Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Which Bible? Part II
Posted in Which Bible

This post is being written in response to the comments I got on my last post.  I didn't want to try to fit all this multitude of words into that little teeny comment box, so unless you click on someone else's blog right now, you are going to be bombarded with my reply to /johnightthirtytwo and BibleMan. Oh, wait a second. Before I invite more fire, I wanted to tell you all (all but 8 of you, 8 wonderful ladies who are my FRIENDS) that I was disappointed in the results of my delurking day! Only EIGHT?? Who's still just lurking?  I got way more than that on my counter... out with it.  Oh, okayyy, you don't have to say you love my blog.  Just post a comment. And oh, whoever you are, Anonymous non-HSB'er, you didn't leave me a way to contact you to say thank you!  So leave another one :o)  And now everyone, go get your tomatoes, you have time.  This is a long post.


  Whoa!  See what I mean about it being a divisive issue?  Both of you raised some good points.  In answer to Short, the titles, subtitles, and chapter headings were not a part of the inspired, preserved words of God, but were inserted later by publishers who do not claim infallibility. The chapter and verse numbers and the paragraph markings were also added later. I agree with you.  I have seen some misleading headings when looking for passages in my own Bible. But that is not what I am talking about when comparing Bibles.

 

You said the KJV (which, by the way, was not the first English translation) has many errors when compared with the Hebrew. How many Hebrew texts are you talking about?  What are you comparing the KJV to?  And how do you know which one is wrong? (The originals don’t exist anymore – I know King Jehoiakim threw one of Jeremiah’s original manuscripts into the fire!)  I don’t know how many Hebrew texts there are, but I do know that there are over 5000 surviving Greek texts manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. These 5000+ manuscripts agree with each other 95% of the time, and it is from these texts, called the Textus Receptus, that the KJV was translated. The other 5%, called the Alexandrian manuscripts, make up the differences between the KJV and ALL of the other modern translations, accounting for between 5000 and 36,000 differences, depending on which translation you are looking at, AND they do not even agree with each other much of the time!  The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, two of the manuscripts on which modern translators rely very heavily, are in this group of revised Greek texts.  This manuscript evidence stuff can get really deep, but it’s really not that hard to understand. (After all, even I can get it! lol!)

 

For example, look at Mark 16, regarding the resurrection of Christ.  Six hundred and eighteen texts include the last twelve verses.  The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus both leave out this portion of the scripture.  But there is NOT ONE other manuscript that leaves out these verses!  Yet look in your modern Bible. The NASB puts these verses in brackets, saying these verses “probably” were not in the original writings.  The other modern versions use brackets or footnotes to indicate this unfortunate “error” or “ambiguity” in translation also.  That is ridiculous!  If 618 people said they witnessed a crime and two said it didn’t happen, whom would you believe? The issue here is TRUTH. If the verses are true, what is the point of removing them, except to cast doubt on God’s Word??

 

Bible Man had a good point, which is that the underlying issue here is one of final authority.  As long as we do not believe God kept his words for us, we are free to disagree with the Bible and change it.  Satan cast doubt on God’s Word right from the start of Genesis.  He asked Eve, “Yea, hath God said…?” and men have been questioning God’s Word ever since. Without God’s Word being the final authority, we ourselves will choose what to believe and what to reject.  You don’t believe Mary was a virgin? Okay, take that part out.  You don’t believe in the blood atonement?  Okay, just take the blood out. You don’t believe Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh?  Just attack the verses that prove his deity. What’s left? Certainly nothing to show sinners their need of Jesus Christ.

 

Yes, each Bible has an agenda.  The agenda of the modern bibles is to make you doubt God and his authority.  God’s agenda in preserving his words in the King James Bible was to show English-speaking people all over the world their need to be saved from sin and hell. The Bible says we are saved through FAITH, Eph. 2:8,9. How do we get faith?  From the incorruptible Word of God, Romans 10:17 and 1 Peter 1:23.

 

So if one reads the right Bible, he can get enough faith to believe that God meant HIM/her when he said, “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23 

 

Then he looks further into the Book and sees that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 6:23, and “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8. 

