Bible Translations dilemma

[Lefteris]

Hi there!
My name is Lefteris, I recently joined the forums.
I have couple of questions regarding modern Bible translations.
My method of reading the scriptures is to compare four or five Bible translations at the same time.
Aside from English, I read modern Greek as well. I use an application called “The Word” to read the Bible. It contains two modern Greek Bibles called O Logos (Ο Λόγος) and Filos (Φίλος). It also contains some English Bibles such as: the King James Version and The English revised version.
When I compare the above Bibles, I notice the modern Bibles are omitting or altering verses such as: John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Acts 15:34, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7. I did some research and I found that some verses were added after the apostles died. So my question is, which Bible is the most accurate?
How are we sure that anything in the Bible is accurate if verses were added and removed after the Bible was finished being written?:scratch

[arapahoepark]

Now I am no expert yet, but I do know that the NIV (don't get TNIV) does have footnotes regarding all that.
But as for best translation....I am not sure and I don't think NIV would be the best, it just gives those footnotes.

[seank6]

IMHO its what version that makes you comfortable .I use multiple translations as well and you are right some things are missing in some and added in others but the theme and teaching is the same and hasn't changed .

[Lefteris]

Now I am no expert yet, but I do know that the NIV (don't get TNIV) does have footnotes regarding all that.
But as for best translation....I am not sure and I don't think NIV would be the best, it just gives those footnotes.

I am not sure if I can trust the NIV.
I understand the NIV puts some important verses in the footnotes, but this method makes the reader to doubt about the authenticity of the NIV.

This site compares the NIV with the new world translation (the jehovah's witness bible)

jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

[ShilohRose]

I prefer the KJV, but I have the NKJV, the NIV (don't like that one), and the New American Standard. My old computer had a program that had all of the versions on it, which was helpful and interesting, but I trust the KJV or the Geneva Bible more than the others. KJV is by far the most beautiful. The other versions seem flat and flavorless to me, kinda like eating genetically modified corn. Bleh. (Just my opinion though.)

[mattfivefour]

Despite a few textual differences between the translations based upon the Masorectic as found in the Hebrew Bible, the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, there are no major differences that affect doctrine in any way. All key doctrines are based on a number of passages and verses, and the Codices that all good translations use contain ample examples from which to draw identical doctrines. The discrepancy over the viability of a very few verses is a red herring used to try and argue for one set of manuscripts over another. Whether you use the NASB, NIV, Williams, Beck, Wuest, NLT, NKJV, or even the KJV (though you have to watch for a few mistranslations here) you will be capable of understanding exactly what God requires of man. Personally, I think your decision to use a handful of translations (including, I presume, the koiné) is very wise. This is the method I use myself, accompanied by such vocabularies as Moulton & Milligan, Liddell & Scott, Vincent, Earle, and others.

[Lefteris]

Despite a few textual differences between the translations based upon the Masorectic as found in the Hebrew Bible, the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, there are no major differences that affect doctrine in any way. All key doctrines are based on a number of passages and verses, and the Codices that all good translations use contain ample examples from which to draw identical doctrines. The discrepancy over the viability of a very few verses is a red herring used to try and argue for one set of manuscripts over another. Whether you use the NASB, NIV, Williams, Beck, Wuest, NLT, NKJV, or even the KJV (though you have to watch for a few mistranslations here) you will be capable of understanding exactly what God requires of man. Personally, I think your decision to use a handful of translations (including, I presume, the koiné) is very wise. This is the method I use myself, accompanied by such vocabularies as Moulton & Milligan, Liddell & Scott, Vincent, Earle, and others.

Thanks mattfivefour.
I understand what you meant regarding the KJV mistranslations. For example in Acts 12:4 KJV says :

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Acts 12:4 in Greek:

Πράγματι, λοιπόν, τον συνέλαβε και τον έβαλε στη φυλακή αναθέτοντας σε τέσσερις τετράδες στρατιωτών να τον φρουρούν, σκοπεύοντας μετά το Πάσχα [pascha] να τον παρουσιάσει στο λαό.

I think Pascha on Acts:12:4 means Passover, is that right?

As for the koiné, I am not sure if the Greek translations that I read are based on the koiné. How can I tell if they are based on the koiné?


Thanks!

[the stranger]

This is in no way shape or form trying to discredit the KJV, but I did find this site to be interesting. There are many Christians out there that hold the KJV as the original scrolls. For me, I too use every method that God has put at my service.

