job of destroying all of his arguments. I really don't care enough about the topic anymore to put anything more into it.
 
LT said:
oh, I didn't post where he was wrong, just where he showed his lack of intellectual integrity.
Wallace did a fine job of destroying all of his arguments. I really don't care enough about the topic anymore to put anything more into it.
Click to expand...
Okay by me :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LT
Great article. Wallace has devoted his life to find what the original mss said. He is also a professor at a highly regarded seminary. I have read and listened to his stuff in the past. You can trust him over some kjv onlyist that post on this site and have zero creditentials.
 
honestly.... the debate of bible translation is never ending one. many ppl come and say learn the truth and i emphasis truth to bible translations. and then the debate creates disunity amongst us. this is what the devil does, he plays the card of bible translation and boy does he play it well
 
Reformedjason said:
Great article. Wallace has devoted his life to find what the original mss said. He is also a professor at a highly regarded seminary. I have read and listened to his stuff in the past. You can trust him over some kjv onlyist that post on this site and have zero creditentials.
Click to expand...

dear brother reformedjason... i liked brother heartseachers post and for some reason it went to you... been having trouble with this all day due to i am using a satellite service... for i am in a rural area.

god bless
 
I have to admit, this whole issue has gone way to far. I almost can't think of my kjv bibles now without thinking of this. Knowing all the hatefull stuff that kjv onlyist say about my favorite translations makes me really dislike them and not want to use a kjv at all. I have an us against them mindset. I don't like the way it makes me feel but I can't seem to just not comment when they say something I disagree with. I don't want to see them drag a new believer into radical kjv onlyism. I really , and we all just need to give it a rest. It is dividing the body of Christ. To be fair if the kjv onlyist believe as I do , all of these things can be said about me. This issue has no end. I am not going to change anyones mind and they are not going to change mine. Only God can change us to the right side, whatever that may be
 
BELIEVE said:
dear brother reformedjason... i liked brother heartseachers post and for some reason it went to you... been having trouble with this all day due to i am using a satellite service... for i am in a rural area.god bless
Click to expand...
oh no it wasn't directed to anyone specific, only that many say they know the truth in this. not just this but in all doctrines and beliefs. there are far to many and create such hate amongst us, these things begin as good intended discussion and then BAM you got a fiery war. Christians calling each other names, mocking each other for their beliefs hating and yelling mis using scripture as if its a weapon. Trust me when i say sensitive subjects such as this is a trap. debate and learn but also know when to shake the dust off your feet and leave. probly about the time you end up angry.
 
This is my favourite section from the Staggs article

As an example, Wallace pulls out the old "six verses in Revelation" standby:
"In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript."
​
This argument is commonly used to show that the Textus Receptus (the Greek text Erasmus edited and eventually became the basis of the KJV NT) is unreliable because it wasn't entirely based on Greek. He says that Erasmus "guessed" at what the text should have been and that he "back translated" it from Latin. There are two problems with this argument.
1. It ignores the fact that the Bible never says that the word will only be preserved in Greek. For all of Wallace's complaints that he can't find the verses in his Bible that tell how the Bible is preserved, he is now making an argument that assumes that the Bible will only be preserved in Greek. Therefor, if you believe Wallace's claim that Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to "fill in the blanks," Erasmus' text couldn't have been God's word because it wasn't edited entirely from Greek. Besides the sheer chutzpah Wallace exhibits in assuming how God will preserve his word, at the same time saying that we can not know how God preserves his word, Wallace is further deceiving his readers by making the unsubstantiated assumption that Erasmus did not have the verses in question in a Greek manuscript.
Click to expand...
I love this section for three main reasons:

1. He asserts God has not said he will only preserve his words in the Greek. I agree. However, the same argument can be applied to the KJV - God in the Bible has not said anywhere that he will preserve his words in the KJV

2. He talks about the chutzpah of Wallace - what about the chutzpah of KJV Onlyists who state so emphatically and arrogantly knowing how God will preserve his word, and where the definitive preservation of that word can be found?

3. The assumption is not unsubstantiated - the substitution of 'book of life' for 'word of life' in the KJV almost certainly comes from the Vulgate. It is a reading not found in any MSS Erasmus had available to him when he compiled the TR, and I'm not certain it is in any Greek manuscript today. I have read stuff from people who have cited some manuscripts in which the reading appears (one of them I can't find a reference to, all of them I haven't been able to find an image of so I can see the contents for myself), but two of the MSS are dated later than the TR, while the other two are at best 100 years younger. So, at best, there are TWO Greek manuscripts with the reading book of life available TODAY, and both of them are certainly later than the majority of Latin manuscripts, including the Latin Vulgate, from which those Greek manuscripts themselves were potentially backtranslated. It is an assertion with some particularly solid facts there to back it up
 
I agree that the topic of which translation is better topic is so tired. No one commented on any of the other points in the article I posted. Maybe most here knows the other 14 are not myths.

Probably not...just that some people like to push the KJ Bible only idea...... :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back