 

Then he can learn the answer, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” Romans 10:9.  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” 1 Peter 2:24

 

The Bible also says, “…and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7, and “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

 

 

“Which Bible” is vitally important to our soul’s salvation.( “…the HOLY scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus,” 2 Tim. 3:15.)  1 Peter 1:23 says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of INCORRUPTIBLE, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”  Right there is a promise of preservation, and there are others, Psalm 12, Mt 24:35, Ps. 119:89. “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day,” Jn. 12:48 – can we be judged by it, if we don’t have it?

 

So then, finally, do we have God’s perfect, inspired, preserved Word today? (Not, was it perfect when it was written.)  And if we DO have God’s Word today, which Bible is it???  You don’t have to believe it is the KJV, but if you believe what God has told us about his word, you must believe that he has given it to you to believe and to understand and to be accountable to. Find the one that is perfect and without error, not according to human standard, but according to its own standard, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual”. You will then have found a Bible that you can trust your soul to.

 

Thank you, Short, for challenging me! No ruffled feathers here. Iron sharpeneth iron.

[Post A Comment!] [Send to a Friend!]

Comments
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Ooooh!
Posted by daredhead at 12:28 AM
I'm blown away by this post! I think this is the first one I've read that throws out such "meat", so to speak. I LOVE IT!!!
We were at a church this past Sunday & the pastor was using Power Point. He put up a verse in KJV and was preaching an awesome message. Then, all of the sudden...he started putting the same verse on the screen in different versions. I think he used about 12. By the time he finished listing all the different versions my head was spinning! I think it is very confusing...especially for a new believer.

My DH is a Baptist preacher & is a KJV man. I was raised with the KJV. I do like the NKJV, but we stick with KJV when training our daughter.

Thanks for such a great post. I'm looking forward to reading your blog as I get opportunity.

Stacey

Edited by daredhead on Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 2:29 AM
[Permanent Link]

Thursday, July 19, 2007
Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap
Posted by PlainJane at 11:45 AM
Very well said my friend! You know, I use KJV. I have other versions around too, but have moved completely back to KJV and I'm so glad I did. Mr. Pearl recently did a very good article on this very thing not too long ago in No Greater Joy.
[Permanent Link]

Thursday, July 19, 2007
great discussion
Posted by short at 11:55 AM
Hi there :-) Sadly, there is so much lost in electronic communication and when there is no voice or body language accompanying text, there can be misunderstandings. I don't ever want to come across as a "know-it-all" or an "expert" or arrogant or nasty, so I hope this is read in the spirit it is written in, I too am learning and make mistakes and hopefully learn from them and learn from other people. By way of explanation, Hebrew is the first language I ever learned. I learned another language after that and then English and then some others. I love languages, they totally fascinate me and I enjoy finding ways to translate things so that others understand and I enjoy reading various translations to see what those translators got out of the original :-) So, why am I saying this? When I read (present tense) the Hebrew Bible - the Tanach - (Masoretic text with all the vowel points) and compare the English with the Hebrew, there are evident differences. Things like the seat of the emotions being in the kidneys not in the heart and things like soaring on wings like vultures not eagles... Sometimes it is very obvious that the translators were scholars of Hebrew but were not Hebrew speakers and so made mistakes out of ignorance or to make it more culturally acceptable (or agenda). The Hebrew is full of poetry, word games, and innuendos. These are totally lost in translation regardless of which translation it is. The Hebrew is very gender specific (singular and plural), that too is lost no matter which translation we use. There are things that are culture and Land specific which don't make sense when you translate them, no matter which translation you use.
The length of the Hebrew Bible is about a third that of the English Bible, not only because it is 'missing' vowels but because Hebrew has no place for 'excess' or 'flowery' words. English on the other hand is very 'wordy'.
I am not familiar with the Greek except for a few words here and there that are similar in the Hebrew or Latin.
Yes, I know that the KJV was not the FIRST English Bible, what I meant was that it was the first one authorized for public use amidst much competition and controversy. [begin quote] King Henry VIII had in fact, requested that the Pope permit him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused. King Henry responded by marrying his mistress anyway, (later having two of his many wives executed), and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Rome’s religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church. This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its “Pope”. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English… the first legal English Bible… just for spite.[end of quote] It interests me that the spirit of competition and controversy continues as can be seen by this conversation... This is not to say that God can not and does not use the KJV, I'm just not convinced that it is the ONLY one to be used with such adoration and devotion. The KJV compared with the Hebrew, is not accurate from a semantics point of view but like I said, I have not seen a translation that is. Let me give an example - Isaiah 53:5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. That segment (and with his stripes) in the Hebrew is (and in Fellowship with Him or joined with Him) which would render it "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and in Fellowship with Him we are healed". That is just one example, I don't want to take up more space and time on your blog trying to 'win arguments'. I believe this and I'll try be brief: The Creator of the Universe created us to Glorify Him and because of sin we lost direct contact with Him. Because He had to kill an animal to clothe Adam and Eve, innocent blood was shed, death came into the world. In the very next generation there was murder and things just deteriorated from there. To restore relationship and to pay for bloodshed, sin, death and destruction, a Saviour had to come. There was a temporary system which emphasized this need for a Saviour but a new system was promised. Messiah came, He said said "it is finished!". The Way, the Truth and the Life gave His life for us so that we could have a direct line to the Father. There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved..... agreed? That is in my own translation ;-)
I'm sure we will agree on this and you have already posted scriptures: The history of the world is written in His Word, the history of the Jews, God's Covenant People and Land, promises for Messiah, promises that Messiah would not only be for the Jews but for the gentiles too, prophecies for the end of the World etc, all are written in this Book, His Master Plan, His Love-story to us. And then of course we see prophecy being fulfilled, Messiah coming, all the prophecies pertaining to Him taking place the way they were supposed to etc etc. We see His teachings expounding on what was already there, never contradicting only explaining. The instructions in the letters of Paul (and others) do not contradict each other or what Jesus said and all the apocalyptic books have the same message. They are all Spirit Breathed. I believe that we should be hiding His Word in our Hearts so that we might not sin against Him (Psalm 119:11). I believe that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) His Spirit in us will either witness with a translation or not.

