Manuscripts used for Biblical translation

[tessiewebb]

I am woefully uneducated on this topic so hope to get some insight. In my study Bible there are notes throughout that state that "M" or "NU" differs in text from what is printed. I've also heard of a source called "Q", I believe? One verse in particular I can use as an example is Luke 9:55 where the note states that the NU omits a large part of the verse: But He turned and rebuked them (and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are"). Parentheses show the part it is said that NU does not contain. In chapter 10 of that same Gospel, verse 12, notes say that both M and NU omit the first word printed which is "But", leaving the verse to read "I say to you that it will be more tolerable...". Since the words the NU does not contain in Luke 9:55 are the words which Jesus is said to have spoken, it seems very much needful to understand why one source would leave them out. The omission in Chapter 10 is not so important, maybe, since it does not change the meaning of the verse much, but still it is a word Jesus is said to have spoken.

 

[Sinthesis]

I am woefully uneducated on this topic so hope to get some insight. In my study Bible there are notes throughout that state that "M" or "NU" differs in text from what is printed. I've also heard of a source called "Q", I believe? One verse in particular I can use as an example is Luke 9:55 where the note states that the NU omits a large part of the verse: But He turned and rebuked them (and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are"). Parentheses show the part it is said that NU does not contain. In chapter 10 of that same Gospel, verse 12, notes say that both M and NU omit the first word printed which is "But", leaving the verse to read "I say to you that it will be more tolerable...". Since the words the NU does not contain in Luke 9:55 are the words which Jesus is said to have spoken, it seems very much needful to understand why one source would leave them out. The omission in Chapter 10 is not so important, maybe, since it does not change the meaning of the verse much, but still it is a word Jesus is said to have spoken.

Jesus did not speak English. The meaning that language conveys is what is important.

 

[tessiewebb]

Jesus did not speak English. The meaning that language conveys is what is important.

Hopefully, you recognize I'm not so uneducated that I didn't know Jesus didn't speak English. And I do understand that the original language in which He did speak conveys meanings that are not easily translated into English. However, the entire statement He is shown to have said in Luke 9:55 and 56 is omitted in the NU source. Why then was it printed in my study Bible and in other Bibles? What source was used to show the statement was spoken by Him in many Bibles? If the NU source is considered legitimate then shouldn't the Bible show the actual wording used by it? If it is not a legitimate source for translation then why is it referenced?

 

[tessiewebb]

Since I've only gotten one rather snippy reply to this thread I'm bumping it up in hopes a scholar will find it and wish to respond. I learned today from the "Special Abbreviatons" page of my study Bible that:

M stands for "Majority Text"

NU stands for "the most prominent modern Critical Text of the Greek NT, published in the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the 3rd edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament"

Also found definitions for TR - "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text". And "Vg" stands for Vulgate-an ancient translation of the Bible into Latin, translated and edited by Jerome.

While all this is very interesting, it doesn't really shed much light on how and why the notations are included in the study Bible. Any help out there?

 

[Saltwater]

Hello tessiewebb,

Here are a few summary points why some Bibles include verses that others do not.

There is much debate re what manuscripts to use/include in a Bible translation. Several families of manuscripts exist Byzantine, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian are some of the main ones.
Determining the accuracy of a manuscript is very difficult as it is not possible to look at the originals written by the Apostles & OT saints. All we have are copies of copies of copies!!
There are three types of errors that can occur in copying a text: errors of omission, translation errors, transmission errors.Unfortunately a translator's theolgy may sometimes influence their translation of a verse or word!!!
The modern texts of Westcott & Hort, United Bible Society, Nestle Asland 26 try to present a translation of what they consider to be the most likely verses.
Hence the notes in your Bible stating alternative verses/translations.
Due to the ongoing debate re what verses to include (eg. KJV only people) a good modern Bible translation will list alternative readings for you either in the text itself or with brackets around text per HCSB.

Personal comments: for my personal study I use the Wesley Bible NKJV (T Nelson 1992) & a Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Both versions list alternative readings/verses. The NKJV has inserted words in itallics to help clarify the meaning while the HCSB quite often has disputed verses in brackets.

