What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

these type errors "accidents" in modern translations?

copper25 said:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defense1.txt

(near beginning Look at question 6, 7, (8) a lot cut off, 10, 13, 15, (19) very sad

are these just by "accident" or not? :o

Sad thing is, these are in the NASB version too which is suppose to be the most accurate version.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm

This is the main link above, look at chapter 19 also, very interesting

The modern claims ey?
Click to expand...
First off that website is questionable at best.
Secondly you cannot compare a translation against a translation, you have to go back to the underlying greek and hebrew to see what they show.

Thirdly, in question #1 in your first link;
Bible Question #1: How many Gods are there?

...Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, the 'modern'
version has a reading similar to the following:

"... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods..."
A son of the gods?! There is only 1 God!

Look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized
(KJ) Bible says:

"... and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD". i.e. Jesus
Christ.

It was Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was with
Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus protected them from the fiery
furnace; and it's Jesus who will protect you and me from the fiery
furnace (i.e. hell).

Now, who would think there is more than 1 God? Well, Satan does.
Remember what he said to Eve in Genesis 3:5 ?

"... ye shall be as gods ..."!

Satan believes there is more than 1 God as he believes that HE is
EQUAL to God.
Click to expand...
What this chap is leaving out is the fact that this word for 'god/God' is in some cases rendered as 'gods' even in the KING JAMES version.
H426
×Âל×â€Ã–¼ (Aramaic)
'ĕlâhh
Total KJV Occurrences: 95

god, 81
Ezr_4:24, Ezr_5:1-2 (3), Ezr_5:5, Ezr_5:8, Ezr_5:11-17 (7), Ezr_6:3, Ezr_6:5 (2), Ezr_6:7-10 (5), Ezr_6:12 (2), Ezr_6:14, Ezr_6:16-18 (3), Ezr_7:12, Ezr_7:14-21 (9), Ezr_7:23-26 (6), Dan_2:18-20 (3), Dan_2:23, Dan_2:28, Dan_2:37, Dan_2:44-45 (2), Dan_2:47 (2), Dan_3:15, Dan_3:17, Dan_3:25-26 (2), Dan_3:28-29 (5), Dan_4:2, Dan_4:8, Dan_5:3, Dan_5:18, Dan_5:21, Dan_5:23, Dan_5:26, Dan_6:5, Dan_6:7, Dan_6:10-12 (3), Dan_6:16, Dan_6:20 (2), Dan_6:22-23 (2), Dan_6:26 (2)

gods, 14
Dan_2:11 (2), Dan_2:47, Dan_3:12, Dan_3:14, Dan_3:18, Dan_4:8-9 (2), Dan_4:18, Dan_5:4, Dan_5:11 (2), Dan_5:14, Dan_5:23
Click to expand...
So the authors argument is shot down entirely in the first question because that word CAN take on the concept of 'gods'.

Most of these folks are King James only types who will resort to any underhanded tactic they can to push the KJV as Gods preferred translation.

Those seeking truth could easily spend an afternoon exposing the tricks of that author.
That site is one that I saw a few years ago and realized quickly that the owner is a VERY bitter person, full of spite and into all sorts of conspiracy theories. I just avoid it altogether now.

.
 
foc,

Do you DENY the inherent DANGER of altering such words and their meaning?

Calling Joseph Christ's FATHER is inherently blasphemous. For God IS Christ's FATHER. And a translation that PURPOSELY alters the TRUTH into a LIE can ONLY come from ONE source.

I do NOT need to KNOW Greek to PLAINLY SEE such errors.

The KJV reads like POETRY from the MOST HIGH. Most of the other versions, for the sake of those UNWILLING to 'power through the KJV', take AWAY much in their more SIMPLE or easier to understand versions.

There ARE NO ACCIDENTS in these interpretations. They are deliberately altered for a PURPOSE.

Blessings,

MEC
 
imagician said:
foc,

Do you DENY the inherent DANGER of altering such words and their meaning?
Click to expand...

What a loaded question! You presume that these "modern translators" have altered words and their meaning. They haven't!

