King James Version or RSV or NIV, does it matter?

Now I was reading further on Jerome and he clearly recognized the poorly written and cuorrupted manuscripts from the Alexandrian Codices which had been incorporated into the latin translations. So he went back to the original Hebrew and tried his best to come up with a correct and true translation and he came close, but other forces were at work fighting against is.

Jerome when he wrote the Vulgate tried to use only the original Hebrew text or Greek text from the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) but the Roman church leaders force the Apocrypha and some text from the Septuagint which was really from the Alexandrian codices which were in Greek, but its source was well hidden. So the Vulgate allowed some of the partial corruption Alexandrian codices and you see how the Roman Catholic church used it to allow many false beliefs and doctrines including idol worship.

As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he called them apocrypha. Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books which he clearly tried to keep out.
In addition to the biblical text the Vulgate contains 17 prologues, 16 of which were written by Jerome. Jerome's prologues were written not so much as prologues but more as cover letters to specific individuals to accompany copies of his translations. Because they were not intended for a general audience, some of his comments in them are quite cryptic.

A recurring theme of the Old Testament prologues is Jerome's preference for the Hebraica veritas (i.e., Hebrew truth) over the Septuagint, a preference which he defended from his detractors. He stated that the Hebrew text more clearly prefigures Christ than the Greek text which was actually a Alexandrian codice. The Latin Biblical texts in use before the Latin Vulgate of Jerome are usually referred to collectively as the Vetus Latina, or "Old Latin Bible", or occasionally the "Old Latin Vulgate". (Here "Old Latin" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written in Latin, not that they are written in Old Latin.) The translations in the Vetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more in a haphazard manner; they were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited so there was no standard as in the original Hebrew and Greek text of the Masoretic Text, and Textus Receptus. The individual books of that Vetus Latina varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts witnessed wide variations in readings or did not agree with each other. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts". The reason can be found in that the Old Testament books of the Vetus Latina were translated from the Greek Septuagint which came from the Alexandrian codices, not from the Hebrew text of the Masoretic Text, and Textus Receptus.

Jerome's earliest efforts in translation, his revision of the four Gospels, was written under official sanction, but his version had little or no official recognition. Jerome's translated texts had to make their way on their own merits. The Old Latin versions or Vetus Latina continued to be copied and used alongside the Vulgate versions. Nevertheless, the superior quality of Jerome’s translation from the original Hebrew of the Vulgate texts led to their increasingly superseding the Old Latin/Vetus Latina; although the loss of familiar phrases and expressions aroused hostility in congregations; and, especially in North Africa and Spain where the Alexandrian text had spread and been picked up in the Old Latin/Vetus Latina..

So if it says Textus Receptus (Majority Text) it is true to the many manuscripts that Christians used over the centuries, if it has Vulgate, Septuagint, Wescott and Hort (or its many variants such as Nestle-Aland text, editions of Tischendorf, etc..), then it uses the Minority Text which comes from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.

Here is a list of most of the complete Bibles and their sources, so you can see those which picked up text from Westcott and Hort and variants based on the corrupted Alexandrian codices which Jerome had fought so hard to keep out.

American Standard Version
Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

American King James Version
Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version
Amplified Bible
Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version

An American Translation
Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text

An American Translation
Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

Bishops' Bible
Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Catholic Public Domain Version
Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate by Ronald L. Conte Jr., in the public domain

Children's King James Version
Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version. by Jay P. Green

Clear Word Bible Modern English 1994

Complete Jewish Bible
Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).

Concordant Literal Version
Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.

Coverdale Bible
Early Modern English 1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)
First complete Bible printed in English (Early Modern English)
Darby Bible

Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)

Douay-Rheims Bible
Early Modern English 1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts Old Testament completed in 1582, released in two parts in 1609 and 1610

Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate
EasyEnglish Bible Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)

Emphasized Bible
Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894) Uses various methods, such as "emphatic idiom" and special diacritical marks, to bring out nuances of the underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts.
English Jubilee 2000 Bible

Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)

English Standard Version
Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)
Ferrar Fenton Bible
Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text

Geneva Bible
Early Modern English 1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
First English Bible with whole of Old Testament translated direct from Hebrew texts

Good News Bible
Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text Formerly known as Today's English Version

Great Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.

The Inclusive Bible
Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek

International Standard Version
Modern English 2011
Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
Jesus' Disciples Bible
Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text
Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament). Modern English 1963 Masoretic Text

Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

King James 2000 Version
Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.
King James Easy Reading Version
Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text. King's Word Press. GEM Publishing.[3]

King James Version
Early Modern English
1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

King James II Version
Modern English
1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.
Knox's Translation of the Vulgate

Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Lamsa Bible

Modern English 1933 Syriac Peshitta

A Literal Translation of the Bible
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550) by Jay P. Green, Sr.
Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

The Living Bible
Modern English 1971 American Standard Version (paraphrase)
The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

Matthew's Bible
Early Modern English 1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].


James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta
Modern English Syriac Peshitta
New American Bible
Modern English 1970
New American Standard Bible
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text
New Century Version
Modern English 1991
New English Bible
Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament

New English Translation (NET Bible) Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament

New International Reader's Version
Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.

New International Version
Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).

New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text
New King James Version

Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)

New Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes) Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts

The Orthodox Study Bible
Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.

Quaker Bible
Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Recovery Version of the Bible
Modern English 1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.

Revised Version
Modern English 1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

The Scriptures
Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research

Taverner's Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible

Thomson's Translation
Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament

Today's New International Version
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.

Tyndale Bible
Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament)
1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).


A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Westminster Bible
Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew


Wycliffe's Bible (1380) Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate


Wycliffe's Bible (1388) Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate


Young's Literal Translation
Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Now lets look at the "Septuagint" and its origin, I came across some interesting things that show its source and make plain the purpose in the changes and alterations.

The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitamcy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

Here is a description given online:

"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Lets see what is verifiable:

Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitamacy. But why is this important to them...

This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was refering to.

So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts?

Now the Alexandrian manuscripts which the Septuagint shows itself to be, makes it the same basic text as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are part of a group of texts which are considered the "Minority" Texts, because they were not accepted into the mainstream as the texts were not in agreement with the manuscripts used by the majority of Christians and even these two texts do not even agree with one another. So they were considered unusable or corrupted text by Christians, yet in the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort put together their version of the Greek New Testament text from the Minority Text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since Westcott and Horts version another revision was created called the Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That means that the newer versions of the Bible are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark contrast to 90% of the manuscripts which the KJV and older Bibles are based on.

The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon:
"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

In the world today, there only really exists two classes of Bibles; those based upon the
Textus Receptus and those based upon the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek
New Testaments. If a person has a New International Version, New American Standard
Version, or Revised Standard Version, he is reading from the Westcott/Hort,
Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the
existing manuscripts since they use as their basis the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

When we understand the differences between the texts, all we have left to do is decide which source we find to be the most trustworthy--the Majority Text, from which the Kings James Bible comes and the scribes who did the text did a word for word translation, or the Alexandrian/Minority texts, which is the source material for almost every new Bible version since Westcott/Hort came out with their version.

You have to keep in mind that the "Septuagint" was not one compiled version but translations that were compiled and used in North Africa and Rome. The Alexandrian codices found their way into these translations or were the basis as we shall see. One of these translations was given the name but with so many versions from the Alexandrian codices, its hard to tell if there was only one. The Septuagint was seen as corrupted and rejected as valid Jewish scriptural texts for several reasons. First, because of the mistranslations and changes. Second, the Hebrew source texts used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was chosen as canonical by the Jewish rabbis.

Now in addition to the biblical text the Vulgate contains 17 prologues, 16 of which were written by Jerome. Jerome's prologues were written not so much as prologues but more as cover letters to specific individuals to accompany copies of his translations. Because they were not intended for a general audience, some of his comments in them are quite cryptic.

A recurring theme of the Old Testament prologues is Jerome's preference for the Hebraica veritas (i.e., Hebrew truth) to the Septuagint, a preference which he defended from his detractors. He stated that the Hebrew text more clearly prefigures Christ than the Greek text. The Latin Biblical texts in use before the Latin Vulgate of Jerome are usually referred to collectively as the Vetus Latina, or "Old Latin Bible", or occasionally the "Old Latin Vulgate". (Here "Old Latin" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written in Latin, not that they are written in Old Latin.) The translations in the Vetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more in a haphazard manner; they were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited so there was no standard as in the original Hebrew and Greek text of the Masoretic Text, and Textus Receptus. The individual books of that Vetus Latina varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts witnessed wide variations in readings or did not agree with each other. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts". The reason can be found in that the Old Testament books of the Vetus Latina were translated from the Greek Septuagint which came from the Alexandrian codices, not from the Hebrew text of the Masoretic Text, and Textus Receptus.

Jerome's earliest efforts in translation, his revision of the four Gospels, was written under official sanction, but his version had little or no official recognition. Jerome's translated texts had to make their way on their own merits. The Old Latin versions or Vetus Latina continued to be copied and used alongside the Vulgate versions. Nevertheless, the superior quality of Jerome’s translation from the original Hebrew of the Vulgate texts led to their increasingly superseding the Old Latin/Vetus Latina; although the loss of familiar phrases and expressions aroused hostility in congregations; and, especially in North Africa and Spain where the Alexandrian text had spread and been picked up in the Old Latin/Vetus Latina..

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Your excellent list, Rich, indicates what tremendous work it is to find just the right manuscript. I see it as a task that is almost impossible. Your list shows which texts different English versions have checked as they were making their translations, but it does not indicate hw much, if any, have been incorporated from the various sources in any of the versions.

Take the information you give on the NIV:



The latest Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament texts have an apparatus which gives the translator a choice which text he uses in his translation. So your list does not give an indication which text is used as a base for each instance. Such a list would, as far as I can see, be a list of thousands of pages, in order to give any meaning in this connection.

Some more stuff on the Septuigent: Septuagint by Scroll Publishing

Some more on Greek usage by Palestinian Jews during NT times: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/Greek_NT/greek_nt.html

So the question still is: KJV or RSV, or NIV, or whatever, does it really matter?

This is really a remarkable quotation because here Ellen White praises all of these Christian giants, none of whom had the complete message as later proclaimed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, yet she states they "prepared the way for the proclamation of the last great message".

In my estimate there is no greater difference between the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, and many other Bible translations, as there is between our understanding of Scripture and those Reformers Ellen G White praised in the quotation above. Why should we not rather be grateful to our Lord for providing us with His Word than lamenting the small variations it takes great research to discover?

Though there are a number of translations that take too much liberty with paraphrasing the text, among the literal translations, what matters is the perspective of the one using them. I would say that one motive demonstrated here is a desire to stifle all religious individuality that varies with one's own practice and opinion. For such people, it is imperative to discredit versions that differ from the KJV since their extreme position on preservation of the scripture (essential to justifying meddling in other people's religious experience) is undermined by the idea that God has providentially allowed such variations to exist. These people will comb through volumes of Sister White's writings to cherry-pick statements whereby they can maneuver into an authoritative position over their brethren.

As a side note, here is something interesting on the influence of the evil Douay-Rheims influence on the KJV translation.

Douay-Rheims influence on the KJV.

It doesn't matter. What matters is that people read it. I think Dave said it pretty good. Which may mean one should use caution when reading the KJV or at least compare it with others.

For the situation the Seventh-day Adventist church is in today, I think the greatest problem for us is how the Roman Catholic influence on the KJV is seen in how their view of a woman is seen in that version and has infiltrated the Roman Catholic view among people in our church who regard themselves as honest.

If the variations were but that, then there would be little difference, and small reason to lament. But when the chief purpose and the deletions and changes is to take out the divinity or our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, then we must stand firm and give fair warning of the danger at hand.

Johann,

If you're defending the NIV, you're in the minority. Most of our Adventist scholars will freely admit that it is a poor translation. Not doing so opens them up to some sizable problems.

To my perspective, the divinity of Christ is but one of the major points undermined. One of the biggest, in my estimation, is the removal of the moral law and of our obligation to keep it. That is basically a license to sin. To find a license to sin in the Bible is to find damnable heresy in it. The word of God should be pure. "Every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God" is to be our food. The NIV, and perhaps some others, has the audacity to remove a portion of that very verse, abbreviating God's own words, disrespecting the "every word" concept. The translators clearly did not follow the Bible's own guidelines for properly handling the Word of God. Why then should we trust anything in said translation?

I cannot. And I will not be among the number who find themselves compromised in the day of judgment before God's grand tribunal as having promoted such a specious rendition of God's Word.