As a rule of thumb I find the omitted verses usually add extra meaning to the context.

Hope this is of some assistance!

 

[westtexas]

Why then was it printed in my study Bible and in other Bibles? What source was used to show the statement was spoken by Him in many Bibles? If the NU source is considered legitimate then shouldn't the Bible show the actual wording used by it? If it is not a legitimate source for translation then why is it referenced?

Tessie, here is a rather generic article on some of the bible translations. You'll find that the Byzantine manuscripts and the Alexandrian manuscripts will either contain or not contain (depending on which translation you are reading) certain verses. Both however are the inerrant word of God. You'll find that the KJV comes from the Byzantine and most of the newer translations come from the Alexandrian manuscripts. Hope this helps a little. God bless.
www.victorious.org/translat.htm
Westtexas

 

[tessiewebb]

Hello tessiewebb,

Here are a few summary points why some Bibles include verses that others do not.

There is much debate re what manuscripts to use/include in a Bible translation. Several families of manuscripts exist Byzantine, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian are some of the main ones.
Determining the accuracy of a manuscript is very difficult as it is not possible to look at the originals written by the Apostles & OT saints. All we have are copies of copies of copies!!
There are three types of errors that can occur in copying a text: errors of omission, translation errors, transmission errors.Unfortunately a translator's theolgy may sometimes influence their translation of a verse or word!!!
The modern texts of Westcott & Hort, United Bible Society, Nestle Asland 26 try to present a translation of what they consider to be the most likely verses.
Hence the notes in your Bible stating alternative verses/translations.
Due to the ongoing debate re what verses to include (eg. KJV only people) a good modern Bible translation will list alternative readings for you either in the text itself or with brackets around text per HCSB.

Personal comments: for my personal study I use the Wesley Bible NKJV (T Nelson 1992) & a Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Both versions list alternative readings/verses. The NKJV has inserted words in itallics to help clarify the meaning while the HCSB quite often has disputed verses in brackets.

As a rule of thumb I find the omitted verses usually add extra meaning to the context.

Hope this is of some assistance!

Thank you very much. This was helpful. However, these questions still plague me: Why is it that there is debate over which manuscripts to use? And how do the oldest manuscripts differ? As you pointed out in your last sentence, I too have found that the omitted verses/words are usually the ones ringing with Truth to my heart, anyway. I beleive the Holy Spirit produces clarity in our hearts, where He lives, when we hear truth. It is, however, very troublesome to come to understand that men have, over the years, decided what is and what is not Scripture. Like the Apocrypha, so called, also. There has to be a way for the ordinary readers of Scripture, like myself, without scholarly backgrounds in Bible translation, to know the fulness of the Word of God without error. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would "lead us into all truth". How do the others who read this find the peace of mind to say "This is Scripture and this is not"? Who were or are the ones who decided this for us?

 

[tessiewebb]

Tessie, here is a rather generic article on some of the bible translations. You'll find that the Byzantine manuscripts and the Alexandrian manuscripts will either contain or not contain (depending on which translation you are reading) certain verses. Both however are the inerrant word of God. You'll find that the KJV comes from the Byzantine and most of the newer translations come from the Alexandrian manuscripts. Hope this helps a little. God bless.
www.victorious.org/translat.htm
Westtexas

Thank you for that url. Question though: How can you say both are the inerrant word of God? Not questioning your statement, but asking how did you come to know that?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Since I've only gotten one rather snippy reply to this thread ...

I do not believe that response was "snippy", nor do I believe it was meant to be.

... The meaning that language conveys is what is important.

This is how I read the bible. I know that Jesus didn't speak my language, and I know that translation can be a problem. But I ALSO know that if I read His words and don't try to obsess on the meaning of every single word - I'll do just fine!

And, has been stated before, there are some things that are easier or best said in some languages and not others. Again, translations are a problem.

I noticed something in relation to this again today, at lunch. I eat at a Mexican place a lot. Most of the staff are from Mexico, Brazil and Nicaragua. Most of the staff speaks Spanish and English. Just today (and this often happens) I heard one of the girls call to one of the guys who works there, her statement was just one sentence: "Carlos, (followed by about 5 words in Spanish, then) customers a li fourty one".

