Your thoughts on Bible translations

[Hootmon]

Originally Posted by EdwardK

Those verses removed were in Greek

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe those verses were added in the Greek.
I dont know. We dont have the original autographs.

What I do know is that most of the translations that people rail against seem to get the major points across just fine despite their word count.

Originally Posted by EdwardK

this isn't a translation issue, and the content what was in the Greeks isn't in modern translations.

Its absolutely a 'translation issue'. That's why doing word counts when comparing English translations is a bit silly.

At least comparing the Greek source documents makes sense...

[Christina]

But is it really possible for 2922 words to "get lost in translation?" I can see a few dropping off but 2922, that's quite a few words that equates to quite a few verses, no?

[Amber Lynne]

HOW can ANYBODY justify taking away from Gods word?!?

[Christina]

Originally Posted by Amber Lynne

HOW can ANYBODY justify taking away from Gods word?!?

The issue seems to be though whether these words or verses were part of the original texts or not and then there's the other issue that when translating from the original languages to english...since there are some words in the original languages that don't have an english "counterpart" or equivalent, they are either dropped out or another english word that is similar will be inserted (italics in the KJV are there to inform the reader that that word is not in the original text but is the closest english word they have to express what the original word meant).

Making sure we have God's Word in it's true form should NOT be this hard!

[Amber Lynne]

Gotcha...

[EdwardK]

Hootmon wrote:

Its absolutely a 'translation issue'. That's why doing word counts when comparing English translations is a bit silly.

Look at Buzz's link here:

http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/Ripp...s_Ripped1.html

These are whole phrases and sentences. I think that clearly shows that the difference is in the greek manuscript - I don't think you can get a difference this big when just translating a greek word to an english word.

I mean, look at the passage that started this whole thread - Act 8:37, here is the text that is missing in most modern translations:

Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Or the ending of Mark, which is several verses. Are you saying those are all translation issues, where the same text is in the greek manuscripts, but they are translated differently?


Edward

[grounded]

This thread restarts about every week under a new name. Two quotes:

"It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay to antiquity its due reverence."

"There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other."

Both quotes are from Desidererius Erasmus, the translator/originator of the Textus Receptus. I believe they are very telling as to how he would wiegh in on the debate: older manuscripts deserve "reverence", and either you face the facts of reality or turn fantasy into "your" truth.

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by twinters

And so you as an individual have chosen that one text is right and the other is wrong? as if Tatian didn't do enough damage to the texts...Besides the fact that it doesn't fit your view and that the opposing texts undermine your position, how exactly are you sure that any other text would be corrupt and that they suddenly add/remove/modify God's Word. There's no point of reference to say that one is better than the other except that the KJV-only crowd seem to think, strictly though a matter of faith, that the KJV is the only accurate Bible. And since that borrows, lightly, from texts based out of Asia Minor, that seems to "validate" those texts as authentic despite the problems with Erasmus' TR and the 11th-14th century texts used to translate it.

This issue is so divisive and for painfully dumb reasons. People need to separate fact from faith - there is no perfect english translation. Period. And to promote otherwise is a falsehood, can lead people astray and/or can cause people to lose faith. Just because translation "x" excludes a verse or changes a word doesn't mean it's wrong. In many cases said verse or word should have been there in the first place.

I'm not KJO, I am TR final
I never assumed there was a perfect English translation, but there is a perfect Holy Spirit spoken to imperfect men, recorded and preserved without corruption
Should I choose the corrupted Catholic version?
You are correct, the scriptures that reflect my salvation by faith alone through Jesus alone would be my best choice!
Not a hard choice to make at all
My imperfect research always leads to true salvation through the real Jesus!
no deception

I prefer the fruit of evangelicalism over the fruit of ecumenism

Originally Posted by Amber Lynne

HOW can ANYBODY justify taking away from Gods word?!?