Regarding one view and info on the KJV Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site


I often use Biblos.com: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages for my research, as it shows almost anything you want to know about a word or phrase. A very good sight.

[Elijah's Mantle]

this is awesome

[mattfivefour]

Thanks mattfivefour.
I understand what you meant regarding the KJV mistranslations. For example in Acts 12:4 KJV says :

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Acts 12:4 in Greek:

Πράγματι, λοιπόν, τον συνέλαβε και τον έβαλε στη φυλακή αναθέτοντας σε τέσσερις τετράδες στρατιωτών να τον φρουρούν, σκοπεύοντας μετά το Πάσχα [pascha] να τον παρουσιάσει στο λαό.

I think Pascha on Acts:12:4 means Passover, is that right?

As for the koiné, I am not sure if the Greek translations that I read are based on the koiné. How can I tell if they are based on the koiné?


Thanks!

Yes, πάσχα is the transliteration of the Aramaic פָּ֫סַח (pesach).

All original translations are based on the Hebrew for the OT and the Koiné for the NT. Koiné was the common vernacular Greek of the Roman empire and was spoken by almost everyone.

[micah719]

Acts 12:1-5 KJB
1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

How appropriate to choose Acts 12:4. It is the only time in the NT where "pascha" was translated as "Easter". 28 other times in the NT it is rendered as "Passover".

A mistake? An unfortunate translation? When all of England followed the translation progress via updates posted in public places, where the translators didn't make money from it, and didn't stick a copyright on it. Hmmm, food for thought?

No. No mistake. If you recall, the Passover refers to the 14th Nisan, followed by the days of unleavened bread.

In Acts 12:4, Herod the Idumean wanted to kill Peter after the feast. He was waiting....but Passover (AD44) had already passed, so Herod was either waiting for the next Passover (45AD), or another festival....called Easter, or as the pagans then knew it, ISHTAR. Which was later in the month of Nisan. This is Herod Agrippa, who presented himself as deity before the masses in Caesarea, and was slain by God.

The KJV is again absolutely accurate here, it is the others that are wrong. Or is it the contention that God made a mistake by giving us corrupted English Bibles for the last 400 years, only to save us by supplying just a handful of heavily edited manuscripts that disagree with each other thousands of times, let alone the TR? And that by the hands of a bunch of heretics (see Westcott & Hort's admitted beliefs on public record, and their smuggled in Unitarian buddy Vance Smith).

Sorry, no, I don't believe God makes mistakes....but He will permit people to delude themselves and others when they put their intellect or feelings above His Word. Do your diligent homework and let no man deceive you. Not even, or perhaps especially, when they wear fancy scribes' robes and lots of letters after their names.

I'm not infallible, and neither are they. Not even you! I don't stand to lose money if the new improved copyrighted translation of the year gets tossed out, but I will be harmed in my faith if I'm not extremely careful to do reasonable diligence. I find with a little effort the KJB is better by far than any of the flood of "versions" since the heretics Westcott & Hort foisted their vatican/egyptian gnostic edited junk on the world. Things haven't been going too well since then, have they?

a red herring used to try and argue for one set of manuscripts over another

Yes, those KJB heretics should all be burned, along with their Bible. I mean, it's not as though the argument is ever made that the TR is corrupt and the UBS3 is better. That would be hypocrisy, let's leave that to the KJV folks. Of course, we could argue both sets of manuscripts are true, at the risk of committing a most mind-bending hegelian black=white argument. Either they're both wrong, or one of them is. Let no man deceive you. Be on your guard. Are those warnings still current, perhaps more current than ever and more urgent by the day? Or more "unfortunate translations"?

[Robert]

Acts 12:1-5 KJB
1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

How appropriate to choose Acts 12:4. It is the only time in the NT where "pascha" was translated as "Easter". 28 other times in the NT it is rendered as "Passover".

A mistake? An unfortunate translation? When all of England followed the translation progress via updates posted in public places, where the translators didn't make money from it, and didn't stick a copyright on it. Hmmm, food for thought?

No. No mistake. If you recall, the Passover refers to the 14th Nisan, followed by the days of unleavened bread.