It was clear that she used a few English words in the sentence. I hear them do this often. I once asked why. The response? This: "Really, I didn't know I did that... some things are easier in one language than they are in the other."

Language can be a problem. But God gets His message thru anyway.

 

[Former Christian]

Tessiewebb

What you ask is true of both the Old and New Testaments. What must be understood is that we have none of the original manuscripts. Thus we are dealing with copies. The notations you question refer to different compilations made from existing copies.

I’m mot familiar with the compilations of the Old Testament. I know there are differences between the KJV Old Testament and that of the modern versions, because I have run into a few. But I merely read the Old Testament in English translations because I don’t know the Hebrew on which they’re based. I can read Greek, however. So I also read the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew made around the second century BC, supposedly by seventy translators, LXX in Roman numerals, which is why the Septuagint is also referred to as the LXX. The New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint more often than from the Hebrew of their day. And the more I understand the Old Testament, the more my opinion is that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Hebrew we have today. The Eastern Orthodox Church has the Septuagint as their official version of the Old Testament.

There are over 5000 copies and fragments of the New Testament currently in existence. And not one agrees precisely with any of the others. The vast majority of these copies were made after the tenth century. Compilations of these copies have been made and are referred to as the Majority text. But the compilation that is popular today among the English translators is called the Alexandrian text. NU refers to the 26th edition of the Nestlle-Aland compilation (N) and the 4th edition of the United Bible Society Compilation (U) that are virtually identical. Over the last couple centuries there have been finds of copies and fragments that date back to the third and fourth century. To the compilers of the Alexandrian text, these newly discovered copies have special significance due to their age, their proximity time wise to the originals.

The Eastern Orthodox Church uses a compilation that is called the Byzantine text. The name Byzantine comes from the fact that the Eastern Church was associated with the Byzantine empire (the Eastern part of the Roman empire). Which continues to have significance to the Eastern Church to the present day. When the KJV was translated, there were only a few copies of the Greek text available in the West. The Western Church had used the Latin Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Greek (and Hebrew Old Testament available in the 5th century), for a thousand years. These copies used by the KJV translators contain basically the same text as is found in the Byzantine compilation of the Eastern Church. Thus it’s called the Byzantine text. But there are some variations, enough that I personally refer to it as the Western Byzantine compilation, and the one used by the Eastern Church as the Eastern Byzantine compilation. The Majority compilation mentioned earlier is almost identical to the compilation used by the Eastern Church. Thus the Byzantine exists today in three forms, in my opinion. The Eastern (used by the Eastern Church), the Western (used as the basis for the KJV and NKJV translations), and the Majority (not translated so far as I know). The variations between them are significant enough that they should be noted, if accuracy is important.

The Alexandrian text also has a history. The first compilations to take into consideration the earliest existing copies began before the time of John Wesley. Wesley made his translation using one of these early compilations. It’s almost identical to the Western Byzantine compilation, but there are differences. As more discoveries were made, more compilations were produced. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is based on a compilation made by Westcott and Hort in 1881. It was also used as the basis of the English Revised Version of 1885 and the slightly retranslated version in order to conform to American usage, the American Standard Version of 1901. The New American Standard Bible is claimed to be a revision of this version. Even the Catholics, who previously used the Latin Vulgate as their authorized compilation changed to the Alexandrian compilation with their translation of the New American Bible in 1970. In America, the Eastern Church uses the available English translations, not having made a translation of their own compilation. Thus they are as likely to use a translation based on the Alexandrian text as not.

There are significant differences between the Alexandrian compilation and the Byzantine compilation. To the extent that whole sentences and even larger portions that are in the Byzantine compilation are not in the Alexandrian compilation. A division between Christians has occurred because of the differences. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text. Most modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text of one form or another. The opposers of the Alexandrian text are called King James Only advocates. And some are extreme enough to claim that the KJV is authoritative even over the Byzantine compilation. But most follow what is referred to as the Received Text. It’s claimed to be the underlying text of the KJV. But this isn’t entirely true because there are differences. The KJV translators chose between the various readings of the manuscripts that they had at the time, just as is practiced today. The Received Text went through several editions. The most popular has been the one printed in 1550, published today as the Stephen’s text. It’s referred to as the TR or Textus Receptus. The KJV is still copyrighted in England, where it was translated, which is why I will reference this version on a public forum.