It matters not whether you or anyone else agrees with me. What matters is that I have been a true and faithful servant of God, and that I have acted according to the Light I have been given. God has revealed to me problems with these perverse translations...how then should I turn my back upon the Light and reject it? I shall not. Nor shall I be ashamed in my decision to uphold the pure truth and to preserve it to the best of my ability.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If you want the Bible to say women should be ordained, and if you believe that all translations are created equal, why not just make your own translation and be sure to implement your view in it? Of course, that's just the sort of thing that has happened with some of our modern translations. And I'm sure you might even find one nowadays that permits homosexuality, if you are so inclined.

"As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I was replying to the post by Dave and therefore wrote in that context. I have no special burden to prefer the NIV. Why don't you use the Bible you are most comfortable with?

I have yet to see a Bible through which it is impossible to teach all of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps you can convince me there is such a Bible?

Perhaps I should have quoted the post I was responding to. It was post #148555, where you quoted me, not Dave. Now, if you want to reply to Dave by quoting my post, that's just fine. But I hope you won't be surpised if I misunderstand to whom you were responding.

This part of your post was most specifically what I was responding to: "In my estimate there is no greater difference between the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, and many other Bible translations, as there is between our understanding of Scripture and those Reformers Ellen G White praised in the quotation above."


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

When using a different version of the Bible there are times when I am not able to verify my point with a text that I am used to. Until now I have in such cases been able to use a different text in the Bible to support our doctrines even better than by the old text.

I think we are generally using an important method in our Bible study which means that we do not base our important doctrines on a single text but on a combination of texts to be certain we understand the true meaning of the Bible.

Going back to what you said before, before we can know whether or not a particular Bible will support all of our doctrines we have to know what those doctrines are, right? The catch is that all of our doctrines are found in and supported by the Bible, right? So, in effect, we would be reasoning in a circle to presume to establish all of our doctrines upon a given version of the Bible. Better to establish first the quality of the Bible, then find our doctrines in it. Any other way accepts the potential loss of doctrines which we have been given by God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The quotation you used from Acts of the Apostles a few posts ago gives me the assurance that I have none of the problems you mention, Green. God provides what I need to discover the TRUTH

Have you checked the Jehovah Witness Bible as that has some outright deletions when it comes to Christ.

Regardless of whether it was originally in the Bible or not? Does what you want, what you desire predetermine whether a version is "valid"?

Not sure the Jehovah Witness Bible was considered for discussion. True, it is a "Bible". So is the Reader's Digest condensed version.

Yes, when I have been dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, I have used their own Bible where I also in some places find verses that explain SDA doctrines better than certain other versions do. It is nearly impossible to hide TRUTH completely. I never forget the time I greatly surprised one of the national leaders of JW when I showed him the wording in his own Bible which proved that he was preaching the doctrine of anti-Christ in how Jesus is returning. He had never seen anything like that before and tried to change the subject.

One of their members had asked their national leader to visit me at the conference office to explain to me what he was not able to do.

I should have explained that on my visit to one of our local churches in the conference where I was serving then, a young Adventist asked me to go with him out knocking on doors in an area where there were a number of Jehovah's Witnesses. We took them by surprise doing the work they thought was their special kind of work.

In stead of wasting your time on the weaknesses of certain Bible versions, why not use whatever Bible you have, know the powerful texts in that Bible, and proclaim the glad tidings to a world in darkness?

The worth of a translation is determined by the texts it was translated from, not by whether it agrees with our denominational presuppositions or whether it agrees with what Sister White wrote (though she did use translations based on Westcott and Hort's work). As for which has the majority of manuscripts? The so-called majority texts are not in the majority when one considers texts before the 10th century.

With that said, our doctrines are not the standard, but the word of God in its earliest discernible form is. And when looked at in the scrutiny of faithful and competent translation of an eclectically compiled Greek text, our doctrines do stand.

I agree with you, Dave. I was just making the point that it is difficult to find a Bible that is so "corrupt" that it cannot be used to bring us the important message of salvation. By this I see how the Lord has protected his WORD from destruction throughout the attacks of evil forces.

It is also difficult to find a junk food so "corrupt" as cannot provide some nutrition.

What is the point of finding the truth through the most erroneous sources?

I'll be the first to agree that truth can be found in any Bible. It's really not the truth that is the problem, but the error.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It can never be hidden completely unless you take out whole chapters or books such as Daniel and Revelation, but for those just learning, a few changes can make it difficult. Look at the struggle within the Adventist church on the issue of the GodHead/Trinity, and you see my point. For one who has the benefit of SOP and true text to compare versus deleted or changed text, its much easier to know the context or what was meant such as when Christ tells the Thief on the cross that he will be in heaven. But for new Christians or those struggling with truth, it can be a unnecessary burden to deal with. Better to start out with the truest text than one filled with deletions and changes, that is my personal view.

Amen...

True, but where do you find a Bible where that comma has been placed in the right spot? (With the exception of a Bible translated by a SDA scholar - and the one by the Watchtower). Then we should disregard all Bibles, treating them as "junk food"?

Again Green, you should only read the Hebrew and Greek.

Kland,

If you were able to read the Hebrew and Greek you might realize where the real issue lies here. It starts with the Hebrew and Greek alright, but reading them might still land you with a corrupt version. You see, the corruptions were made in the Hebrew and Greek before they were translated to our modern versions in English.

Again, reading a particular language does not solve the problem. I can read the Bible in Korean or Chinese and still be reading from the corrupted manuscripts. In fact, I am not aware of a correct translation in Chinese. This might explain why we have so few Christians among the Chinese speakers, and why the majority of true, solid Christians in south-east Asia speak English.

I've probably shared before how an Asian with broken English understood the KJV better than the Bible in her own language. That was because the translation is so poor in her language. Our church desperately needs to train people for the ministry of translation. We desperately need new and improved translations, even of the Bible, in many languages.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thats why we must use the power of discernment through the Holy Spirit which God gives his children.

The struggle to keep the corrupted text out was a constant one, but the Christian believers strived hard when it came to this matter. Jerome was a true believer and when he wrote the Vulgate tried to use only the original Hebrew text (or Masoretic Text) or Greek text from the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) but the Roman church leaders forced the Apocrypha and some text from the Septuagint which was really from the Alexandrian codices which were in Greek, but its source was well hidden. Jerome spent the rest of his life exiled from Rome, defending his use of the true text and indirectly condeming the corrupted text or non Canon, the Apocrypha forced on him. So the Vulgate allowed some of the partial corruption of the Alexandrian codices and of course the non Canon of the Apocrypha, and you see how the Roman Catholic church used it to allow many false beliefs and doctrines including idol worship.

As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he identified them as apocrypha which infuriated the Roman church leaders. Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books which he clearly tried to keep out. He knew the true text from the corrupted ones, and fought to keep only the true text, it was important to him as it should be to us, and history shows us if we just take the time to uncover it.

Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see why the Waldensians were persecuted and their Bibles and manuscripts burned as they showed that the Roman church was not following the truth.

These versions include: The Pesh*tta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Masoretic Text

1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text

THE NEW TESTAMENT

All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)

30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Pesh*tta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)


The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text as the Textus Receptus was called. It was a struggle but Gods Word was protected through all those years, and those Christians knew the critical importance of sticking to the true text, and it still applies today.

Here are a few things I came across on the Waldensians....

John Wesley has this to say about the Vaudois or Waldenses: "It is a vulgar mistake, that the Waldenses were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons. They were much more ancient than him; and their true name was Vallenses or Vaudois from their inhabiting the valleys of Lucerne and Agrogne. This name, Vallenses, after Waldo appeared about the year 1160, was changed by the Papists into Waldenses, on purpose to represent them as of modern original." (Notes on the Revelation of John, Revelation, Chapter 13, Verse 6, p. 936.)

Here is an important fact cited by Jonathan Edwards: "Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed that they first betook themselves to this place among the mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great [272-337 AD]. And thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 4, Work of Redemption., Period 3 - From Christ's Resurrection to the End Of the World, Part 4, p. 229.)

Here is some history..."There is abundant evidence that the history of the Waldenses dates back to the time of the apostles. It is their claim that their religion passed to them from the apostles and in fact even the writings of their enemies give credence to this. (Note that the Waldenses were called by several different names: Leonists, Vallenses, Valsenses, Vaudois and others.)

Reinerius Sasso was a well informed Inquisitor of the thirteenth century. He had once been a pastor among the Waldenses but had apostatized and become their persecutor. The book The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses by George Faber gives a translation of this testimony on page 272. His testimony described the Leonists (Waldenses) as being the most ‘pernicious’ of the sects of heretics for three reasons. The first reason was because of their longer continuance, for they had lasted from the time of Pope Sylvester or even from the Apostles. Secondly, because there was scarcely a land where they did not exist. And the third reason being because they lived justly before all men and blasphemed only against the Roman church and clergy while maintaining every point concerning the Deity and the articles of faith which made their doctrine appeal to the populous. He also writes that they were simple, modest people who instructed their children first in the Decalogue of the law, the Ten Commandments. (See Truth Triumphant, 254.)

Faber also shares the testimony of Pilichdorf, also of the thirteenth century, who writes that the Valdenses claimed to have existed from the time of Pope Sylvester. Claude Scyssel, the Archbishop of Turin, who lived in the neighborhood of the Waldenses in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries tells us that the Valdenses of Piedmont were followers of a person named Leo. In the time of Emperor Constantine, Leo, on account of the avarice of Pope Sylvester and the excesses of the Roman Church, seceded from that communion, and drew after him all those who entertained right sentiments concerning the Christian Religion. (See The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 276.).."


James A. Wylie (1808-1890) describes the "apostolicity of the Churches of the Waldensian valleys" with the observation that "Rome manifestly was the schismatic," while the Vaudois or Waldenses deserved the "valid title of the True Church," and even the Waldenses' "greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatized them as 'the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient'" (excerpted from "The History of Protestantism" Volume 1, Book 1, Chapter 6 "The Waldenses - Their Valleys" ---New Window [1878] by James A. Wylie). Since the Byzantine Manuscripts commonly accessible to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) were used in his production of the Greek New Testament, which formed the Textus Receptus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), their use demonstrated a continuity with the Vaudois. The Vaudois Christians had likewise used and preserved the ancient Byzantine manuscripts of Antioch in the form of Latin Scripture; and, their survival.. from the time of the Early Church until the sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") of the Protestant Reformation (1521) is testament that the True Church and the True Word of God did continuously testify against the False Church and False Scriptures ..of Rome.

...The Vaudois rendezvous with the Protestant Reformation represents a Divine Approval of the Reformation, in that the Ancient Christian Church of the Vaudois attested to the Truth of the Reformers, and specifically to the validity of the Scriptures of the Reformers, which were used to translate the Textus Receptus Bibles of the Reformation, i.e., the Spanish Reina-Valera (1569), the Italian Diodati (1603), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Tyndale New Testament (1536), the Great Bible (1539), the Bishops Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1560-1599), and, of course, the King James Bible (1611). "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6). Significantly, men of God, such as John Wesley (1703-1791) and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), have attested to the accuracy of understanding that the Vaudois Christians were not merely a more recent vintage of Protestant reaction to the Church of Rome, coming upon the scene through Peter Waldo in twelfth century France (1171 AD), but that the Vaudois were ancient Christians, who preserved their Christianity along with the Scriptures-- separate from the Church of Rome-- as far back as the early second century AD.

So there really are only 2 streams of Bible versions, those which used the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) or those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text).So the Vulgate allowed some of the partial corruption of the Alexandrian codices and of course the non Canon of the Apocrypha, and you see how the Roman Catholic church persecuted those who had the true text and burned their writings and manuscritps, and for good reason as it showed their corrupted codices and manuscripts they were using. So if it says Textus Receptus (Majority Text) it is true to the many manuscripts that Christians used over the centuries, if it has Vulgate, Septuagint, Wescott and Hort (or its many variants such as Nestle-Aland text, editions of Tischendorf, critical editions of the Greek text, etc..), then it uses the Minority Text or allows partial text from it, which comes from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.

Complete Bibles.....................
Bible -English variant -Date -Source

American Standard Version -Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

American King James Version -Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version

Amplified Bible -Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version
An American Translation -Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various Greek texts.

ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)-Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text

An American Translation -Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

Berkeley Version -Modern English 1958

Bible in English -Modern English 1949

The Bible in Living English -Modern English 1972

Bishops' Bible -Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Catholic Public Domain Version -Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate by Ronald L. Conte Jr., in the public domain

Children's King James Version -Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version. by Jay P. Green

Christian Community Bible, English version -Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek

Clear Word Bible -Modern English 1994

Complete Jewish Bible -Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).

Contemporary English Version -Modern English 1995

Concordant Literal Version -Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.