In Acts 12:4, Herod the Idumean wanted to kill Peter after the feast. He was waiting....but Passover (AD44) had already passed, so Herod was either waiting for the next Passover (45AD), or another festival....called Easter, or as the pagans then knew it, ISHTAR. Which was later in the month of Nisan. This is Herod Agrippa, who presented himself as deity before the masses in Caesarea, and was slain by God.

The KJV is again absolutely accurate here, it is the others that are wrong. Or is it the contention that God made a mistake by giving us corrupted English Bibles for the last 400 years, only to save us by supplying just a handful of heavily edited manuscripts that disagree with each other thousands of times, let alone the TR? And that by the hands of a bunch of heretics (see Westcott & Hort's admitted beliefs on public record, and their smuggled in Unitarian buddy Vance Smith).

Sorry, no, I don't believe God makes mistakes....but He will permit people to delude themselves and others when they put their intellect or feelings above His Word. Do your diligent homework and let no man deceive you. Not even, or perhaps especially, when they wear fancy scribes' robes and lots of letters after their names.

I'm not infallible, and neither are they. Not even you! I don't stand to lose money if the new improved copyrighted translation of the year gets tossed out, but I will be harmed in my faith if I'm not extremely careful to do reasonable diligence. I find with a little effort the KJB is better by far than any of the flood of "versions" since the heretics Westcott & Hort foisted their vatican/egyptian gnostic edited junk on the world. Things haven't been going too well since then, have they?



Yes, those KJB heretics should all be burned, along with their Bible. I mean, it's not as though the argument is ever made that the TR is corrupt and the UBS3 is better. That would be hypocrisy, let's leave that to the KJV folks. Of course, we could argue both sets of manuscripts are true, at the risk of committing a most mind-bending hegelian black=white argument. Either they're both wrong, or one of them is. Let no man deceive you. Be on your guard. Are those warnings still current, perhaps more current than ever and more urgent by the day? Or more "unfortunate translations"?

Here we go again....

[mattfivefour]

Stefan, respectfully, this is nothing but semantical nonsense! The fact is the word in Greek is pascha which is a transliteration of the Aramaic/Hebrew pesach which means Passover— and nothing else. There are no two ways about it. It in no way could ever mean Easter. That would be an anachronism ... which is precisely what that particular AV translation sub-committee introduced. They were copying from William Tyndale (along with the Bishops Bible and Cranmer's Great Bible ). Tyndale believed pesach was too foreign a word for English ears and therefore substituted "Easter" ... a word which originally referred to a pagan festival that became a so-called "Christian" (read "Churchian") celebration by way of corruption of the original recognition that Christ was our passover Lamb. John Wycliffe and the Geneva Bible used the word "Peska" or "Passover" rather than introduce the pagan and anachronistic word "Easter" into God's Word. Interestingly, all of the other AV translation sub-committees also used the correct word "Passover". Only this one group used "Easter" in translating its portion of the NT for King James.

All of that lengthy argument you present proves nothing more than the ridiculous lengths and semantical and historic contortions the defenders of the KJV must engage in their attempts to demonstrate that only the KJV is God's Word and that all the others are corrupted, being based on work by heretics. And that is utter nonsense! Yes there are bad paraphrases. Indeed!!! But most true scholarly translations are no more corrupt than the KJV.

And while we are on the topic of the lengths to which the KJV Onlyists will go, I must state bluntly that it is pure casuistry to attempt to separate the feast of unleavened bread from Passover. The Bible itself calls them the same: "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching." (Luke 22:1) Nothing could be clearer. yet these "defenders of the Word of God" flatly contradict this stated fact by their own reasoning.

To conclude, and for the record, God did NOT leave the world without a correct version of the bible for 400 years. There have always been versions of the Bible (whether in Greek, Hebrew or Latin and then a few centuries after that in German, English and other common languages) available. And the original Greek and Hebrew still exists for doubts about translations to be dealt with.

Further, if someone wants to use the argument that if the KJV has any errors in it then that meant God left people (as you say) without an acccurate Bible for 400 years, then you would have to use that same logic to suggest that until 1611 God left the world without an accurate bible at all ... a period of one thousand six hundred years ... 4 times the amount they scoff at !!! They—and you—cannot have it both ways.

Sorry, the argument you have espoused fails on the facts. I am afraid—and I say this with respect—that you have been taken in by the propaganda of Chick Webb and all of the other KJV Onlyists. Their zeal is admirable, their cause not at all so.