Are the differences really significant enough to cause a division? The KJV Only advocates think so. Their opposers do not.

My personal opinion. The only reason the early copies underlying the Alexandrian compilation exist is because they were found in a very dry area that allowed them to be preserved. Some of these copies were found in trash bins. They were being used for fuel for the fire. They certainly had no value in the monasteries where they were found. But what is significant to me is that the original manuscripts were used into non-existence. Why didn’t these early copies suffer the same fate? Could it be because they weren’t good copies? Thus the significance of these copies is important to me due to their age and proximity time wise to the originals, just in a different way. The later copies from the tenth century to the present are all Byzantine in nature. How do we account for that. Don’t get me wrong. There are ideas as to why that is so. I just don’t find the ideas by the pro Alexandrian crowd to be compelling. They sound good until one thinks about them. So I believe that the Byzantine compilation, most likely in the Eastern version, is the closest to the originals.

But I also believe that the Alexandrian compilation contains enough of the original to represent the written word of God in that which it contains. I don’t believe the Gospel is affected in any way. And the denominations of Christianity can find sufficient material intact on which to base their favorite authoritative doctrinal interpretations. So I’m not a KJV Only advocate.

Now, my opinion concerning the interpretive English translations of the New Testament, from the KJV to the present, is another story entirely.

FC

 

[tessiewebb]

Tessiewebb

What you ask is true of both the Old and New Testaments. What must be understood is that we have none of the original manuscripts. Thus we are dealing with copies. The notations you question refer to different compilations made from existing copies.

I’m mot familiar with the compilations of the Old Testament. I know there are differences between the KJV Old Testament and that of the modern versions, because I have run into a few. But I merely read the Old Testament in English translations because I don’t know the Hebrew on which they’re based. I can read Greek, however. So I also read the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew made around the second century BC, supposedly by seventy translators, LXX in Roman numerals, which is why the Septuagint is also referred to as the LXX. The New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint more often than from the Hebrew of their day. And the more I understand the Old Testament, the more my opinion is that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Hebrew we have today. The Eastern Orthodox Church has the Septuagint as their official version of the Old Testament.

There are over 5000 copies and fragments of the New Testament currently in existence. And not one agrees precisely with any of the others. The vast majority of these copies were made after the tenth century. Compilations of these copies have been made and are referred to as the Majority text. But the compilation that is popular today among the English translators is called the Alexandrian text. NU refers to the 26th edition of the Nestlle-Aland compilation (N) and the 4th edition of the United Bible Society Compilation (U) that are virtually identical. Over the last couple centuries there have been finds of copies and fragments that date back to the third and fourth century. To the compilers of the Alexandrian text, these newly discovered copies have special significance due to their age, their proximity time wise to the originals.

The Eastern Orthodox Church uses a compilation that is called the Byzantine text. The name Byzantine comes from the fact that the Eastern Church was associated with the Byzantine empire (the Eastern part of the Roman empire). Which continues to have significance to the Eastern Church to the present day. When the KJV was translated, there were only a few copies of the Greek text available in the West. The Western Church had used the Latin Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Greek (and Hebrew Old Testament available in the 5th century), for a thousand years. These copies used by the KJV translators contain basically the same text as is found in the Byzantine compilation of the Eastern Church. Thus it’s called the Byzantine text. But there are some variations, enough that I personally refer to it as the Western Byzantine compilation, and the one used by the Eastern Church as the Eastern Byzantine compilation. The Majority compilation mentioned earlier is almost identical to the compilation used by the Eastern Church. Thus the Byzantine exists today in three forms, in my opinion. The Eastern (used by the Eastern Church), the Western (used as the basis for the KJV and NKJV translations), and the Majority (not translated so far as I know). The variations between them are significant enough that they should be noted, if accuracy is important.