A Conservative Version =Modern English 2005

Coverdale Bible -Early Modern English 1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible) First complete Bible printed in English (Early Modern English)

Darby Bible -Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)

Douay-Rheims Bible -Early Modern English 1582 (New Testament)1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts Old Testament completed in 1582, released in two parts in 1609 and 1610

Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision) -Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate

EasyEnglish Bible-Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)

Easy-to-Read Version -Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text

Emphasized Bible -Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894) Uses various methods, such as "emphatic idiom" and special diacritical marks, to bring out nuances of the underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts.

English Jubilee 2000 Bible -Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)

English Standard Version -Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)

Ferrar Fenton Bible -Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text

Geneva Bible -Early Modern English 1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
First English Bible with whole of Old Testament translated direct from Hebrew texts

God's Word -Modern English 1995

Good News Bible -Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text Formerly known as Today's English Version

Great Bible -Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.

Holman Christian Standard Bible -Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.

The Inclusive Bible -Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek

International Standard Version -Modern English 2011

Jerusalem Bible -Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

Jesus' Disciples Bible -Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)-Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text

Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).-Modern English 1963 Masoretic Text

Julia E. Smith Parker Translation -Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

King James 2000 Version -Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.

King James Easy Reading Version =Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text. King's Word Press. GEM Publishing.[3]

King James Version -Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

King James II Version -Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.

Knox's Translation of the Vulgate -Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Lamsa Bible -Modern English 1933 Syriac Peshitta

A Literal Translation of the Bible =Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550) by Jay P. Green, Sr.

Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)-Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

The Living Bible -Modern English 1971 American Standard Version (paraphrase)

The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)-Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

Matthew's Bible -Early Modern English 1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].

The Message =Modern English 2002

Modern King James Version -Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.

Modern Language Bible =Modern English 1969 Also called "The New Berkeley Version"

Moffatt, New Translation =Modern English 1926

James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta=Modern English Syriac Peshitta

New American Bible=Modern English 1970

New American Standard Bible =Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text

New Century Version =Modern English 1991

New English Bible -Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament

New English Translation (NET Bible)-Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament

New International Reader's Version -Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)

New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
-Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.

New International Version -Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).

New Jerusalem Bible -Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)-Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text

New King James Version -Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)

New Life Version -Modern English 1986

New Living Translation -Modern English 1996

New Revised Standard Version-Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures- Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes) Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts

The Orthodox Study Bible -Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX Septuagint to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.

Quaker Bible -Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Recovery Version of the Bible-Modern English 1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.

Revised Version -Modern English 1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

Revised Standard Version =Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition=Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

Revised English Bible -Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.

The Scriptures -Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research
Simplified English Bible
Modern English.

The Story Bible=Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck

Taverner's Bible=Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible

Thomson's Translation-Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament

Today's New International Version =Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.

Third Millennium Bible =Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.

Tyndale Bible Early -Modern English 1526 (New Testament)
1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible.Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).

Updated King James Version -Modern English 2004

A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures -Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Webster's Revision -Modern English 1833 Revision of the King James Version.

Westminster Bible -Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]-Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Wycliffe's Bible (1380) -Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate

Wycliffe's Bible (1388) -Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate

Young's Literal Translation=Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

A recurring theme of Jerome's writing in the Old Testament prologues is Jerome's preference for the Hebraica veritas (i.e., Hebrew truth) to the Septuagint, a preference which he defended from his detractors. He stated that the Hebrew text more clearly prefigures Christ than the Greek of the Septuagint. The Latin Biblical texts in use before the Latin Vulgate of Jerome are usually referred to collectively as the Vetus Latina, or "Old Latin Bible", or occasionally the "Old Latin Vulgate". (Here "Old Latin" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written in Latin, not that they are written in Old Latin.) The translations in the Vetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more in a haphazard manner; they were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited so there was no standard as in the original Hebrew and Greek text of the Masoretic Text, and Textus Receptus. The individual books of that Vetus Latina varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts witnessed wide variations in readings or did not agree with each other. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts". The reason can be found in that the Old Testament books of the Vetus Latina were translated from the Greek Septuagint which came from the Alexandrian codices, not from the Hebrew text of the Masoretic Text, and Textus Receptus.

Jerome's earliest efforts in translation, his revision of the four Gospels, was written under official sanction, but his version had little or no official recognition. Jerome's translated texts had to make their way on their own merits. The Old Latin versions or Vetus Latina continued to be copied and used alongside the Vulgate versions. Nevertheless, the superior quality of Jerome’s translation from the original Hebrew of the Vulgate texts led to their increasingly superseding the Old Latin/Vetus Latina; although the loss of familiar phrases and expressions aroused hostility in congregations; and, especially in North Africa and Spain where the Alexandrian text had spread and been picked up in the Old Latin/Vetus Latina. Jerome knew which text was corrupt because he had access to and had seen the true text in Hebrew and the corresponding Greek translation as he had spent years in Jerusalem.

So it really is not that hard to find which are the ones with the true text of the the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) if one just digs a little and opens their eyes and ears.

You have still not answered my question. . .

With all due respect as Gods anointed as a pastor, I give you the best answer that I can. God uses men and mans language to write which is imperfect at best, and as long as that happens, then we have to go with what we have been given. Now in all cases and circumstances, it is the Holy Spirit which guides to the truth, but in my opinion it helps to read Gods Word in the truest text available, as we see how it changed the course in the time of the Reformation. I have tried to present this and that is my purpose in this thread, each one must choose what they will do with the understanding given in this study, as Gods leads them. So that God is glorified, and we are blessed, that is what compels me, not to prove one version better or worse.

My question remains: Where have you found a correct rendition of all the Bible, including

There are mistakes in the KJV, Johann. I don't think anyone here is denying that, nor calling it an infallible translation. However, while you strain at the comma you swallow the camel in the other versions. Stuff like this:



These perversions of the Bible wish to erase God's law--the very law Jesus died to uphold. Such texts as this which try to abolish God's law inform us as to the diabolical influence behind their translation. Satan wishes to abolish God's law. Any version of the Bible trying to do so, against Jesus' explicit statement that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law, is an untrustworthy perversion.

Now, coming back to the "misplaced comma," I can find a sensible explanation for the text with the comma in either place. Take note of the definition for the Greek word παράδεισος (paradeisos):



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did I mention the KJV?

You quoted it. Were you trying to hide that fact by not mentioning it?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Only in Gods own hand will you find that, so we will have to wait till it is given in heaven, as mans language is insufficient and imperfect.

I'm surprised you said that. For some reason it sounded to me in the past that you were discussing English words and even put a qualification exception of other languages in your comments. I actually agree with what you say regarding the underlying Hebrew and Greek. (Not the part about why so few Chinese Christians, though).

But how do you determine what is correct in translating for other languages? What do you go with?
How do you know where the wrong parts are? How do you know what is wrong and what is right?
How do you know what the translation should be?

I could agree it is good to use the truest text available. I just disagree with how you determined it. And I have not found where you have established such other than saying more is better.

More at what year?

Interesting how early in this thread, statements were made to discredit the Septuagint as being corrupted by those in Alexandria. What is interesting is that it was the use of the Septuagint by the Christians that led to the Jews rejecting it, particularly regarding Messianic prophecies that pointed to Jesus. Here is an article about how the "erroneous" Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 7:14 was used by Christians (including the Apostle Matthew) to validate the virgin birth of Jesus -- The Septuagint and the "Virgin-Birth" Fraud.

On the other hand:

Article by Jews for Jesus

You have to understand, the Septuagint was not one manuscript, and certainly not in use during the time Christ was with the apostles, and it had many problems not just the prophecies as all the manuscripts/versions had the same prophecies as they were too many to take out or change. So this charge is not valid.

Rick, could you carefully choose some verse which would conclusively determine if a Bible came from these so called "corrupted" manuscripts? I'd like to compare a version.

Mr Green, I was absolutely not trying to hide anything, just quoting from one of those versions using the universal rendering.

So you consider the KJV to contain the "universal rendering." As universal as it might be, most modern versions differ from it rather widely in places.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

We were discussing Luke 23:43. and the placement of the comma in that text. Which of most of the modern versions not published by SDA nor JW differ widely from the KJV in where they place the comma?

Are there actually some non-SDA published Bible translations/versions that have the comma in the correct place?

I do not recall having seen any.

Rick, Kinda hard to follow your grammar here. Your assertion that the Septuagint was not used by Jesus and the Apostles simply flies in the face of common knowledge. Our denomination's Biblical Research Center has covered the bible versions issue pretty well. The vast majority of the time I read the SDA Commentary and run across their suggestion for a better rendering (which overwhelmingly supports our teachings) and then look it up in my NASB, my NASB agrees with the suggested rendering. The idea that our message is undermined by virtue of the fact that a translation is derived from the NU/Alexandrian text is simply not true. One could just as often use the renderings of the KJV against our teachings. Each translation must be read with regard to the context of the text itself. However, you and many other conservative SDA's have taken an extreme stance (just as liberals take wrong positions on certain issues) and are thus in a position where you have to cite sources such as ScionofZion.com just to save face. As someone who has been on the conservative extremity of our denomination (and promoted people like Walter Veith) I tend to recognize things in other people. In the end, you'll lose your mind. Hopefully you'll regain your balance someday.

KJV Translators on the Septuagint:



Taken from: Septuagint: Riplinger's Blunders

Dave,

I'm certainly no fan of Riplinger's book on Bible versions. She ends up being a supporter of the modern versions by simply turning us educated folk against her inaccuracies and over-exaggerations to the point that the pendulum has swung the other way. People see that and throw the baby out with the bathwater--the same as many do with Christianity upon having witnessed a particularly egregious hypocrite.

But just as I do not reject Christianity nor Adventism on account of the hypocrites in the church, so also I don't turn away from truth just because it has been misrepresented and made to appear shameful. Truth must be accepted, whatever the form in which it may have been presented to us.

My journey into understanding the fallacies of the modern versions began almost as a joke. A gentleman who recently passed away would lead an English Sabbath school on the campus of our school, for those students wishing to practice their English during the church service. Being one of the English-speaking staff at the school at that time, I helped with that Sabbath school. The leader used his NIV Bible, and almost without fail, from one week to the next, there came up a verse or two that read rather differently between his version and mine. Mine, of course, was the KJV--mostly because it was the Bible I had always used from my childhood up, had memorized from, and the one I actually owned. I don't think I even owned any other version at that time.

I wish I had written down all the verses that differed, as there were some rather unusual and unexpected differences. Invariably, the version differences would start a mini-discussion in our Sabbath-school class, and I would tease the leader with a smile and a quip about his "Catholic" Bible. I don't know where I got that...just something someone had said or something. I didn't have anything substantial, as far as I remember now, behind that statement, only that I suspected the Catholics had been somehow involved in the making of the NIV.

Unbeknownst to me, the leader of the class, and my boss at the time, thought he would settle the argument with me more definitively, and ordered a book about Bible version differences called "Battle of the Bibles" by H. H. Meyers. (I guess he wanted to prove that his Bible was just as good as mine, so he chose to read up a bit on Bible versions. He may have acquired other books as well, but it was this one that I found out about later.) One day, some weeks after he had read the book, I was visiting in his home when I saw the book on his coffee table. He saw me looking at it and said "Oh, you should read that book! It's a good one." And he proceeded to have me take it home to read it. The book outlined some fascinating facts relative to the Bible's history in Europe going centuries back, and laid down the two major parties involved in Bible translation through the years. Lo and behold, it was Catholics versus Protestants! Remember the Spanish Armada? The Pope had offered a large sum of money to the Spanish king to support his fleet of warships and to send them to conquer England, in part to recover the religious ground they were fast losing on account of the freedom to translate and publish the Bible in that country, for even then the KJV translation was underway. God overruled. The armada was soundly defeated, and the pope, having not yet paid his share of the money to the Spanish king, went back on his agreement and gave nothing. After all, the armada had failed miserably, and the pope saw no benefit in paying up. This was a major blow to Spain and to Spanish colonization. But all that is history. The King James Bible is here today because God defeated the armada that was sent to prevent its completion. Meyers did a wonderful job with detailing interesting bits of history like that. But, though interesting, that did not convince me.

What convinced me most were the examples that Meyers included toward the end of the book of actual differences between the Bible versions; examples which showed the trend of changes the modern Bibles tried to make. One can say the modern versions are accurate translations of the original Greek or Hebrew, but then one would be ignoring the fact that those original languages have themselves been edited. The Catholics have documented their involvement in editing the original manuscripts. While I cannot read the original languages, their English representations make the agenda behind these edits plain enough. All one need do is but think a bit about some of the changes, and one knows that the version containing them cannot be true.