This is not about translations at all. These are questions about what the writers of the Bible actually wrote. Later copyists altered the text and tried to make it consistent. Do we want to know what the authors actually wrote? Or do we want to believe these later copyists? For the New Testament, all these "modern translators" did was translate the early Greek manuscripts. Just as an example. the website makes a big to-do about modern translators omitting Acts 8:37. It's not that they omitted it; it's that later copyists ADDED it! I am privileged to have in my possession transcripts of ALL existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament prior to the year 300 A.D. Papyrus 45 contains the passage, and LACKS the added verse 37.

Calling Joseph Christ's FATHER is inherently blasphemous. For God IS Christ's FATHER. And a translation that PURPOSELY alters the TRUTH into a LIE can ONLY come from ONE source.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Not translator PURPOSELY altered anything. You are probably referring to the following verse:

Luke 2:33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. RSV

Modern translators are interested in what was written by the original authors. They didn't change "Joseph" to "His father". Rather later copyists changed "His father" to "Joseph" so that the truth of the virgin birth would be preserved. This wasn't necessary since Joseph WAS his legal father. Even in our day, step-fathers are referred to as a child's "father". No big deal!

I do NOT need to KNOW Greek to PLAINLY SEE such errors.
Click to expand...

As long as a person had no interest in what the authors of the New Testament actually wrote in the Greek language, they can never know what the writer's actually wrote.

The website defending the King James is totally ridiculous. I could answer everyone of their points, but why bother? I will, however, address just one of their "points""

Eph. 5:1 KJV: "Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God ..."

NKJV: "Therefore be imitators of God ..."

Comment: See chapter 1 of this report for a full analysis. Only Satan tries to imitate God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can't rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his "fishers of men" to imitate Him. Jesus said: "follow me ...".
Click to expand...

In this particular case, even textus receptus from which the King James was translated, has the Greek word "mimitAs" from which the English "mimic" comes. The word means "imitate". The King James translators simply made a translation error here.

The KJV reads like POETRY from the MOST HIGH. Most of the other versions, for the sake of those UNWILLING to 'power through the KJV', take AWAY much in their more SIMPLE or easier to understand versions.
Click to expand...

They SHOULD take away what has been ADDED to the original text.

There ARE NO ACCIDENTS in these interpretations. They are deliberately altered for a PURPOSE.
Click to expand...
Some copyist made mistakes, but others deliberately tried to make the text say what they believed.
 
Imagican said:
foc,

Do you DENY the inherent DANGER of altering such words and their meaning?
Click to expand...
Did I say anything about that sort of thing?
What I very clearly presented is that the word is rendered as 'gods' elsewhere in the KJV so its not necessarily a big deal that it is in this example on that website.

Calling Joseph Christ's FATHER is inherently blasphemous.
For God IS Christ's FATHER. And a translation that PURPOSELY alters the TRUTH into a LIE can ONLY come from ONE source.
Click to expand...
Joseph was Jesus earthly 'father' in the sense the man raised him.
Lets not be overly dramatic chap.

The KJV reads like POETRY from the MOST HIGH. Most of the other versions, for the sake of those UNWILLING to 'power through the KJV', take AWAY much in their more SIMPLE or easier to understand versions.
Click to expand...
I dont read the bible to get a poetry high....I read the bible for UNDERSTANDING. I prefer a bible in MY language over Ye Kings Olde English, if ya dont mind ;)

There ARE NO ACCIDENTS in these interpretations. They are deliberately altered for a PURPOSE.

Blessings,

MEC
Click to expand...
Take a chill pill, friend. These conspiracy theories are a bit much. Not every modern translator is in league with Satan ;)
 
This wasn't necessary since Joseph WAS his legal father. Even in our day, step-fathers are referred to as a child's "father". No big deal!
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Its no big issue calling Joseph Jesus' 'father as Joseph most definitely WAS His legal earthly father.