The Alexandrian text also has a history. The first compilations to take into consideration the earliest existing copies began before the time of John Wesley. Wesley made his translation using one of these early compilations. It’s almost identical to the Western Byzantine compilation, but there are differences. As more discoveries were made, more compilations were produced. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is based on a compilation made by Westcott and Hort in 1881. It was also used as the basis of the English Revised Version of 1885 and the slightly retranslated version in order to conform to American usage, the American Standard Version of 1901. The New American Standard Bible is claimed to be a revision of this version. Even the Catholics, who previously used the Latin Vulgate as their authorized compilation changed to the Alexandrian compilation with their translation of the New American Bible in 1970. In America, the Eastern Church uses the available English translations, not having made a translation of their own compilation. Thus they are as likely to use a translation based on the Alexandrian text as not.

There are significant differences between the Alexandrian compilation and the Byzantine compilation. To the extent that whole sentences and even larger portions that are in the Byzantine compilation are not in the Alexandrian compilation. A division between Christians has occurred because of the differences. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text. Most modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text of one form or another. The opposers of the Alexandrian text are called King James Only advocates. And some are extreme enough to claim that the KJV is authoritative even over the Byzantine compilation. But most follow what is referred to as the Received Text. It’s claimed to be the underlying text of the KJV. But this isn’t entirely true because there are differences. The KJV translators chose between the various readings of the manuscripts that they had at the time, just as is practiced today. The Received Text went through several editions. The most popular has been the one printed in 1550, published today as the Stephen’s text. It’s referred to as the TR or Textus Receptus. The KJV is still copyrighted in England, where it was translated, which is why I will reference this version on a public forum.

Are the differences really significant enough to cause a division? The KJV Only advocates think so. Their opposers do not.

My personal opinion. The only reason the early copies underlying the Alexandrian compilation exist is because they were found in a very dry area that allowed them to be preserved. Some of these copies were found in trash bins. They were being used for fuel for the fire. They certainly had no value in the monasteries where they were found. But what is significant to me is that the original manuscripts were used into non-existence. Why didn’t these early copies suffer the same fate? Could it be because they weren’t good copies? Thus the significance of these copies is important to me due to their age and proximity time wise to the originals, just in a different way. The later copies from the tenth century to the present are all Byzantine in nature. How do we account for that. Don’t get me wrong. There are ideas as to why that is so. I just don’t find the ideas by the pro Alexandrian crowd to be compelling. They sound good until one thinks about them. So I believe that the Byzantine compilation, most likely in the Eastern version, is the closest to the originals.

But I also believe that the Alexandrian compilation contains enough of the original to represent the written word of God in that which it contains. I don’t believe the Gospel is affected in any way. And the denominations of Christianity can find sufficient material intact on which to base their favorite authoritative doctrinal interpretations. So I’m not a KJV Only advocate.

Now, my opinion concerning the interpretive English translations of the New Testament, from the KJV to the present, is another story entirely.

FC

Very interesting. Appreciate your effort to compile the post; it has given me needed info to continue to dig out the history of the translations. I'd like to know the "other story" though, if you'd care to share.

 

[Enow]

The opposers of the Alexandrian text are called King James Only advocates. And some are extreme enough to claim that the KJV is authoritative even over the Byzantine compilation. But most follow what is referred to as the Received Text. It’s claimed to be the underlying text of the KJV. But this isn’t entirely true because there are differences. The KJV translators chose between the various readings of the manuscripts that they had at the time, just as is practiced today. The Received Text went through several editions. The most popular has been the one printed in 1550, published today as the Stephen’s text. It’s referred to as the TR or Textus Receptus.

I heard that the several editions were results of publisher's printing errors. No actual changes in the meaning of the text was done in regards to the translators.

However: modern Bibles have changed the meaning of the texts in 1 Peter 4:19 as if the well doing is about believers doing good or "committed to doing good" while they suffer whereas the King James Bible has kept the actual meaning of the "well doing" as being on the faithful Creator in the keeping of our souls while we suffer.