By saying "the most reliable texts don't have this!"
which means, the corrupted version I deem more reliable erased it

Originally Posted by grounded

This thread restarts about every week under a new name. Two quotes:

"It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay to antiquity its due reverence."

"There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other."

Both quotes are from Desidererius Erasmus, the translator/originator of the Textus Receptus. I believe they are very telling as to how he would wiegh in on the debate: older manuscripts deserve "reverence", and either you face the facts of reality or turn fantasy into "your" truth.

It depends on how far you want to apply his quote, does Erasmus consider the TR fantasy?

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...y/erasmus.html

[grounded]

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

It depends on how far you want to apply his quote, does Erasmus consider the TR fantasy?

No, I don't think Erasmus would have called his work fantasy. However, based on both quotes, if they indeed reveal his mind, then he would definitely have preferred to have older manuscripts and the most complete versions he could find. Its no secret that Erasmus modified his original many times so he lived out the reality that his work was imperfect.

Whenever these discussions come up I always wonder why Wescott & Hort get castigated while Erasmus gets a pass. Erasmus vehemently opposed Luther and pledged his allegiance to the Pope and "The Church". Since he created the Greek NT text that became known as the TR why do we defend that manuscript with so much reverance?

In Revelation 6 the KJV text says "Come and see" but the "and see" are add ons and it should read "Come". Does that change the meaning of the text, maybe but not really. However, if that's some of the 2992 words that are ommitted between version then so be it. It wasn't there to start with.

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by grounded

No, I don't think Erasmus would have called his work fantasy. However, based on both quotes, if they indeed reveal his mind, then he would definitely have preferred to have older manuscripts and the most complete versions he could find. Its no secret that Erasmus modified his original many times so he lived out the reality that his work was imperfect.

Whenever these discussions come up I always wonder why Wescott & Hort get castigated while Erasmus gets a pass.

Erasmus vehemently opposed Luther and pledged his allegiance to the Pope and "The Church".

NOT!

Originally Posted by grounded

Since he created the Greek NT text that became known as the TR why do we defend that manuscript with so much reverance?

In Revelation 6 the KJV text says "Come and see" but the "and see" are add ons and it should read "Come". Does that change the meaning of the text, maybe but not really. However, if that's some of the 2992 words that are ommitted between version then so be it. It wasn't there to start with.

Because the true line of Christianity comes through the Vaudois, Waldensians, Wycliffe, Erasmus, and Martin Luther, not through the corrupted Roman stream of Clement, Origen, Jerome, Westcott, Hort.

Your scriptural preference determines your choice of Orthodox or Evangelical

Erasmus, who edited the Greek text which was later to be known as the Textus Receptus, was an embarrassment to the pope and a poor example of a "good" Roman Catholic. Desiderius Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at the age of seventy. This was no mean feat during the days when the plagues, coupled with primeval medical practices, worked together to limit the average age of a man's life to approximately 35-40 years.

Both of his parents fell victim to that same plague while Erasmus was just a lad. He and his brother were then placed in the care of an uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery just to be rid of them. Thus Erasmus's destiny was sealed long before he could ever have a say in the matter.

Young Erasmus became well known for his charm, urbanity and wit, and was in possession of an obviously above average intellect. He was later to choose to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of libraries.
His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still unfettered.

He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all times.
Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of his church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so called "heretics." He is even credited with saving a man from the Inquisition.

One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled "Against the Barbarians" which was directed against the overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church.
He was a constant critic of Pope Julius and the papal monarchy. He often compared the crusade leading Pope Julius to Julius Caesar. He is quoted as saying, "How truly is Julius playing the part of Julius." He also stated, "This monarchy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of Christendom." He advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." When a scathing satire, in which Pope Julius was portrayed as going to Hell, written in anonymity was circulated, it was fairly common knowledge that its author was Erasmus.