For example, take the most famous verse of the Bible. In the modern versions, it will say that Jesus was God's only son. But in the KJV, it says Jesus was the only "begotten" Son, a term meaning "engendered" or "fathered" in a more genetic sense. If Jesus were God's "one and only" son, as the modern versions like to suggest, then those portions of the Bible like John 1:12, just two chapters prior, which speak of "as many as received him" becoming "sons of God" would not be possibly true. Essentially, the Bible has contradicted itself when it speaks of both plural "sons of God" and "one and only" son of God. The KJV does not have such misguided contradictions as this. Its language is much more clear and distinct, not muddled nor self-contradictory so much as the modern versions have become.

One cannot edit the Word of God and introduce no error. A liar eventually must contradict himself, and those who change the Word of God do likewise.

As for the Septuagint, it is an interesting fact that the New Testament writers would sometimes quote the phraseology of the Septuagint, showing their acquaintance with it, but at times they would retranslate from the Hebrew to the Greek themselves, rejecting the phraseology of the Septuagint. This indicates, to me, that the Bible writers themselves did not consider the Septuagint to be a particularly pure or inspired translation, and they would use it where the translation was suitable, but were careful to choose their own words where the Septuagint may have been weak or unsuitable.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That made me smile.

I'm at a loss to know where to begin....

Was the KJV edited?

I hate to rain on your the "Comma in Luke 23" parade*, but regarding said point, the translators (SDA and JW excepted, as Johann has correctly pointed out) got it right. In every case where Jesus uses the phrase "I say unto you...", this is followed by what he has to say. He never uses the phrase "I say unto you today..." and then says what he has to say.

*Actually, it dosen't bother me at all.

** This post is not directed at Johann, who has a very rational approach to Scripture, but rather is a generic response to the "Comma in Luke 23" argument.

Doesn't bother me at all either. Then again, I tend to think somewhat abstractly. As far as the malefactor was concerned "today", however far in the future, was (will be) immediate the moment he died. Like talking to the anesthesiologist one second and and seeing your PACU nurse the next and wondering when your surgery is going to start.

As to Greens latest post, I contacted the Andrews University Press some time ago and asked if they would ever consider producing an Andrews Study Bible in the NASB since I liked my NKVJ one so much. They told me that though they didn't have plans in place yet for one in the NASB, they were already planning on one in the NIV. It would be far better to look at different renderings as an opportunity to view our teachings from different perspectives.

In a few places, yes, unfortunately. The sixth commandment is one of those. This is why going back to the original language is frequently important in Bible study. But the modern versions pale in comparison to the relative purity of the KJV.

Basically, there is no perfect version. But some are more perfect than others. In general, any Bible translated from the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts, such as the Waldensian Bibles were, is far superior to those Bibles coming from the Catholic-edited manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fittingly, the TR line represents about 95% of all the extant manuscripts, and to me this seems appropriate in light of God's promise to preserve His Word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well think about it, how did they come about deciding Canon, what makes one manuscript holy and the other not. The Holy Spirit shows them, the same for understanding, the same guiding to all truth. Man cannot write or teach anything that will be perfectly from God, it is the Holy Spirit that shows the perfect will of God, always has been....

I have a notion that a considerable section of hell will be for those who will not accept anything unless they have been satisfied that they have understood the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To them life is made up of "either" "or". The Holy Spirit will not be able to satisfy them that God is revealing a part of His glory to them and they will not receive any more unless they have accepted what has been given to them.

Maybe, maybe not.

But notions aside, the Bible tells us in God's own copyright of the book exactly what portion will those receive who have tampered with His Word.


If God is so particular about adding or subtracting words from the Bible, it stands to reason that such additions or subtractions will result in the loss of souls. When one realizes the infinite worth of one soul, and realizes that a few edited words of the Bible might cause the loss of that soul, one becomes a righteous defender of maintaining purity of God's Word.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But how do you know it's wrong? You can't say any version not from the Textus Receptus is wrong, because you just admitted that in a few places, even it is wrong. So how do you know it is wrong? Do we just take your word that it is wrong?

I'm a stickler for Biblical wording being correct and pure, without edits. It's important for understanding the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Your post here is a perfect example of what can happen when someone is careless with the wording. You have twisted what I said to say something that is no longer true. You probably didn't realize that you were doing that. But the shift from "KJV" to "Textus Receptus" between your two posts just made all the difference in the world.

In other words, I did no such thing as "admit" that the TR is wrong in a few places. Now, I might choose to make such an admission, but for you to say that I have is incorrect. I addressed the KJV, not the TR, in that post.

Now, why should I make such a big deal out of this? Because it is crucial to understanding the answer that I will now give to your next question of "how do you know it is wrong?"

I know the KJV is wrong by going back to the Textus Receptus' original Hebrew, and looking at the word used and how it is translated in other places within the same version. In other words, the sixth commandment is one example of a translation in the KJV which conflicts with the rest of the KJV translation.



Notice how the word is used in other places? Why is it that the only verses where Hebrew 7523 is translated as "kill" are the two statements of the sixth commandment? Verses which say "kill" all use a different Hebrew word, except for those two commandments. All of the verses using the word God chose for the commandment are translated in other places as some form of "murder," "slay," "manslayer," etc., which is hardly the same as "kill."

If "kill" = "murder" then we have a BIG problem. The problem would be that God has told us we must not kill, and then at the same time has commanded it. This would mean that God has commanded us to sin. Don't you think that would be a big problem? Do I even need to read Greek and Hebrew to understand that? So when I see that the sixth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill," and then I see something like "thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them" (Lev. 20:16), I know that there is an error in the translation, because I have faith that God does not lie, and in Him is no error at all.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Some people spend their lives in the shadow of the valley of death, finding the importance of defining the verbal variations in the expressions describing the process of death. Others find their way into the light of Jesus Christ and His Gospel of eternal life. Do we get the idea that the light described to vividly by the Apostle John in His epistle becomes any brighter by discovering false translations from the Hebrew or Greek terms of the process of death?

Who created death? Was it done by God the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost? Or was it initiated by Satan?

Who is the only source of immortality - eternal life?

Touche, Johann!

That's a false accusation.

You switch from one side to another, from manuscripts to translations to English to your own preference for words. I asked about the KJV. You talked about the Textus Receptus. How am I to know if that's a switch or not you are making?

Looked like you were talking about the TR to me.



Now you switched back to disputing English words.

It means, to dash in pieces. Just because the translators used one word more often than another doesn't mean they should only use that word. Again, you are using another version of the "more is better" fallacy.

Why don't you go back to the original Hebrew and give the meaning of the word instead of attempting to distinguish between English words?


As far as you choosing one English word over another to feebly attempt to justify your presumption, it appears Tom's effort in describing God's character has been lost on you. You are doing nothing more than picking a English version, saying it's right and correct because it agrees with your belief system. And that is not a correct method.

Is there anything wrong with cheating a little bit here and a little bit there as long as you are fighting for a cause you are convinced is right?

Adam thought he could cheat just a bit to save Eve, a cause he certainly felt convince was right, and bit the apple.

That is an assumption/opinion that cannot be supported by the text.

Or, if you can, please do so.

It's been awhile, but perhaps I will yet address this, for the record. I was away for some weeks, and have been too busy following my return to consider this until now.

Let's start with a review of the posts that led us to here, first mine, then yours. I'll emphasize the key points in those posts for clarity.



You asked me about the KJV. I answered about the KJV. You then claimed that I had made an admission about the TR. That twisted what I was saying into something that I did not say. How you can, in light of this, still say that my claim that you have twisted what I said is false is beyond me. Let the posts speak for themselves.

I didn't make the switch. You did.

I will admit that there are errors in the KJV translation. The translation was "edited" in places. That is obvious. I would actually hope that any translation is edited. An unedited manuscript just might have more egregious errors in it, as had the KJV when it was first produced with the wording "Thou shalt commit adultery." Perhaps I need to say, for clarity, that this egregious error was NOT in the TR.

I have never said that the TR was edited. I have no proof that it was. I tend not to say things for which I do not have documentable support on matters like this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is there a pure unadulterated translation anywhere?

Do we live in a perfect world?

Is His kingdom of this world?

How many problems do people face because they reach for something "perfect" in this world?

Scripture shows us where to go for salvation, but salvation is not in themselves, but in Jesus Christ.

I now notice it would have been better if I had said "in them."

Green, you err.

"even it is wrong". What is "it"? Compare context.

Perhaps I should also ask this:

Was there ever a pure unadultered translation of both the OT and NT Scriptures from their original languages?

Meaning that you think there may be one of either the OT or NT or in non-original languages? Assuming you meant and/or, but not sure why you needed the qualification.

I was referring to the language used by the various Bible writers which obviously was first translated by somebody, or a group of people, into their own language, and then subsequently translated into other languages by others.

The Jews considered every word in Canon to be Holy and would not changed them so the meaning would stay as intended. Now for example, look at the following and tell me what you see....

(Genesis 3:15, K)
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(Genesis 3:15, N)
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

(Genesis 3:15, D)
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Rick that's an interesting translation. I have to verify this text more closely and see if the D translation is more correct. Via googling this translation, D is the Douay-Rheims Bible which is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. So I imagine the Catholic must rely on that translation.

I have a SDA friend that is a serious scripture student. He checks the Greek and Hebrew sources of words in his studies and has compared many translations. He told me that over the years doing this he found that the Catholic Bibles translation are more reliable(to the Hebrew and Greek word definition without distorting the meaning of the original text) than any of the protestant translations. I was quite surprise to hear that. So I verified his claim by checking a few of some mis-translations that I was aware of. In those verses checked, the translation in the Catholic Bible was better.

I don't have a Catholic Bible which I will procure in the futur, but I do have the Tenakh that I like to check their translation of difficult text from time to time. Gen 3:18 is one text that is in my to study list. So that's why your post pull my attention. Here is how the Tenakh translated Gen 3:18

The Tenakh Gen 3:18 [b]"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel."

In the Scripture-for-all software, the literal translation read as follow :

Scripture-for-all Software of Gen 3:18: "and-enmity I-am-setting between-you and-between the-woman and-between your-seed and-between her-seed he he-shall-hurt-you head and-you you-shall-hurt-him heel"

I assumed that some other languages would have some translations from the original manuscripts, but do you know if there aren't any, that all came from Latin or English?

How do you think it should it be translated?

The transliteration (?):
and-enmity I-am-setting between-you and-between the-woman and-between seed-of-you and-between seed-of-her he he-shall-hurt-you head and-you you-shall-hurt-him heel

Which I would go with the N. But yet, to go with the story of the woman, 'she' would fit. Which 'it' or 'they' could also fit meaning the church. So yes, all three would be good versions. An excellent demonstration to show a good reason to read more than one version.

This is very true because so often it is impossible to translate the original text fully. This is where it takes several translations to get the full meaning of the text.

You picked up on the clues, very good. Well you see how they subtely change it from the Seed, the Messiah, Christ, to the woman, the virgin Mary, and now you see how the worship of Mary could replace that of the Son of God.

That is the line of thought is what gets us into trouble, the true text does not vary, so the less translations the better. Thats why the Jews would not change even one word or the meaning could be shifted or taken out according to the purpose of the writer.

What do you see here......


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.2This one was in [the] beginning with God.3All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

I think people have to wake up and see if their version is corrupted by these writers who have changed Gods words with a purpose to confuse and deceive in the NIV, ASV, ESV, and others based on the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Alexandrian text.

John W Burgon gave good warning when he said:
"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

Rick, the KJV also is corrupted.

That's why any serious student need to verify the word from the Greek and Hebrew source and check its usage in multiple contexts in the Bible to derive its true meaning.

The Strong Concordance is important and the free software available at http://www.scripture4all.org/ makes studying a breeze showing the source manusctipt word written in Hebrew or Greek, strong ref code & definition, grammatical syntax, etc...

Like I say, I would go with accuracy. Maybe it was Green and not you saying versions which don't support one's beliefs are how you decide if it's incorrect? I would go with accuracy rather than favorite opinions. But how does one verify the transliteration was correctly done? Studying a variety of versions would help uncover discrepancies and give one pause to consider what may be correct.

I see you comparing one version/most versions with the Jehovah Witness's version. Not sure what relevance this has with the discussion. Is their version considered a valid one? If so, what about the reader's digest version? (Though that's probably not a fair comparison)

And diminishing the Vatican's, if Elle is correct, isn't that the most accurate (Assuming catholic is the same) of the verse you selected?