From the errors in the modern Bibles: believers have taken up the religious guantlets given at evangelical altar calls in making a commitment to Christ or a commitment to follow Christ as if they can finish by the flesh what God has begun by the Spirit.

We are to follow Jesus by faith in the Son of God that He is our Good Shepherd as well as our Saviour. That reconciled relationship is based on trusting the Lord at His word: not looking to ourselves in living the christian life by the flesh by keeping that commitment to do so.

But because of the religious mentality: Promise Keepers' program came along as if that commitment was not enough to get men where they belong. And still that is not enough as more promises are needed to make man good by the deeds of the law.

The just shall live by faith.... in Him and all His promises to us. That is how believers follow Him. That is how little children follow Him as well as the poor in spirit as they can do nothing but trust the Lord at His word.

Then you have some of the modern Bibles: (Not all) changing Romans 8:26-27 as being an emphasis on the Holy Spirit when the King James Bible has the Holy Spirit as the means by which this intercession is being made as in Jesus" is the "he" that searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit as "he" is the One that intercedes for the saints in according to the will of God which is that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

How do I know that Jesus is the one that searches the hearts?

Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

And Who is the Word of God that searches the hearts?

John 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So verse 27 is actually explaining how the Holy Spirit was the means by which this intercession ( which was why the translators used the term "itself" and not Himself) as this intercession was being made with groanings which cannot be uttered which means no sound at all...and that is because Jesus searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit as it is "he" and not as some of the other modern Bibloes has it as "the Spirit" in making this intercession in "according to the will of God".

How do we know which Bible is correct?

John 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

By this scripture is the reproof and confirmation that if the King James Bible has the meaning of the verse as testifying about Jesus Christ but the other modern Bibles has it on the believer in doing good or the Holy Spirit as actually making direct intercession: then the scripture testifies that the King James Bible has it right and that is the Bible we should rely on as the documents are from Antioch where the disciples met that loved Him and His words to keep them.

Acts 11:26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

John 14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

By Jesus own words: the other modern Bibles in ommission and additions testify that the copiers did not love Him enough to keep His words.

So believers may find the Gospel message in all the Bibles: but the King James Bible is what I realy on as I lean on the Lord for the wisdom in understanding His words to discern what is good and what is evil as well as what is of faith and what is not. I cannot do so with the modern Bibles, but with the King James Bible and the Lord's help, He is enabling me to keep the faith which is the good fight.

 

[jasoncran]

what if one doesnt speak english?or as my cop friend a puerto rican. he uses a newer version as old archaic english isnt his forte?


i guess God doesnt care about the non english speakers then. surely other languages have good bibles.if one is to be that retentive on the bible then learn greek and hebrew thats very languages aside from aramaic(still around)that isnt as easily misinterprepated.

vince, has pointed out plenty of errors in the kjv. kinda odd if our kjv(i use this) is the only accurate bible then why cant the musuems and persons of interest find any true original bible that has all the original pages.

 

[Enow]

In reading the Bible, readers should be asking the Lord for wisdom in understanding His words.

And the KJB is not old or hard to understand as much as the hype being spread around to sell these modern Bibles has been given out.

New believers would rather have His exact words as in the actual meaning than have some verse that would throw them off in ther walk with Christ as many false teachings would take advantage of such changed meanings in verses.

That is why I rely on the King James Bible in holding to the actual meaning of His words as I trust Jesus in being my Good Shepherd in understanding His words to discern good and evil and what is of faith and what is not.

As it is: many of the poor in foreign countries are learning English anyway to help facilitate visiting benefactors that are missionaries and aid givers.

And since the prophesy in the latter days is that there will be a falling away from the faith: there should be more of an urgency to stick with the KJB, but with all the selling hype for modern Bibles out there: such urgency will be muted.

 

[tessiewebb]

New believers would rather have His exact words as in the actual meaning than have some verse that would throw them off in their walk with Christ as many false teachings would take advantage of such changed meanings in verses.

That is why I rely on the King James Bible in holding to the actual meaning of His words as I trust Jesus in being my Good Shepherd in understanding His words to discern good and evil and what is of faith and what is not.