The website defending the King James is totally ridiculous. I could answer everyone of their points, but why bother?
Click to expand...
Agreed.
That website is a plague on the church. Its full of conspiracy theories and hateful rhetoric. Better that it be avoided entirely.
They SHOULD take away what has been ADDED to the original text.
Click to expand...
Whew. Dont get me started on that Johannine Comma...
 
I am not American , but the US has one of the best Bible translations , that was set aside when the KJV only people started a war against it. Its the American Standard Version (not the NASV) . Read it and you will see what I mean. It has very few errors and they managed to set aside their personal dogma when they translated (something they were persecuted for in their time, because the ASV does not place emphasis on the "doctrine of the day" as the KJV does )

At the moment in my country we have the same thing happening. A friend of mine's father has written his doctorate in Bible translation and he proved that our Afrikaans bible, was also translated to favor the doctrine of the strongest denominations of our country. Now they are persecuting him as well. It figures.

But luckily we can all Google and are not bound to them, unless we are bound by their dogma and many are. So I found the ASV to be the closest to the Numeric New Testament. The NNT is a pure New Testament, that gives no thought to dogma, its translated using the mathematical pattern that runs through the Bible. So its in fact the most correct version on the planet. I bought mine through a guy in Canada because you cannot find it in a bookshop. That should tell you something as well.

C
 
I am not a king James only person, nor do I agree with everything on that site, nor do I believe all 20 of those examples are worth my concern, but this one bothers me

(KJV) Mark 1:2)As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

(NASB) Mark 1:2) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;


NIV Mark 1:2) It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"--

Now where did that verse actually ome from, not Isaiah, but Malachi 3:1, that is said to in many modern translations come from Isaiah. Just a big goof in the print I guess :lol
 
Copper, this is a typical example of how later copyists (as per textus receptus for example), changed the text to make it factual and non-contradictory. The modern translators quote the more ancient text which is most likely what Mark wrote. So it seems Mark made a mistake, and thus "Isaiah the prophet" was changed to "the prophets". Why can't we simply accept the fact that Mark made a mistake? It is not the case that God made sure the Bible was preserved infallible". The main teaching of Jesus and His apostles are true, and is no less true even though the Bible contains a few factual errors.
 
Here is an example in which the King James Bible is in error:

But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 2 Samuel 21:8 King James Version

But Michal had no children. The Hebrew of the above verse says "bore to Adriel" not "brought up for Adriel".

And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. 2 Samuel 6:23

Besides, Adriel's wife was not Michal, but Merab was the wife of Adriel (I Samuel 18:19). The Septuagint translation from Hebrew into Greek before the days of Christ, translated the name as "Merab", in 2 Samuel 21:8 and a few Hebrew manuscripts have "Merab" as well. The King James translators followed the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was in error.
 
copper25 said:
I am not a king James only person, nor do I agree with everything on that site, nor do I believe all 20 of those examples are worth my concern, but this one bothers me

(KJV) Mark 1:2)As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

(NASB) Mark 1:2) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;


NIV Mark 1:2) It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"--

Now where did that verse actually ome from, not Isaiah, but Malachi 3:1, that is said to in many modern translations come from Isaiah. Just a big goof in the print I guess :lol
Click to expand...
The huge underlying problems with such sites and such arguments is that it is presumed that the KJV is correct to begin with. With that as the main premise, it certainly appears that other translations have added and/or subtracted verses, changed meanings, etc.. However, it could very well be, and likely is, that the KJV is wrong on many things and has had all those things done to it's text. Most likely the errors and discrepancies are spread evenly between the acceptable translations.
 
The huge underlying problems with such sites and such arguments is that it is presumed that the KJV is correct to begin with. With that as the main premise, it certainly appears that other translations have added and/or subtracted verses, changed meanings, etc.. However, it could very well be, and likely is, that the KJV is wrong on many things and has had all those things done to it's text. Most likely the errors and discrepancies are spread evenly between the acceptable translations.
Click to expand...

And there is the problem in a nutshell. The moment a translation is touted as the standard basic text for all then you MUST insist that even the errors of those translators were made as a part of God's will, thus Peter Ruckman, thus Gail Riplinger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top