I am repelled by translations that have been made for financial or political gain, or out of rebellion, or that set themselves up against the knowledge of God and His Word. Every translation has its loyal followers, some who hold more on to the translation than on to our Lord Himself, I really prefer not to choose one and I pray that His Spirit in me will help me discern what is from Him and what is not. I could tell you which ones I would not have in my house because they are blasphemous but I have already taken up too much time. Feel free to remove this comment if you see fit.

Be blessed
short
[Permanent Link]

Friday, July 20, 2007
Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous at 10:05 AM
masoeretic "written" after the messiah was born. septuigant BEFORE.
the masoretic has alot off added things and changed syntax. matthew 8 in NASB, NIV and KJV are all differently worded, but the translators to KJV added words, for instance "the christ" was added when the verse was clearly describing the Ruach Hakodes, Holy Spirit. because they didn't think any one could figure it out. but they obviously didn't have the verse figured out, and the trinitarian staements of it. which is why we need to consult the entire word of G-d not just a few verses.
the biggest differnce from KJV is NASB and NIV consult both masoretic and septuigant.
so beyond which translation is word for word, and which is thought by thought, alexandrian, byzantine, etc... which translation stands only one the masoretic?
there have been alot of discussions on this falible manuscript lately as more proof of the changes made to the TEXT by the translators who composed the masoretic have been exposed ( last issue of BAR, etc..)
this is the importance of textual criticism.

it is believed one of the reasons the rabbi's changed syntax and actual words was to attempt to hide the messiah from the people. if you go to the septuigant, which was before the birth of Jesus, you will see some differences in the messianic prophecies in comparison to the masoretic.
do we throw out all the masoretic based bibles? no. do we stand on one translation done by falible men? no.
why? if G-d can use donkeys, He can used messed up manuscripts.
(just don't make me read "the message"! bah!)
heatherly
(Bubbe Bobbie's Baby)
[Permanent Link]

Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Untitled Comment
Posted by PumpkinsMomma at 8:39 AM
I'm just getting around to reading these posts. THanks for your htoughts! I am totally annoyed with all the new translations they are making these days. We have a couple different versions in our house, but there are several that we will never touch - the gender neutral one (yikes!)

We mainly have KJV, NKJV and NASB I think. Actually I have a spanish and german translation as well and in both of those there are times I see the limitation in the english language!

We agree that the Bible you use is important and needs to be carefully studied to make sure it's in line with the gospel. thanks fr your posts.
marie
[Permanent Link]

Entry 215 of 311
Last Page | Next Page