I would say it is not perfect, but at least the purpose was true to Gods intent, just the translators had to work with the information they had, not the overwhelming amount we have today. So yes they put in "Easter" instead of "Passover" and a few things here and there because of there limitted means, understandable and we can see and understand what was meant, but I will definitely be looking at that free software on http://www.scripture4all.org/, thanks.

We see in this discussion the same problem as is facing the question of ordination. It is based on how we view the inspiration of the Bible.

On the one hand you have the view as expressed by Ellen White, most explicitly in the Introduction to the Great Controversy.

On the other hand you have the fundamentalist understanding of a number of the other protestant churches.

The third problem, as I see it, could be based on the book Questions On Doctrines This book was written while I attended the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and we followed the developments almost on a daily basis through 1) our teachers, 2) visiting chapel speakers, some of them working on the manuscript of the book, 3) articles in the MINISTRY, and then 4) the letters of M L Andreasen.

This is a strange problem because

1) The purpose of this book was to present the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church to leaders and theologians of other Christian denominations in a language they would understand, and not in the jargon we Adventists were using among ourselves.

2) Now, more than 50 years later, some of our people who are opposed to QOD, use the fundamentalist language of some of the churches to whom this book was written to explain their view of Scripture in opposition to the EGW option, and at the same time they make the claims of being the conservative believers.

This is an unbelievable dilemma for our church today.

Its not that bad, the changes in QOD were not readily explained and confused the grass roots member, even today you have to get a theologian to wade through some of it. The problem was that many pastors and teachers didnt read Ellen White, as if they had done so the whole problem would have been avoided. Just like today, if many pastors and teachers knew where the text from NIV and some of these others came from, they could avoid many of the issues on the GodHead, and nature of Christ that keep reoccuring. They just dont dig below the surface and see the truth of the matter.........

Maybe a specific example is in order?

Ellen White never warned us against any Bible version, but she made it clear that we are not to interpret the Bible using the methods of the Image of the Beast, which is gaining a wide influence within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in recent years.

A great portion of conservative Adventists have abandoned using the way Ellen White said we should interpret Scripture, thereby following the methods of the fallen protestant churches around us.

How serious is that in comparison?

Johann,

Ellen White would have been opposed to the way you use the Bible. You have such a radical agenda here that every topic is the same. We could be talking about diabetes and you'd find some way of linking it to women's ordination.

I usually try to stick to the topic, but I find it distracting to see every topic on this forum morph into a discussion of women's ordination, and frankly, I don't think it speaks well of your balance in using and interpreting scripture. If one of these Bible versions said that women should be ordained, you would be promoting it regardless of whatever else it might contain.

Sometimes the truth needs to be said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well like true worship and the true church, there has always been a "protected" word of God, and a 'substitution'. We all have to open our eyes and see which is which......

How far did you have to dig into what I said in this passage to find what you were looking for? And when you did not find it you pretended it was there and replied accordingly.

Is that the way to handle such a discussion? Your balanced view?

What I wrote in that post is in harmony with what is worrying some of the serious Bible teachers at our schools. This is very serious, and should not be dealt with lightly.

But you have to take into account that new Christians dont always know what they are looking for, and the NIV and the other corrupted versions can lead them astray or into confusion as we see even in Advenstist circles on the nature of the GodHead.

neither did they have to translate, but how many people in the world would understand their language? That is why translation in essential.

Are you indicating people are reading the translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Even then there are sections of their translation which is better than the KJV - just not this part.

Define this part of your post: "to interpret the Bible using the methods of the Image of the Beast."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It is interesting that the most vocal evangelist that I have heard speak out against the modern versions, Walter Veith, has said that he was reading the NIV when he came to Christ. And the last time I heard him in person, we was using the NKJV. Just an observation.

My apologies to you, Green, for expecting you to know the old "jargon" of Adventism. It was in connection with us reading the Great Controversy for family worship about 70 years ago that I first learned the meaning of the "Image of the Beast". In SDA circles it has been used as a term for "fallen protestantism". It is used 249 times in the wrings of Ellen G White, and it would not hurt you to familiarize yourself with her use of the term.

If you choose to stay for a while with the Seventh-day Adventists, you will get familiar with these SDA terms, not the least if you stay with this forum.

I promise that in the future I will not be quite as hard on you if there are some terms you are not familiar with.

Even today I had a phone conversation with a fairly new Adventist who said he'd made the same discovery that there are more and more church members who are exchanging our solid methods of Bible interpretation for the methods of the Image of the Beast, and he is considering forming a study group with church members to re-discover the ancient paths which lead us back to understanding the real meaning of righteousness by faith and the true gospel.

It has been shown that the appearance of a new Bible translation often catches the attention of young people and that leads them to Christ. This might not satisfy those who think that you cannot baptize a person before he knows all of the doctrines 100%.

Which is more important?

Ah. More vaguery. No definitions. But a possible lead we have here.

I'm still confused how anyone is to "interpret the Bible using the methods of 'Sunday law enforcement' or 'a form of apostate protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.'" That seems like a rather interesting form of exegesis we should all be hearing about.

Oh...and perhaps I'm the "new" kid on the block who doesn't know what I'm talking about, which, if this is the case, you'll need to teach me about the following statement from the CD ROM (NOTE: The all-caps portion is the editorial comment from the CD, and I have added nothing).



The "image" of the beast is not the beast itself. It is something done in agreement with it--in this case, enforced religion by the civil power.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So you didn't read my explanation?

Kevin H from New York posted this over at ClubAdventist which explains further what I refer to. He has given me permission to quote him:



I did not realize how widespread that method is, so there is all reason to beware.

So since Kevin H posted it on the internet it must be true..........thats not how it works Johann and trying to blame the corruption these new versions have on those who point them out and label them is not right either. Dont shoot the messenger, see what the message is, and look at its merits if it bears it out.

I was under the impression that this forum was for the purpose of discussing various viewpoints, and many of you have also presented the viewpoints of others.

Am I mistaken? Are only those allowed to participate who have the same conviction?

Yes, I share Kevin H's view in this area. His agrees with what our Bible teachers taught us at Andrews more than 50 years ago, and last I checked this is what teachers at the Seminary are still teaching. I have the documents.

Do we need to be ashamed of what the Seventh-day Adventist church is teaching today?

Yes, but pinning labels isnt going to present your side or outline your argument on the issue. I know what labels are and what they can do. In Miami if you dont agree with what they say, they call you a 'Communist' and try to discredit and destroy your reputation with the label. Now they didnt like what John F. Kennedy did at the Bay of Pigs because he didnt do what they wanted and back them up with the Marines landing and taking over Cuba. They called the President a 'communist', but did it make it so, of course not.

I have been called many things but I dont think anyone can even begin to try to label me a 'fundamentalist' just because I present facts that they dont agree with or cant refute.

No, dont shoot the messenger, we have to look at the truth of the matter and judge it by its merits, not self or personal prejudice.

But if you admit that the KJV is wrong in places, too, then could not new Christians, who don't always know what they are looking for, be led astray or into confusion?

If not, then why not?

But there is a difference, the KJV was not changed it its translation to destroy the meaning and with the express purpose to delete text supporting correct doctrine and understanding of Gods truth, the same cannot be said for the Alexandrian manuscripts and the versions that use its text.

Would you be able to substantiate that claim?

Already done, start from the begining of the thread.

As Kevin H is also a member here under the same username, ask him by PM, by email, or whatever, to come here and post his own thoughts here.

I see your claim is made that those who created Non-KJVs intended to:

• To destroy the meaning
  
• Made changes to have an intended expressed and implied evil purpose
  
• Deleted text supporting the truth, correct doctrine, and understanding

Do you agree that I listed your claims correctly?

Looking back at the beginning of the thread, I did a search for the word, "destroy", but that word was not found. Neither was the word, "express".

But I did find that you claimed they had a "chief purpose" and said you showed the "plain purpose". However, I failed to see where you showed such. I also found where I objected to your claim then. It's gone on for many pages and as of yet, I have found no one to substantiate anything of the sort. You wrote a lot, and maybe sorting through the irrelevant stuff, I missed support of those claims. Could you show specifically where you supported those claims? If you cannot show that it is true, this is a great defamation on your part towards those other translators.

You need to show that their intent is to destroy the meaning, with an express purpose to delete text supporting the truth, correct doctrine, and understanding. Otherwise, I see no reason why those holding the rights to those other versions could not take you to court.

Do a little work for yourself and dig below the surface and read the whole thread, post by post. Then ask any questions you want and I will answer them.

Or he can post his thoughts directly, but I dont think the post above really relates to the discussion from my take.

It certainly does, because it relates to how we use the Bible, which to Ellen White seems more important than which version we use.

So as long as we 'use' the Jehovah Witness Bible 'correctly', then in your view that makes those changes ok? I have to say I cant agree with that logic, can you clarify.

The real point is that there seem to be certain faults in all Bible translations. Therefore the method we use a Bible is to see the total picture of Jesus Christ and His salvation, and then under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we see the meaning of words and phrases and it is easier to detect faults in the translation.

In the writings of Ellen White you see her mention quite a number of different Bible translations, both before and after the KJV, and in all of the cases where I recall she points out what a blessing these various editions have been to the people. I have never noticed her pointing out any version as worthless.

I have discovered that when I deal with Jehovah's Witnesses it is not difficult to present Jesus Christ as God and Savior much greater than the way he is presented in their teachings. I do this by using their own Bible. From their own Bible it is easy to point out the translation mistakes in John 1, but there is no sense in starting there. You start out by presenting a total picture of Jesus Christ and then the mistakes in John 1 are obliterated. Rather present Jesus Christ as found in the three letters of John and some of the foundations of their teachings is shattered.

Greek Text	King James Version	Other Versions
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγων, Γέγραπται ὅτι Οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ [Luke 4:4, Greek]	And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (Luke 4:4, KJV) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (Deuteronomy 8:3)	Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’ ” (NIV)
		And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone. (ASV)
		And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’” (NASB)
		And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'" (ESV)
		But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’” (NLT)
		Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: "It takes more than bread to really live." (MSG)
Some versions are more flippant in their handling of the Word of God than others, but all of those shown on the right have omitted the “punchline” of the verse. They've left out the principal meaning. Sure, we're not to live by bread alone...upon what then? They leave the reader hanging, without the benefit of Christ's full message. They accept just a truncated version of His words, as if the rest of it weren't important anyway. The trouble is, the rest of it was the chiefest part! If they have no respect for “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” how should we expect them not to have innumerable other alterations?

This is but one example of hundreds. They would not want to take me to court. It would end up revealing far more about their Bibles to the public eye than they would wish to have publicity for.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting table you present. You know just how to do that, something I have not tried.

Certainly you have a point, but is that all?

You failed to mention that many of the Greek manuscripts do not have the final part of the verse, making some translators feel it indicating that Jesus might only have quoted the first part, so perhaps the last part has been added by copyists. You may not agree to this, and you might be right.

I noticed that the translators do make a reference to Deut. 8:3, so they are not eliminating the truth that you are emphasizing. So it is difficult to say "that their intent is to destroy the meaning, with an express purpose to delete text supporting the truth, correct doctrine, and understanding" like kland is saying. The whole truth may not be found in a single verse of Scripture. You need all of the Bible, like Ellen says, here a little and there a little.

There could be many things in connection with this that many people are not aware of. If I remember right Erasmus was in a great hurry to get his Textus Receptus published. This resulted in a great number of errors, some of which were corrected later on.

One of the great problems of Erasmus was that he had no Greek manuscript of the last part of Revelation. Seems like he then just translated on his own a Latin text back to Greek, and placed that in his Textus Receptus.

So when you are praising the work of this Roman Catholic scholar who never had the courage to take his stand for the Reformation, you fail to mention that the Greek text we have today of the last part of Revelation stems from those manuscripts you are condemning, because that was not a part of the Textus Receptus.

Through all of these "problems" the Lord God of Heaven kept a watch on His Word, and He has seen to it that we have in it His message of salvation. Why should we confuse His work for us by finding all kinds of faults in various translations? Is that a good excuse not to follow His will for us?

Johann,

Certainly we are far from the days of the Reformation in which men would die for the purity of God's Word. The Bible has its own policy concerning how it is to be regarded.



God has very carefully thought out His words. Is it right for us to use them carelessly, or be indifferent toward the wording, thinking that almost any old way of saying it is equal to His way?



Jesus, in His sermon on the mount, tells us that not so much as the dotting of an "I" or the crossing of a "T" shall be changed in the law. Think about this. He did not say "one word of the law." He did not say "one letter of the law." He speaks of a fraction of one letter of one word of the law!



It might be one thing to remove a jot or a tittle, but if you come to the point of adding or removing entire words, God has some serious words for you, and a non-eternal destiny.