He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his criticism. He rejected the bribe flat.
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament in Greek. They were brought out successively in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. His first two editions did not contain I John 5:7 although the reading had been found in many non-Greek texts dating back as early as 150 A.D. Erasmus desired to include the verse but knew the conflict that would rage if he did so without at least one Greek manuscript for authority. Following the publication of his second edition, which like his first consisted of both the Greek New Testament and his own Latin translation, he said that he would include I John 5:7 in his next edition if just one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Opponents of the reading today erringly charge that the two manuscripts found had been specially produced just to oblige Erasmus's request, but this charge has never been validated and was not held at the time of Erasmus's work.

The Roman Catholic Church criticized his works for his refusal to use Jerome's Latin translation, a translation that he said was inaccurate. He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas.

• He detected that the Greek text had been corrupted as early as the fourth century.
• He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the fourth century.
• He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
• Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
• Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John 8:1-12. Zeal which our modern day scholars cannot seem to find.

Possibly Erasmus's greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward the common man. In the rigidly "classed" society in which he lived,
he was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of the common man.

While Jerome's Latin had been translated at the bidding of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day. A practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its plan to control the masses.

Erasmus is quoted as saying, "Do you think that the Scriptures are fit only for the perfumed?" "I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby."

He boldly stated that he longed to see the Bible in the hands of "the farmer, the tailor, the traveler and the Turk." Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed colleagues, he added "the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps" to that declaration.

Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God's common people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common man in mind, the King James Bible.

It has been said that "Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched."

There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually discerned.

For the reformers were armed with Erasmus's Bible, his writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation. Of Luther he said, "I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his." He wrote several letters on Luther's behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works.

He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic. If Erasmus had turned the power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther's doctrine of predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and ink.

Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church.

He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone.

Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was "the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself.
"Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ." Of Jesus Christ he stated, "He ... nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood. " He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual's salvation. "The way to enter paradise," he said, "is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world."

Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523 even though he himself was often called the "only Anabaptist of the 16th century." He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with called themselves "Baptists." (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST person to use the term "fundamental.")
So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be considered a "good Catholic."
But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics. http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_57.asp

[EdwardK]

I think that whether or not one cares about the 2,000+ removed words comes down to one's view of the Bible.

If one is a lukewarm Christian who sees the Bible as the work of humans, then one version is pretty much as good as another as long as they hold the main points. In fact, many of us on this board could write up the main points in our own words, and the resulting "Bible" would still contain all the main points.

However, if one sees the Bible as the word of God, then even a change in one word, even one letter (much less 2,922 words!) is an egregious crime against both God and man, which can't be tolerated.

Maybe this is why "Bibles" like The Message are so popular in emergant churches?

Edward

[Buzzardhut]

The bottom line is doctrine, what does the translated scripture teach, or not teach?
Romanism overtook the true church for centuries, and like any cult, they have their own set of false Bibles and false doctines.

Originally Posted by EdwardK

I think that whether or not one cares about the 2,000+ added words comes down to one's view of the Bible.

If one is a lukewarm Christian who sees the Bible as the work of humans, then one version is pretty much as good as another as long as they hold the main points. In fact, many of us on this board could write up the main points in our own words, and the resulting "Bible" would still contain all the main points.

However, if one sees the Bible as the word of God, then even a change in one word, even one letter (much less 2,922 words!) is an egregious crime against both God and man, which can't be tolerated.

Maybe this is why "Bibles" like The Message are so popular in emergant churches?

Edward

Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

The "Jot" is the Hebrew word "Yodh" which is the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is also the smallest letter. It's European or English equivalent is the letter "Y" as in the English term Yahweh or in Hebrew YHVH since there were no vowel's used in the ancient script.

The word "jot" itself is an English transliteration of "iota" which is the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet. "Iota," in turn, is the nearest Greek equivalent for the Hebrew yodh.

The "tittle" is the small decorative spur or point on the upper edge of the yodh. If you can imagine a tiny letter with a slightly visible decorative mark.

Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark. We use phrases like "the dotting of the i, and the crossing of the t," and "every iota."