Come on, Enow, you don't really think the KJV (note it is A version) uses Jesus' "exact words"??? First of all, Jesus didn't speak in English of any kind, olde or new. Next, it is possible King James wasn't even a Christian. He commissioned the KJV and it was done by scribes and who knows if they were as dedicated to accuracy as the Jewish scribes were with the OT, or if they were at times inclined to word the translation as King James thought it should read?

God states in the OT that He takes care of His Word "throughout the generations". That's good enough for me. So a big AMEN to your first statement:

In reading the Bible, readers should be asking the Lord for wisdom in understanding His words.

We may not all be able to learn to read Hebrew and Greek and even if we did, the manuscripts used for the translations are in bits and pieces. The best most of us can do is use Hebrew and Greek lexicons to look up the meaning in those languages of words and phrases we are having difficulty understanding. And, yes, ask the Lord for His wisdom in taking in the meaning of what we have as Scripture.

 

[cyberjosh]

Since I've only gotten one rather snippy reply to this thread I'm bumping it up in hopes a scholar will find it and wish to respond. I learned today from the "Special Abbreviatons" page of my study Bible that:

M stands for "Majority Text"

NU stands for "the most prominent modern Critical Text of the Greek NT, published in the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the 3rd edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament"

Also found definitions for TR - "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text". And "Vg" stands for Vulgate-an ancient translation of the Bible into Latin, translated and edited by Jerome.

While all this is very interesting, it doesn't really shed much light on how and why the notations are included in the study Bible. Any help out there?

Hello,

I hope to respond in more detail to you when I get a chance because I went through the same process of discovering and researching the Bible's manuscript traditions years ago and so I understand where you are coming from. Since you mentioned notations in your study Bible, I recommend finding a NKJV bible (even if you just have to pick one up off the shelf at your local Christian bookstore) and read the introduction section on the translational principles of the Bible. The NKJV has one of the best introductions on the different manuscript traditions (even if brief).

For the New Testament the more modern translations mostly use the academically esteemed and periodically (perhaps annually) updated Nestle Aland/United Bible Societies (NA/UBS) critical Greek text (used exclusively for the New Testament) which is a best-guess, critical (meaning it was made by a process of scientific study/investigation) compilation of the best attested readings of all the existing Greek manuscripts into a single redacted text (with notes of major alternates in the margins). The NA/UBS text itself does not historically exist in any one text but is a modern patching together of hundreds of different texts that forms what they consider to be the best reconstruction of the original Greek texts based on manuscript evidence.

Textual criticism in general is so detailed it would make your eyes pop out after you discover that 20 pages of a research paper can be dedicated to examining the textual evidence (not only of Greek, but also Latin, Sryiac, Coptic, Gothic, etc.) for a single verse or passage that is contested.

As for the Old Testament it is the Majority Text (MT) that serves a similar function as the NA/UBS for the Hebrew Text, giving what the majority of the manuscripts read - regardless of their age (some MT readings come from mideval copies). Important texts such as the Allepo Codex and the Leningrad Codex provide us with early Mideval Hebrew texts that provided us with the traditional readings we see in the Old Testament portion of the Textus Receptus (or from Latin derivatives from that strain of Massoretic Hebrew texts). Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls such Massoretic texts were the only Hebrew OT manuscripts extant. There are other OT resources though like the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, the LXX or Septuagint, as well as older sources for particular books like the Samaritan Pentatuech.

Anyway, that is the Cliff's Notes version. But read the intro to the NKJV (look for the NKJV John MacArthur Study Bible - I don't remember if he added some of that or not but that is the Bible I have).

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Former Christian]

Enow

“modern Bibles have changed the meaning of the texts in 1 Peter 4:19 as if the well doing is about believers doing good or "committed to doing good" while they suffer whereas the King James Bible has kept the actual meaning of the "well doing" as being on the faithful Creator in the keeping of our souls while we suffer.â€

1 Peter 4:
19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
(KJV)

19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.
(NIV, the premier version in popularity today)

19 Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.
(NASB, representing a popular conservative attempt at literal translation)

The Greek phrase means “in well doing†or “in doing goodâ€. The KJV translated the phrase literally. The NIV and the NASB embellished somewhat. But what they say means exactly the same. All three versions say the same thing in slightly different words.