Personally, in light of the Bible's own teachings on the sacredness of God's Word, I would fear and tremble to be involved in any translation of it. It is a solemn task to handle the Word of God. It is rather disappointing to see key concepts erased by the modern perversions of the Bible, which flippantly change the words of God wheresoever they choose.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I strongly agree. Those who truly want to understand and learn what it says and means, have the obligation to dig below the surface. With all the resources we have showing how the true text was preserved time after time by Gods own hand, shouldnt we take the time to discover what was being saved so we could read the truth which God protected through the centuries, rather than a corrupted or mutilated translation.

Rick

"Many manuscripts," Johann? Do you know how many?



By far the majority of the manuscripts include the phrase, and only a small minority omit it. Then these modern translations, who have no respect for the wording of the Bible, omit the phrase themselves (to hide their shame, I suppose). The AMP, which italicizes it, adds this in its footnote: "Some manuscripts add this phrase." Add it?! What they should say is "the majority of manuscripts include this phrase," or "several manuscripts omit this phrase."

The Boharic and Coptic manuscripts were edited by the Catholics. That would be the reason for the omissions we find in them.

Regarding the tables, I like tables. They help me make sense out of a jumble of text. That is why I use them. But in this forum, one must have Daryl's permission to use HTML, and then the understanding of HTML tables, to be able to make them. The forum does not provide its own codes for tables, unfortunately.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green......



You're silly.


I was surprised Rick espoused an emotional opinion on the subject.

But it's nothing new with you.

kland,

Your post does nothing to contribute to the conversation here.

Regarding "emotional opinions," if that's what you are opposed to...

What is wrong with an "emotional opinion?"

The way I see it, we should all have some "emotional opinions." Think of Calvary. If that doesn't bring some "emotional opinions" to mind, one should stop to consider his or her Christian experience.

Emotions are not the problem. The problem is when people follow their emotions over the plain truth, facts, or logic of something. Emotions have a tendency to cause myopia, and can bring us to erroneous decisions.

As the Bible would put it "Be ye angry and sin not." Notice it does not say "Do not be angry." The anger of itself may not be a sin. But the anger will tend to short-circuit the brain into erroneous/sinful actions if one is not carefully restrained. We must recognize our emotions and work carefully with them. It is not wise to ignore emotions, to write them off as completely invalid, nor to follow them implicitly.

Jesus spoke at times with tears in His voice. Why? Why did He not maintain a purely logical and rational approach? Why did He let people see His emotions? Did His emotions tell them He was speaking incorrectly?

Speaking of emotions, your post seems calculated to speak to the emotions of Rick and myself. You seem to have addressed emotions rather than substance. If you are opposing emotions, doesn't this seem a little hypocritical?

People tend to use emotions when they have nothing of real substance to say. If you had had something more factual by which you could address the facts I had presented, I think you would have brought that here instead. Am I right?

Now, let's get back to the topic.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Facts are not emotional opinions. Substituting for such is incorrect. You left the facts by giving your opinion of intent with nothing to address any facts.

I still am waiting to see you bring something to the table on the topic of this thread.

Views might differ depending on from which summit the matter is seen.

It is difficult to discover mutual approaches with those whose view cannot be elevated from a deep valley of understanding.



The days are shorter in a valley than at the summit, so you get less light in the valley.

WHO WAS THAT?   King James Version NIV Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” Matthew 15:30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. Matthew 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, He called a little child and had him stand among them. Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” Mark 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea. He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned. Mark 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.” Mark 11:14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. Mark 14:18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me.” Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. John 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” John 4:46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” John 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come. John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. John 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, John 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. “Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” John 21:5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. He called out to them, “Friends, haven't you any fish?” “No,” they answered. Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.” Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; Having received the tabernacle, our fathers under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ENTIRE VERSE OMITTED IN NIV Acts 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. ENTIRE VERSE OMITTED IN NIV 1 Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it. Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. Galatians 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, For this reason I kneel before the Father, Ephesians 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Philippians 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. 1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle–I am telling the truth, I am not lying–and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles. Hebrews 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Philippians 4:13 in the "NIV" as shown above makes me want to vomit. Of all verses in the Bible to exclude Christ's name in....I mean, it makes it sound as if any man might give someone strength. Any "him" will do.

Barf already!

"As the dog returns to his vomit...." But I won't return to using the NIV ever. I can only do what I can to clean up the mess. "Damage control," some would say.

Then there's the verse that substitutes "Joshua" for "Jesus." Then there's the one that says "Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many." Who? Who is "he?" I'm a "he," as it happens. I know many "hes." Which one? When the Bible says "name" it means "name." "He" is not a name!

I'm about ready to lose my lunch again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is the meaning of Philippians 4:13 that obscure that you can't see who "him" is? NO! How much better to point out who "him" is to the one that reads the NIV than to destroy all faith of the brother. Was the real name of the son of God on earth, Jesus? NO. What was it? Where does the name Jesus come from? In the OT, were there many names for God? Does that also nauseate you?

The KJV in the book of Daniel, the phrase "daily sacrifice" is used 5 times. BUT, the word sacrifice was added, just as the word "Christ" was added in Philippians 4:13. Are you nauseated by that? John 12:32 KJV "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The word men is added. Does this not confuse the meaning of this verse, particularly for those that have the Great Controversy view?

How much better would it be to point out the issue and carry on, just as EGW did in her day. Would it nauseate you to try to convince of JW of the divinity of Christ from the NWT?

As the Bible would ask, don't you know, haven't you heard, hasn't anybody ever told you?



God chose the name for Himself. While it may be true that some people say the Old Testament form of the word was "Joshua," this is not the Old Testament. This was the Greek word. Where does Mrs. White ever call Jesus Joshua? She doesn't. Do you name your children "Jesus?" I don't appreciate the Catholic custom of doing this sort of thing. To me it takes His name in vain. His name is special. Acts 4:12 tells us it's the only name that will save us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Son of God never heard His name as JESUS when He walked the earth. The word JESUS is not even Greek! Some feel we should use His REAL name, not the ENGLISH name, perhaps Jehoshua, or Joshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation".

Will Swahili speaker who does not use the name JESUS not be saved because she used the wrong name? Will and English speaker not be saved because they used the name Jesus instead of His real Hebrew name? In the Bible, the name meant the character. Taking the name of God in vain is claiming to be His follower, and misrepresenting Him to others by our actions, claiming to be a Christian and not acting like one. That is taking the NAME of God in vain. The Jews used the utmost care when saying the name of God, so much so that we don't know how to even say it. But, their character did not fit God, they took the name of God in vain.

The texts in question, we know what they mean. By our attitudes, we can do great harm to cause of God. Move on to real issues.

APL,

These are "real issues." For example, in this next piece, note the usage of "worship" (or lack thereof, as the case may be). Keep in mind that one can "bow down" for many reasons other than "worship." While those who worship may certainly bow, it does not mean that everyone who bows worships.

WHAT WAS THAT?
	King James Version	NIV
Genesis 24:52	And it came to pass, that, when Abraham's servant heard their words, he worshipped the LORD, bowing himself to the earth.	When Abraham's servant heard what they said, he bowed down to the ground before the Lord.
Exodus 32:8	They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.	They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’
Deuteronomy 26:10	And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land, which thou, O LORD, hast given me. And thou shalt set it before the LORD thy God, and worship before the LORD thy God:	and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O Lord, have given me.” Place the basket before the Lord your God and bow down before him.
Joshua 5:14	And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?	“Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
2 Kings 5:18	In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.	But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
2 Kings 10:19	Now therefore call unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests; let none be wanting: for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal; whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal.	Now summon all the prophets of Baal, all his ministers and all his priests. See that no one is missing, because I am going to hold a great sacrifice for Baal. Anyone who fails to come will no longer live.” But Jehu was acting deceptively in order to destroy the ministers of Baal.
2 Kings 10:21	And Jehu sent through all Israel: and all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that came not. And they came into the house of Baal; and the house of Baal was full from one end to another.	Then he sent word throughout Israel, and all the ministers of Baal came; not one stayed away. They crowded into the temple of Baal until it was full from one end to the other.
2 Kings 10:22	And he said unto him that was over the vestry, Bring forth vestments for all the worshippers of Baal. And he brought them forth vestments.	And Jehu said to the keeper of the wardrobe, “Bring robes for all the ministers of Baal.” So he brought out robes for them.
2 Kings 10:23	And Jehu went, and Jehonadab the son of Rechab, into the house of Baal, and said unto the worshippers of Baal, Search, and look that there be here with you none of the servants of the LORD, but the worshippers of Baal only.	Then Jehu and Jehonadab son of Recab went into the temple of Baal. Jehu said to the ministers of Baal, “Look around and see that no servants of the Lord are here with you—only ministers of Baal.”
1 Chronicles 29:20	And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.	Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the Lord your God.” So they all praised the Lord, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the Lord and the king.
Psalms 5:7	But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.	But I, by your great mercy, will come into your house; in reverence will I bow down toward your holy temple.
Psalms 22:27	All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.	All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
Psalms 45:11	So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.	The king is enthralled by your beauty; honor him, for he is your lord.
Psalms 66:4	All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah.	All the earth bows down to you; they sing praise to you, they sing praise to your name.” Selah
Psalms 81:9	There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.	You shall have no foreign god among you; you shall not bow down to an alien god.
Psalms 138:2	I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.	I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
Isaiah 2:8	Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:	Their land is full of idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their fingers have made.
Isaiah 49:7	Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.	This is what the Lord says— the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel— to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: “Kings will see you and rise up, princes will see and bow down, because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”
Isaiah 66:23	And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.	From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the Lord.
Jeremiah 44:19	And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?	The women added, “When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?”
Ezekiel 8:16	And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.	He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.
Daniel 2:46	Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.	Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him.
Micah 5:13	Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.	I will destroy your carved images and your sacred stones from among you; you will no longer bow down to the work of your hands.
Matthew 8:2	And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.	A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
Matthew 9:18	While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.	While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”
Matthew 15:25	Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.	The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
Matthew 18:26	The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.	“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’
Matthew 20:20	Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.	Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
Mark 5:6	But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,	When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.
Mark 15:19	And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.	Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.
Luke 14:10	But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.	But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests.
John 9:31	Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.	We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will.
Acts 10:25	And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.	As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.
Acts 17:25	Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;	And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
Acts 19:35	And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?	The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?
Revelation 3:9	Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.	I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars–I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

This is a matter of "worship." Satan does not want us to worship God. Satan will one day acknowledge God, and bow down before Him. He will admit that God's way was best. But Satan will never worship God. He would like us to think that just "bowing" is good enough. But it isn't. We need to worship, not merely assent or acknowledge or respect.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is a difficult question for people who lack the ability to

Another problem we meet here is that even the "pure" Greek text uses a word that means "bow down" which the tranlators appointed by King James translated "worship". Were they more inspired than the original writers of the WORD?

Green - could you prove the divinity of Christ to a JW using their Bible translation, the NWT? They are not going to want to use all those other "corrupt" versions...

APL,

That's a good question. I don't think I can answer it. First, I do not have one of their Bibles at my disposal and have never read one. Second, JW's are not the people to whom God has called me. There are no JW's anywhere near me.

Do I believe that God can reach them? Certainly. Do I believe that God will use error to reach people? No. But I believe that God will reach people in spite of error, and that this occurs routinely. Remember, Martin Luther was brought to his full understanding of God's redemption plan whilst on a mission of penance up the steps in Rome. It was then that he heard, as it were an audible voice, telling him "the just shall live by faith."



God can reach any true seeker. Any pretended seeker will find what he or she wants to find--and not the truth. There will always be an excuse to doubt or to reject God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Perhaps the error is in making an issue where there is none, or making a idol of particular English words. The words are not sacred. Is it really that obscure if one translation has "worship" and another has "bow down"? Which is an accurage translation of the original?

So, when we translate those words, since it was not the "words" that were inspired, we can just pick any word we like? If so, why does God bother to give the "copyright" for the Book in its last chapter?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think you'd like to see things is the worst possible light, WHY? Is "bow down" really significantly different from "worship"? You seem to think it is a big deal, even if the Greek means bow down. As EGW says, "is it not the words of the Bible that are inspired". It is the thoughts brought to us by the Holy Spirit when we read. Is that not what we really need? YES! I'm not saying the NIV is superior to the KJV. I happen to like the AKJV. I also have many other translations that I read daily. It is not the words. EGW has given a good summary.

This is exactly where the problem is. I am in an area right now where a number of words can have the opposite meaning to to people who live across the river. You need more than a single word to get the right meaning. This will make it difficult for people who are too lazy to read more than some select quotations.