It is interesting that the Jewish scribes who copied the MT (Massoretic Text) of the Hebrew Bible scrolls paid the greatest attention to the minutiae of detail and such marks attached to each consonant throughout the entire text. They even numbered every letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, and scroll to insure that the total equalled that of the text being copied before allowing it to enter the holy synagogue.

The meaning of the passage is very clear. Not even the smallest letter or even its decorative spur will ever disappear from the "God Breathed" Word until all is fulfilled. In fact when heaven and earth are replaced by a new heaven and earth, the Word of the Lord will have accomplished its purpose and will be fulfilled in every detail even to the very letter. http://www.bible-history.com/backd2/jot_tittle.html

[TimothyK]

I have trouble reading the King James. I certainly don't hold it in lesser regard. It's the standard I hold my other versions up to and it is the absolute authority if anything conflicts. The KJV has something in it's authorship that none of todays modern versions can claim; the blood of martyrs. Many God fearing, Christ following men gave their lives that the common man might have the unfiltered and untainted line we enjoy today, free of the Roman Catholic influence. They defied Rome and obeyed God instead. These men are champions of God's cause; by scripture alone. I have profound respect for the KJV and the sacrifices made that we may have it today. Only our Lord and God could have orchestrated such a preservation of His word! Truly a miracle of the ages that isn't often realized.

It's a deficiency on my part. I wish I could follow the KJV as seamlessly as I follow the NLT, AMP and NASB. It takes a lot of extra thought and double checking on my part to follow the KJV. But when I just want to take in God's Word without turning it into a studywork session, I use my "big three" and I like to compare them. I "get" things better like that. I think I learn more or grasp the concept better when I see it explained in many different ways. The other versions click when I read, the flow is seamless. But I'm not ignorant of the theological concerns.

The Bible can be nothing less then the inspired Word of God. There are many Bibles I do not trust. I don't even consider paraphrased "bibles" to be Bibles. I do want the Word of God. All of it. Nothing hidden, changed from it's intended meaning, or left out. The versions I use while unconventional meet that standard, with maybe the exception of the NASB. I see New American Standard 1963 on the bad side of Buzz's chart. Are these different Bibles? I'm seeing the commonly tampered stuff from the Buzz list included in the NASB, so I'm thoroughly confused on that one at the moment.

[Hootmon]

Originally Posted by EdwardK

These are whole phrases and sentences. I think that clearly shows that the difference is in the greek manuscript - I don't think you can get a difference this big when just translating a greek word to an english word.

That ties in with what I meant.

When you say there are whole phrases and sentences 'missing', that presumes that they were present in the originals and not added later.

Originally Posted by EdwardK

Or the ending of Mark, which is several verses. Are you saying those are all translation issues, where the same text is in the greek manuscripts, but they are translated differently?

Different Greek manuscripts are used for various translations.
What is 'missing' from some is 'added' to others.

The argument is more about which of those source documents are more reliable considering that the true originals no longer exist. Chances are that they ALL have their own set of 'problems'.

Originally Posted by EdwardK

If one is a lukewarm Christian who sees the Bible as the work of humans, then one version is pretty much as good as another as long as they hold the main points.

However, if one sees the Bible as the word of God, then even a change in one word, even one letter (much less 2,922 words!) is an egregious crime against both God and man, which can't be tolerated.

False dichotomy.

Are you really saying that its not possible for an honest translator to translate the Bible into English without the word count being similar to the KJV?

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

The bottom line is doctrine, what does the translated scripture teach, or not teach?

Exactly!

[chrisb01]

Originally Posted by chrisb01

It is late right now, but I will do some research when I get home tomorrow. I think I have something some where about this and I want to share it.

I apologize for getting back to this issue so late in the game. I have really been busy.

The King James Version was completed in 1611; but the Spanish Reina-Valera Version was completed in 1569. That's 32 years earlier. Authorized by the Queen of Spain, Casiodoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera translated the Bible into the Spanish language in 1569. They used the Masoratic Text and the Vetus Latina. For the New Testament they also used the Textus Receptus and Syriac manuscripts.