The only difference between the two underlying Greek texts is in the phrase “as unto a faithful creatorâ€. That’s the Byzantine. The Alexandrian doesn’t have the word “asâ€. So instead of as to a faithful Creator, the modern versions just commit to a faithful Creator. The difference is negligible.

The context includes this:

1Pe 2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
(KJV)

And this:

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
(KJV)

That’s what Peter has been talking about all along. They were doing good and suffering for it. In 4:19, he says to trust God and continue to do good. It is you who has decided to interpret the text and give it a different meaning. The translations all translate the verse accurately. With one notable exception.



The KJV and the NASB also translates this verse literally in saying “keeping of their SOULSâ€, whereas the NIV changes that to “commit themselvesâ€. The NIV is accurate so far as it goes, but doesn’t help anyone to understand that what it says here corresponds to this:

Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the SOUL: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both SOUL and body in hell.
(KJV)

Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the SOUL. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both SOUL and body in hell.
(NIV)

It’s hard enough to see what the original is saying in English translations without that kind of translational discrepancy.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Tessieweb

My view of the English translations stems from my knowledge of the Greek. They are all interpretive translations. One needs to be aware of that when reading an English translation, any English translation, including the KJV. All English translations are interpretive translations in one way or another, in one place of another.


We also need to realize that there’s no such thing as a literal translation. To most people a literal translation would be unreadable because the tenor of Greek and English is different. I know Greek, so I would be able to understand a strictly literal translation. But not many know the Greek. The point is that literality is by degrees. Some translations are more literal than others. The most literal are referred to as literal. But they’re not actually literal. They are more literal only comparatively.


And there is no English translation that’s above reproach.

I called a well known leader in the KJV Only Movement about the difference between these two translations:

Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith OF Jesus Christ
(KJV)

even the righteousness of God through faith IN Jesus Christ
(NASB)

Note the difference between the “of†in the KJV and the “in†in the NASB. According to modern grammarians, both are a correct translation. But surely it is clear that the two different translations mean two entirely different things. When I talked to this individual about this difference he did a remarkable thing. He agreed with the modern translations. IN Jesus Christ. He said that in the 16th century “of†meant “inâ€. When I pointed out that I couldn’t use a Bible that contains such a glaring language discrepancy as to cause such a confusion in understanding, he only responded, “I’m sorry you feel that wayâ€. Conversation ended there. I didn’t even bring up the fact that the Greek word before the faith of/in Christ means “throughâ€, not “byâ€. Which is how most modern translations happen to translate the preposition in this case. More accurately than the KJV.

I ended up believing that the KJV translates this phrase correctly and the new versions do not. Because there’s a principle that says, if a Genitive phrase (faith OF/IN Christ is a Genitive phrase), has to do with a person, it refers to possession. Thus faith OF Christ. I’ve already spoken elsewhere on my belief that we’re Justified and saved, not by our own faith, but through the faith of another, through the faith of Jesus Christ.

FC

 

[Saltwater]

Hello Former Christian, (great tag by the way – very intriguing!!)

I am interested in your comment: “I’ve already spoken elsewhere on my belief that we’re Justified and saved, not by our own faith, but through the faith of another, through the faith of Jesus Christ.â€

I’d like to have a look at this so could you please mention the Thread Name.

Thanking you,

Saltwater

 

[Former Christian]

Saltwater

It seems I've done a lot of posts in the couple of months I've been here. No telling which ones contain that matter. I looked in places I thought I mentioned it, but with no luck. Subjects are liable to turn up anywhere. Not limited to a particular thread. Thought sure I had put something on the thread "Justified by the Faith of Jesus Christ", but apparently not. If you're interested ask me on that thread and I'll write up a response for you. Meanwhile, you might consider what it says in Ephesians 2:8-9 where the idea is pretty clear. That is, if you look past the Protestant idea that it's talking about being saved by our faith alone.

FC