I do not know why my text is hidden, but I was asking you, Green, if you consider those words by Ellen White less inspired?

Green, are you are talking about manuscripts or English?

Do you know much about Spanish?

kland,

I'm a fluent Spanish speaker. Are you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So, know any Spanish names of "Jesus"?

And, are you are talking about manuscripts or English?

kland,

Is your God multicultural? Does He accept you if you "mispronounce" His name because of speaking a language where it is said differently?

I ask because that is the tenor I get from your recent posts about this. In fact, the Greek DOES have the name "Jesus" in it, pronounced very similarly in every language. Some say "Jesus," some "Yaesu," some another way, but when Christ gave us the message that we are saved through His name, I trust that He did not expect us to use only the Greek spelling and pronunciation for it in order to be accepted with Him.

In Spanish, the word is "Jesús." Many children are given this name in the Catholic-Hispanic culture. To me, this is unfortunate. It is one thing to be called "Christian." It is another to call oneself "Christ."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Jesus name was not a unique name in His day. Is that a problem? I don't think so.

Green, you were complaining about "Joshua," vs. "Jesus", and now you are talking about different languages and different names for Jesus and different spellings, and .... and you seem to have gone around in a circle without having said anything.

Which comes back to, are you are talking about manuscripts or English?

kland,

Your question seems only to create confusion of something that is crystal clear. The word "Jesus" (Greek) that was given to Christ was never used in the Old Testament (Hebrew) and the word "Joshua" (Hebrew) was never used in the New Testament (Greek). So am I talking about manuscripts or English? Neither, or both, depending upon your perspective. Some names from the Old Testament are repeated in the New. Joshua doesn't happen to be one of them. Neither is "Caleb" ever mentioned in the New Testament. The last mention of him in the Bible is in 1 Chronicles 6.

What I'm talking about is translational "distinctives" in the modern versions which are without excuse (support).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And you are entirely entitled to your opinion. Obviously, the majority has another opinion.

Can you substantiate that Heb 4:8, which you listed, should be Jesus instead of Joshua?

Heb 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. (ASV)

Mrs. White speaks of that time and focuses on Jesus in place of Joshua.



It looks to me like she erases this question eloquently. It was not Joshua, but Jesus, who gives His people rest.

The context of the Bible passage does not seem to admit any other than Christ. Can you explain what it would mean otherwise? How can Joshua give them rest?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

The real question here is: What is the Greek word that the NIV translated "Joshua" from in the Hebrews text?

Was it the same word translated "Jesus" elsewhere? If so, why are the translators at liberty to change the name arbitrarily in Hebrews?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And which "Jesus" is Hebrews 4:8 speaking about Green???

Actually, the real question should be, how is Joshua translated in Greek?

Very good point! Joshua did NOT give them rest, "but Jesus, who gives His people rest". That's why she said, "Another than Joshua must guide His people to the true rest of faith." Another than Joshua. Joshua had NOT given them rest. Jesus will give them rest.

What does the text say?

Heb 4:8 (ASV) For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

Meaning, Joshua had NOT given them rest. Surely you don't mean Jesus had NOT given them rest, do you?

A valid point

kland - you make my point!

That same one that is spoken about in Acts 4:12.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, kland. Ellen White disagreed with that translation of "Joshua," as it would appear. She corrects that thinking.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, I think it is the same one spoken about here: Act 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, to the days of David;

It is interesting that the Pioneers criticized the KJV. See the following from the Review. The only thing added is color to the scripture references. And note Green, in Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the Jesus spoken about is the the Messiah, which also just happens to fit the context. Here are the verses in question:
Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Hebrews 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Psalms 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

John 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Another good reason why Ellen G White did not endorse a verbal inspiration.

There is no "Joshua" in the Greek.

The name Jesus is given may have been based, meaning-wise, on the name given to Joshua in the Old Testament. It was not, however, the same word. ALL of the occurrences of "Jesus" in the New Testament are the same Greek word (in the KJV, at least). So if the NIV chooses to vary their translation, of this word, upon what basis do they feel they have such authority?

If the NIV believes that the Greek "Iēsous" should be translated as "Joshua" (Hebrew: "Yĕhowshuwa`") in English, then we should not see any occurrence of the word "Jesus" in their translation. If, however, they recognize that "Jesus" is the proper translation, they have clearly deviated from this in Hebrews 4:8.

Those are the facts. The NIV has meddled with their translation either way one argues. The KJV, meanwhile, has maintained consistency.

Another germane question to ask at this point would be: If "Joshua" and "Jesus" are names that are linked in the Bible, why does Mrs. White never say that one is derived from the other?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here is what the SDABC says on Hebrews 4:8:
[quote]The English name Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew equivalent of Joshua (see on Matt. 1:1). . . Joshua did, indeed, give Israel literal 'rest" in Canaan, that is, he led them in a successful conquest and settlement of considerable portions of the land. . .[/quest]

The issue that has been raised here is founded on a failure to distinguish between the words "translation" and "transliteration."

Green talks about the NIV translating the words Jesus and Joshua. Actually in his citations the NIV does not translate those words. What the NIV does is transliterate those words in the places where Green has cited them. The SDABC is accurate in its statement that in the cited reference it is a transliteration.

The error that Green has made is a very common one that is often made by people who are commenting on textual issues and issues of Biblical translation and fail to understand the basics. Green is correct in some of what he says. But, he has made a fundamental error in his failure to distinguish between the meanings of "translation" and "transliteration." The meanings of those two words are quite different. They are not even close.

I will also recommend that people interested in this see the SDABC comment on Matthew 1:1.

Green asks:



Why should she? There are a million things, and more that EGW did not say that are true.

I am just shaking my head over the following statement:


It is a partial truth.

The word "Joshua" is a word written in the alphabet used by the English language.

The Greek language uses a different alphabet.

On that basis, it is correct to say that there is no "Joshua" in Greek. Technically that is true.

But, if one wanted to do so, one could transliterate the English word "Joshua" into a Greek word using the Greek alphabet. There is nothing that would prevent one from doing so. As a transliteration, there is no rule of the Greek language that would be violated by doing so. By doing so, one would have the word "Joshua" in Greek.

Remember, transliteration is not the same a translation.

Transliteration is what we are dealing with here as the English word "Joshua" is a transliteration of a word written in the Hebrew language.

It might be well for me to explain the differences between the meaning of the word “translation” and the word “transliteration.”

As I have lived in Korea, I will draw some illustrations from there.

Translation: Always relates to the meaning of a word. To illustrate: One person might say that a specific Koran word should be translated by the English word “dog.” Another might argue that it should be translated by the English word “apple.” This is clearly a translation issue. The meaning of “dog” is quite different from the word “apple.” Translations is about the expression of the meaning a word in one language to the expression of the same meaning in another language.

Transliteration: Has nothing to do with the meaning of a word. It is simply the substitution of an alphabetic symbol in one language by an alphabetic symbol in another language.
The Korean language may be written by thousands of symbols. The high school graduate is expected to have mastered 10,000 of such symbols in order to graduate. However, the Korean language also has an alphabet of 24 symbols.

In transliteration one might say that a specific Korean alphabetic character may be always transliterated by the English character “a” and another Korean alphabetic character may be transliterated by the English character “b.”

In its simplest form, the above is what transliteration is: The replacement of an alphabetic character of one language by another character in another alphabet.

However, life is not so simple. English has diphthongs and some sometimes transliteration may result in a two character replacement.

In addition, some disagreement may exist as to which letter may be the replacement. E.g. One may say that the correct replacement letter is an “L” while another may say that it is an “R.” I could give you some very funny examples of this issue.

In any case: Transliteration has nothing to do with the meaning of a word. It is simply the substitution of a letter from one alphabet to that of a letter from another alphabet.

Gregory,

You are incorrect. First, I am well aware of the distinction between "transliteration" and "translation." Second, you cannot accurately claim that the NIV transliterated Jesus' name from the Greek and arrived at "Joshua." The fact is, "Jesus" is a closer "transliteration" of the Greek "Iēsous" than "Joshua" would be. In fact, they have have strayed from "transliteration" to make it say "Joshua." "Jesus" is the transliterated name. Third, the SDABC, with the exception of Volume 7A by Mrs. White and/or any other portions from her pen, is not inspired and is frequently incorrect. I'm adding this as one of the more recent errors it contains to come to my attention.

True Bereans will find their answers in inspiration, and not the opinions of men.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And I might shake my head over the ignorance of one who has likely studied Hebrew and Greek.

Let me ask a simple question: Is "Jesus" a word in the Greek? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you believe both Jesus and Joshua appear in the Greek New Testament as separate words? If so, support your answer.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green: You said:


Now you say that you know the difference between the words "translation" and "transliteration." O.K. Well, your statement above is clearly wrong. You now seem to be telling me that you knew the difference. O.K. !

Your statement in your response to me is a partial truth. But, I will leave it at that and not argue with you on that.

Of course, you are entitled to beleive what you wish about the SDABC. Of course, it can be wrong. Of course, it sometimes is wrong.

But, it contains better knowledge than either your or I have. On this case it is correct as I have cited it.

Again, Green, you state partial truths.

As you may recall, I have already answered part of your quesiton.

Your questions remind me of:

1) Do you beleive that the Earth contains silica?
2) If so, do you beleive that concrete contains silica?
3) Now support your position that the surface of the Earth is hardened concrete.

Gregory,

You apparently have done very little translation work. That seems evident. The word "translation" includes: translation, interpretation, transliteration, and, yes, even editing. One thing that came to my attention just this week is that when translating, titles are never the same. For example, if you look at the National Geographic magazine articles in English and note their titles, then compare those titles to a translated version of their magazine, you will immediately note that the titles are different. They are not translated. Titling is an art to itself in the process of translation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Your non-answer is noted. You have intelligently side-stepped a proper answer, because a proper answer would show the correctness of my position.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It should be noted that I have no issue with whether Jesus' name were transliterated or "translated." I have an issue with consistency. A name is a name, and a number is a number. There is no reason to translate names or numbers in multiple ways based on their context. The NIV, however, has done this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for saying that my response was intelligent.

However, a proper answer does not show the correctness of your position.

If A is true and B is true, C may still be false.

Yes, you description of translating the National Geographic includes all of the elements that you have listed and probably more.

You are talking about more than just translation. You are talking about preparing for publication.

However, believe it or not, translating the Biblical MSS differs from that of the National Geographic.

Preparing for the publicaiton of a version of the Bible in quite different than publishing the National Geographic.

A name is only a name when it applies to the same person.

A number is only a number when it has the same base.

E.G.

The number 11 has one meaning in a base 10 number system and a totally different meaning in a base 2 number system.

For example, the number 11 in the base 2 number system has exactlly the same meaning as the number 3 in the base 10 system.

IOW 3 = 11

NOTE: If you want to have some real fun, bring a base 12 or base 16 number system into play. That will stretch your mind.


To learn more about base 2 equivalents in the bse 10 see the following URL:

http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01045/pages/base_two.htm

Gregory,

Why do you attempt to distract from the topic so frequently on this thread?

I feel you have an agenda. There is no reason to bring up base 2 or any other bases here, for they do not involve Bible translations.