My point is that the Spanish translation Reina-Valera is not a translation into Spanish from the King James Version as are other Spanish Bibles. The Reina-Valera came from early manuscripts.

The Reina-Valera Version does contain=have=include. Acts 8:37. NOT as a footnote, but in the text itself. Proving that Acts 8:37 were in the=part of, the earlier manuscripts.

[turalura]

http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts

"Manuscripts Used in Translating the ESV
Each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.

The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.

Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.

In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

The footnotes that accompany the ESV text inform the reader of textual variations and difficulties and show how these have been resolved by the ESV Translation Team. In addition to this, the footnotes indicate significant alternative readings and occasionally provide an explanation for technical terms or for a difficult reading in the text.

Throughout, the Translation Team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding."

[turalura]

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.

In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

[twinters]

Originally Posted by chrisb01

The Reina-Valera Version does contain=have=include. Acts 8:37. NOT as a footnote, but in the text itself. Proving that Acts 8:37 were in the=part of, the earlier manuscripts.

No offense but that doesn't prove that the verse was there originally. The fact is, Acts 8:37 didn't show up until very late in the 6th century if not later (like the 8th century when it appears in a complete Greek manuscript for the first time). That means from the few surviving texts/fragments in the 2nd century and the texts preserved from the 3rd through mid 6th century, that verse didn't appear.

The question is, when Luke wrote Luke/Acts (which is actually one book in its earliest form and not separated from John as it is in the modern New Testament), did he actually write the verse? The answer is probably not. It's not that the verse is wrong or bad. It's very central to the theme of Christianity. But that's not the debate. The debate is was this verse added as is the case with the KJV and more importantly (erasmus's) TR, or was it removed as is the case with mode modern translations?

The verse does, however, appear in Jerome's Vulgate. So that does throw a bit of fire wood on the debate of when it first appears. But again, no Greek text, including those Erasmus used to write the TR, actually included the verse. Erasmus only included it because it was in the Vulgate which oddly enough, was a primary source on a number of occasions for the TR (including the entire book of The Apocalypse of John). Part of the reason why I reject the TR as a "complete" or "inerrant" document...just part of the reason. There's a host of other reasons.

This same argument applies to the Comma Johanneum, Pericope Adulterae, the ending of Mark, John 21 and others. It's not that any of those subjects are bad (far from it, they're all central to the theme of Christianity), it's should they actually be there in the Bible since none of those texts have any witness prior to the 4th century if not later. We're told not to add or remove anything to the Bible, even if the addition is meant in good faith.

Moral of the story: if it was added, it's bad. If it was deleted, it's bad. And because this is so important, it's critical to educate yourself on the how and why with regards to these subjects rather than stand on a dogmatic chair and scream - it's in the KJV thus it's official. Because if that's the case, the 1611 KJV allows for adultery (the not in "thou shalt not..." was omitted) and we all know that's not what was said by God.

[OtherSideOfTheBoat]

Originally Posted by turalura

"Literal word for word does not matter when you start with the wrong text."

That is a rather unkind statement othersideoftheboat. The ESV is taken from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. It is an authentic translation of the Bible.

Was not the Nestle and Aland a derivitive of the Wescott and Hort work. Wescott and Hort did not have the original Hebrew and Greek. They may have found an old copy in the unused, and hence, trash, set of copies on Mt. Sinai but it does not make it the best text. They drew another copy from the Vatican but that is not a gurantee it is good. The good texts got used and worn out. The bad texts did not get used so they could last. As I understand it, Herman Hoskier documented 9,000 differences in the two texts. These texts have differences from the rest. How can they call these the oldest and best? I am saying the sources of the Nestle and Aland should be scrutinized by ESV before they claim to say they are literal word for word.