[micah719]

you would have to use that same logic to suggest that until 1611 God left the world without an accurate bible at all ... a period of one thousand six hundred years

Not at all, there is documented proof of transmission all the way back to AD66 (and not involving the UBS3 line), the Vaudois preserved Scripture apart from the RCC, the Waldensians, lots of folks (it's publicly available knowledge....but like the saying goes, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink...) so no need to depart from that method now, surely? Yet that departure is precisely how we got the TNIV and the 2010NIV and all the multitude of "new!" "improved!" copies coming out. Once upon a time it was called the Holy Bible, now we get politically correct versions and paraphrases, and Christians too lazy and stupid to study and memorise....and falling prey to false doctrines by the bushel. The Lord has indeed preserved His Word all along, however He has also permitted ungodly men to pervert it at their own peril, and as a test for the rest. Love Truth, or love popularity and convenience. The two rarely if ever mix.

Don't stick your words in my mouth and set up straw men and red herrings.

Regardless of which AV committee came up with the Acts 12:4 English, it was there for centuries. At least the AV folks did their work publicly and openly and freely, not secretly and for personal gain. That's what copyrights are for....money. Peddling the Word of God.

My reply was to demonstrate that the single instance of "Easter" in the KJB was put there after careful consideration and for good reason. You haven't refuted it, for all that writing. It is not a matter of semantics. A pagan king seeking to kill an Apostle, an elapsed Holy feast and a pending pagan one, and the exposure of a pagan heretical festival that got dragged into the church. No, it isn't the only Scripture about it, but if the enemy is permitted to chip them out one by one the success of his schemes are more likely. So, the excuse that "no major doctrine is affected" is foolishly naive. The other "anomalies" quoted above by Lefteris and the many I attempted to discuss elswhere, are certainly touching on major doctrine. Or are you about to enlighten us as to which bits of Scripture you consider superflous? Here we go, back to the professional clergy telling us dolts what God said. Reformation over, welcome to a million popes all speaking ex-cathedra...each with his own little catechism from the many on offer at the pagan bookstores. Oops, "christian" bookstores.

The "KJB-onlyists" are missing a counterpart.....the Anti-KJB-ists. They're around, but they don't dare say so openly. Perhaps time to add that one to the forum rules, for the customary selective application. Or is stealthy RCC promotion actually permitted here? The preferential treatment and arrogance here are just about enough to make me spew.

I had asked in another thread for folks to read the OP, to refute the specifics, but it derailed into personal attacks and distractions, without ever getting to the bottom of things. The common modus operandi, seeing as how we are actually still repeating the same things that Burgon and Spurgeon mentioned over 150 years ago, and all the way back to the Apostles. The more I read up on the whole thing, and the more I have to do with things like this thread, the more certain I become that I'm not on a rabbit trail but onto something very serious.

"Here we go again".... just what I thought, actually. Have another cheeseburger! I've had enough of being condescended to and being shouted down.

When your approach to Scripture consists of "I think" and "I feel" and "whatever's comfortable", instead of "what does The Lord say?", then you're about to eat something nasty. Eat that meal yourself, but I for one am not going to. 30 members and 400 searchbots in an electronic blessme club. Enjoy....

[seank6]

Wow such love shown!!looks like the enemy is succeeding in his diving of our Christian family..how bout everyone just agree to disagree and then when we make it home we can ask Jesus personally who is right or wrong..

[mattfivefour]

I apologize if my last paragraph ("Sorry, the argument you have espoused fails on the facts. I am afraid—and I say this with respect—that you have been taken in by the propaganda of Chick Webb and all of the other KJV Onlyists. Their zeal is admirable, their cause not at all so.") offended you, Stefan. I regret if the tone sounded condescending. It was not meant to be. Things when read often lack the tone in the mind of the writer. As I wrote, my intended tone was pleasant and friendly while nonetheless taking issue with the content of your post. If the tone that came across did offend you, I am truly sorry. Please forgive the unintended slight.

The rest of the post, I stand by. However I will not argue with you over this topic beyond what I have already said. This is not a soteriological matter and should not be a source of dissension and division in the body. Sadly some have made it so. Seank6 is right. When we get to heaven we will know the absolute truth without any room for discussion, for we will know as we are known. Until then we can build one another up in love as we seek to be obedient to the command of Christ.

[Chris]

Thread closed.