[Buzzardhut]

People assume the Holy Spirit only used men of the the oldest and "most reliable" texts, God also used Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, Wycliffe, and others to transmit God's message to all people, while satan used others for his counterfeit versions. We can tell the good fruit of God's Word from the inspired revivals throughout the ages, and the dark age of bondage from corrupted texts and leaders.

Judge the fruit to see the root

• 01. Shouldn't We Be Loyal to the Originals?
• 02. Isn't "Easter" a Mistranslation?
• 03. Was King James a Homosexual?
• 04. What About the Archaic Words?
• 05. Hasn't the King James Bible Been Revised?
• 06. Don't the Best Manuscripts Support the New Versions?
• 07. Don't We Need Perfect Bibles in Other Languages?
• 08. Where Do Bible Manuscripts Come From?
• 09. What is the LXX?
• 10. Was the King James Bible Good Enough for Paul?
• 11. What About the Italicized Words?
• 12. Aren't There Great Men Who Use Other Versions?
• 13. Where Was the Bible Before 1611?
• 14. Did the A.V. Translators Claim to be Inspired?
• 15. Aren't Today's Scholars Better Equipped to Translate?
• 16. How Did King James Authorize His Translation?
• 17. Who Was the King James Bible Translated For?
• 18. Is the King James Bible the Word of God Because I Got Saved Through It?
• 19. Are King James Bible Believers Church Splitters?
• 20. Aren't All King James Bible Believers Name Callers?
• 21. Do King James Bible Believers Worship the Bible?
• 22. Aren't King James Bible Believers a Cult?
• 23. Is it Heresy to Believe the King James Bible is Perfect?
• 24. Who Was Dean Burgon?
• 25. What is Different Between a 'TR Man' and 'KJV Man?'
• 26. Will a Bible Education Help Clear Up the Issue?
• 27. Do People Who Use Other Versions Hate God?
• 28. Is the King James Bible Inspired or Preserved?
• 29. Can a Translation be Inspired?
• 30. Can a Translation be as Good as the Originals?
• 31. Can't We Find the Fundamentals in Other Bibles?
• 32. How Can So Many People be Wrong About the KJV?
• 33. Is it Wrong to Call the Holy Spirit "it?"
• 34. Didn't the KJV Contain the Apocrypha at First?
• 35. Can Someone Get Saved Using Another Version?
• 36. What About the Testimony of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
• 37. What About All the "Thees" and "Thous?"
• 38. Is the New King James Version an Improvement?
• 39. Is the New Scofield Bible a King James Bible?
• 40. Is the New International Version Trustworthy?
• 41. Do New Manuscripts Support the King James Bible?
• 42. Aren't Modem Translations Easier to Understand?
• 43. Is the Devil Behind the Confusion of Bible Versions?
• 44. Who Were Wescott and Hort?
• 45. Can a Person of Greek Ethnic Origin Understand the Greek New Testament and English Bible Better?
• 46. What is a Ruckmanite?
• 47. What About the Nuggets Found Only in the Greek?
• 48. Wasn't the Textus Receptus Named After 1611?
• 49. Were the KJV Translators Baby Sprinklers?
• 50. If Believing the King James Bible is Contrary to the Stand My Alma Mater Takes What Should I Do?
• 51. What is Progressive Revelation?
• 52. Is Believing the KJV the Historic Position?
• 53. Should We Make An Issue Out of Bible Translations?
• 54. Shouldn't We Respect the Education of the Many Drs. in the Issue of the Bible?
• 55. Shouldn't We Emphasize the Love of Jesus?
• 56. What About When My Lexicon and Bible Contradict?
• 57. Was Erasmus a Good Roman Catholic?
• 58. How Many Mistakes Are in the King James Bible?
• 59. What About My Friends and Future If I Stand for the King James Bible?
• 60. What About a Contradiction That Can't be Explained?
• 61. What If There Really Are Mistakes in the King James Bible?
• 62. I'm Convinced That the King James Bible is the Infallible Word of God. Now What Should I Do?