Devil's rabbits...so let's put something else that's a real issue here. They say a good offense is the best defense.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

COMMANDMENT? WHAT COMMANDMENT?
	King James Version	NIV
Exodus 36:6	And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.	Then Moses gave an order and they sent this word throughout the camp: “No man or woman is to make anything else as an offering for the sanctuary.” And so the people were restrained from bringing more,
Joshua 22:3	Ye have not left your brethren these many days unto this day, but have kept the charge of the commandment of the LORD your God.	For a long time now—to this very day—you have not deserted your brothers but have carried out the mission the Lord your God gave you.
1 Samuel 15:11	It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.	“I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
1 Samuel 15:13	And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.	When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord's instructions.”
2 Samuel 12:9	Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.	Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.
2 Kings 23:35	And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaohnechoh.	Jehoiakim paid Pharaoh Neco the silver and gold he demanded. In order to do so, he taxed the land and exacted the silver and gold from the people of the land according to their assessments.
1 Chronicles 14:12	And when they had left their gods there, David gave a commandment, and they were burned with fire.	The Philistines had abandoned their gods there, and David gave orders to burn them in the fire.
2 Chronicles 24:6	And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said unto him, Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the collection, according to the commandment of Moses the servant of the LORD, and of the congregation of Israel, for the tabernacle of witness?	Therefore the king summoned Jehoiada the chief priest and said to him, “Why haven't you required the Levites to bring in from Judah and Jerusalem the tax imposed by Moses the servant of the Lord and by the assembly of Israel for the Tent of the Testimony?”
2 Chronicles 24:21	And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.	But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord's temple.
2 Chronicles 29:15	And they gathered their brethren, and sanctified themselves, and came, according to the commandment of the king, by the words of the LORD, to cleanse the house of the LORD.	When they had assembled their brothers and consecrated themselves, they went in to purify the temple of the Lord, as the king had ordered, following the word of the Lord.
2 Chronicles 30:12	Also in Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of the LORD.	Also in Judah the hand of God was on the people to give them unity of mind to carry out what the king and his officials had ordered, following the word of the Lord.
2 Chronicles 31:5	And as soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they in abundantly.	As soon as the order went out, the Israelites generously gave the firstfruits of their grain, new wine, oil and honey and all that the fields produced. They brought a great amount, a tithe of everything.
2 Chronicles 31:13	And Jehiel, and Azaziah, and Nahath, and Asahel, and Jerimoth, and Jozabad, and Eliel, and Ismachiah, and Mahath, and Benaiah, were overseers under the hand of Cononiah and Shimei his brother, at the commandment of Hezekiah the king, and Azariah the ruler of the house of God.	Jehiel, Azaziah, Nahath, Asahel, Jerimoth, Jozabad, Eliel, Ismakiah, Mahath and Benaiah were supervisors under Conaniah and Shimei his brother, by appointment of King Hezekiah and Azariah the official in charge of the temple of God.
2 Chronicles 35:10	So the service was prepared, and the priests stood in their place, and the Levites in their courses, according to the king's commandment.	The service was arranged and the priests stood in their places with the Levites in their divisions as the king had ordered.
2 Chronicles 35:15	And the singers the sons of Asaph were in their place, according to the commandment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun the king's seer; and the porters waited at every gate; they might not depart from their service; for their brethren the Levites prepared for them.	The musicians, the descendants of Asaph, were in the places prescribed by David, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun the king's seer. The gatekeepers at each gate did not need to leave their posts, because their fellow Levites made the preparations for them.
2 Chronicles 35:16	So all the service of the LORD was prepared the same day, to keep the passover, and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar of the LORD, according to the commandment of king Josiah.	So at that time the entire service of the Lord was carried out for the celebration of the Passover and the offering of burnt offerings on the altar of the Lord, as King Josiah had ordered.
Ezra 4:21	Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.	Now issue an order to these men to stop work, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order.
Ezra 8:17	And I sent them with commandment unto Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia, and I told them what they should say unto Iddo, and to his brethren the Nethinims, at the place Casiphia, that they should bring unto us ministers for the house of our God.	and I sent them to Iddo, the leader in Casiphia. I told them what to say to Iddo and his kinsmen, the temple servants in Casiphia, so that they might bring attendants to us for the house of our God.
Nehemiah 11:23	For it was the king's commandment concerning them, that a certain portion should be for the singers, due for every day.	The singers were under the king's orders, which regulated their daily activity.
Nehemiah 12:24	And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward.	And the leaders of the Levites were Hashabiah, Sherebiah, Jeshua son of Kadmiel, and their associates, who stood opposite them to give praise and thanksgiving, one section responding to the other, as prescribed by David the man of God.
Esther 2:8	So it came to pass, when the king's commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was brought also unto the king's house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women.	When the king's order and edict had been proclaimed, many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king's palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem.
Esther 2:20	Esther had not yet shewed her kindred nor her people; as Mordecai had charged her: for Esther did the commandment of Mordecai, like as when she was brought up with him.	But Esther had kept secret her family background and nationality just as Mordecai had told her to do, for she continued to follow Mordecai's instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up.
Esther 4:3	And in every province, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes.	In every province to which the edict and order of the king came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting, weeping and wailing. Many lay in sackcloth and ashes.
Esther 4:5	Then called Esther for Hatach, one of the king's chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her, and gave him a commandment to Mordecai, to know what it was, and why it was.	Then Esther summoned Hathach, one of the king's eunuchs assigned to attend her, and ordered him to find out what was troubling Mordecai and why.
Esther 4:10	Again Esther spake unto Hatach, and gave him commandment unto Mordecai;	Then she instructed him to say to Mordecai,
Esther 8:17	And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.	In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.
Psalms 103:18	To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.	with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.
Psalms 103:20	Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.	Praise the Lord, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word.
Psalms 111:7	The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.	The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy.
Psalms 111:10	The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.	The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
Proverbs 19:16	He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die.	He who obeys instructions guards his life, but he who is contemptuous of his ways will die.
Isaiah 23:11	He stretched out his hand over the sea, he shook the kingdoms: the LORD hath given a commandment against the merchant city, to destroy the strong holds thereof.	The Lord has stretched out his hand over the sea and made its kingdoms tremble. He has given an order concerning Phoenicia that her fortresses be destroyed.
Daniel 9:23	At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.	As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision:
Daniel 9:25	Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.	“Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
Hosea 5:11	Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment.	Ephraim is oppressed, trampled in judgment, intent on pursuing idols.
Malachi 2:1	And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.	“And now this admonition is for you, O priests.
Malachi 2:4	And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.	And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue,” says the Lord Almighty.
Matthew 8:18	Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.	When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake.
Matthew 15:6	And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.	he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Matthew 15:9	But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.	They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ ”
Mark 7:7	Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.	They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’
Mark 12:29	And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:	“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mark 12:30	And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.	Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Luke 15:29	And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:	But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
John 11:57	Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.	But the chief priests and Pharisees had given orders that if anyone found out where Jesus was, he should report it so that they might arrest him.
Acts 1:2	Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:	until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
Acts 15:24	Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:	We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
Acts 17:15	And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.	The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.
Acts 23:30	And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Farewell.	When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.
Colossians 4:10	Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)	My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)
1 Thessalonians 4:2	For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.	For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
Hebrews 7:16	Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.	one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
Hebrews 7:18	For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.	The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
Hebrews 11:22	By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.	By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.
Hebrews 11:23	By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.	By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict.
Revelation 22:14	Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.	“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

That last verse is especially egregious. No one will get to heaven by "washing their robes." If the "robe" had any stain upon it, it would mean that it was not the robe Jesus gives to His wedding guests, pure and perfect by His grace. One's own robe will never admit him or her to heaven. The parable tells us what happens to the wedding guest who did not put on the wedding garment.

We have no power at all to "wash" our robes. We can only accept Christ's perfect robe, which is unsoiled and has no need of washing. Nay, but the Not Inspired Version wishes to erase God's commandments and cause you to accept a belief that you may be saved in your sins, having no requirement to obey God's commandments.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Because:

1) You are simply wrong in some basics of what you say.
2) You state partial truths which I follow up on.

E.g. You tell us that a name is a name and I follow up with only when that name references the same person.

E.G.

Chastity: Defination, a state or condition.

Chastity: A well-known female born to well-known parents.

Chastity: A well-known male born to well-known parents.

Green, you introduce the subject and I follow up with a logical response to what you have stated.

A name is not simply a name regardless of how many times you might say so.

This is a direct response to a statement that you made about a specific name as given in the KJV and the NIV.

In the above, I am giving a clear reason to show why you are wrong. My illustration came out of your citation of the Biblical verse and your statement about it.

You went in that direction and I followed you.

Gregory,

If the Greek says "Jesus" why does the NIV waffle between "Jesus" and "Joshua?" If the Greek says "Joseph" why does the NIV translate "father?" If the Greek says "twelve" why does the NIV just omit the number completely?

Honestly, I don't know of any Bible scholars who try to defend the accuracy of the NIV. Why do you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

TYPO - Here is the correct sentence...

And note Green, in Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the Jesus spoken about is NOT the the Messiah, which also just happens to fit the context.

I must apologize to you. I did not realize that you were so uninformed.

Green said:


Green, you might find it interesting to read Revelation 7:14. There are many who believe that the "wash your robes" reading in Revelation 22:14 is tied to Revelation 7:14.

Whether true or not, I believe that Revelation 7:14 blunts the force of your argument on the 22nd passage.

Sorry, I should have said:
Actually, the real question should be, how is Joshua translated into Greek?

At least two agreed with me, and yet you insist on the opposite of what Ellen White said.
What does: "Another than Joshua must guide His people to the true rest of faith" mean to you?

Are you just being cantankerous, taking a view to generate conflict? Being a moderator, are there slow times, and you're just trying to generate activity or "ratings" in an Elle type of way?

What about "another than Joshua" do you not understand?

kland,

Would you say that we should have a Bible version that says "Joshua" in every occurrence of the word "Jesus" in English, and omit the word "Jesus?" That is the question you need to answer in order to support your opinion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If there were such a translation, would it alter truth? Not one iota.

I don't take such a careless view of scripture. Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law. God's law tells us that there is no other name under Heaven whereby men must be saved. What's in a name? Can any name have the same impact? Why not select the name "John?" It's a common name these days...might make Jesus seem more down-to-earth and personable. The angel even directed that this name be given to Jesus' cousin, who later baptized Him. Why not put "John" in place of "Jesus?" They both start with the same letter, and have about the same amount of resemblance as have "Jesus" and "Jehoshua." Would you believe that truth would not be changed "one iota" if we changed all of the "Jesus" words to "John?"

Think about it. The Greek for Jesus and the Hebrew for Joshua aren't as similar to my mind as some people try to claim. The main argument for similarity that holds any weight in my mind is that of the meaning of the words. I believe God designed it this way, for Joshua was a type of Christ, leading God's people into the promised land.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting... Then WHY do you call the Messiah Jesus? He NEVER used that name when He was here on earth? Indeed Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 are not speaking about the Messiah. Colossians 4:11 is not speaking about the Messiah. If there is power in the ink used to write a name, then we have a problem. But the Messiah never used the name Jesus, are you then in trouble for not using the correct name?

Your "john" example is silly and irrelevant.

The ENGLISH for Jesus and Iesous or Jehoshua are not the similar either. You make a big deal about the Greek, but what was Jesus's daily language? Was it Greek? Nope. I think you have a problem.

It is noteworthy that the actual name given in Acts 4 is not only Jesus, but Jesus Christ of Nazareth. A careful study of the New Testament indicates that the word "name" is often a synonyme with the word person. Read the whole chapter

Amen Johann!

Green, you seem to be having a hard time with thinking through this. What about "another than Joshua" do you not understand?

How is Joshua translated into Greek?

Bumping for Green - - "another than Joshua"

Why didn't you answer the question I asked of you in the other topic--and just came and revived this here?

Who is "another than Joshua?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This bump was just to remind you as you seem to have forgotten this was discussed. And you seem to have forgotten that it was kland on the other thread, not me.

Apologies. You two post so much alike, I got confused. But then...that still leaves the question of why you don't just let the other thread's question get answered.

Whichever place it wants to get posted...let's see an answer!

Who is "another than Joshua?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since the question was hashed over so much on this thread, no need to repost all the replies, just read them here.

The compilation of errors from the not-inspired version of the Bible pieced together at the following site is a good start into understanding why no Adventist should be using the NIV.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/PDF/keith-piper-serious-omissions-in-the-niv.pdf

Why do I say it is not inspired? The Bible itself teaches that "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The Bible also tells us that God is light and that in Him is no darkness at all. Therefore, if the NIV does not speak according to God's Word, it has no light, and if it is darkness, it has no part of God's Spirit. It is inspired by another than God. We must be careful to plant our feet upon a solid foundation, not one of unstable error mixed with some truths to deceive us.

The link above clearly shows many places where the NIV does not speak according to God's Word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Does this Keith Pifer need the wording of the KJV to maintain "truths" like this which you find in one of his books:



Is this why we have not accepted the doctrine of the Secret Rapture?

I might start a whole new thread on this, but the following video is a "MUST SEE" for those who want to hear a thorough run-down on the various modern versions. It's almost 90 minutes long, so sit down and watch it when you have some relax time--or watch it one part at a time.



Note to Daryl: You can embed the video if you like.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And why should this video be any more worth watching than any other videos you've proffered in the past and any more worth listening to than what you've said in the past? Just a bunch of emotional blabbering with no factual basis?

The official Sabbath School lesson this week indicates many have made a mistake due to the faulty rendering of a text in the KJV.

Another non SDA praising the KJV

Yes, Johann, I was appalled at the "official Sabbath School lesson" going against Mrs. White regarding that text. It is appalling to see the degree to which our officialdom will go.

I guess we are in days like that of Aaron the high priest, who made a golden calf for the people to worship--but we are just a bit more "sophisticated," and think ourselves wiser.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

See what I wrote under the lesson study

One of the ads for her works include this:



So beware of making any reference to Strong if you want to follow the religion of this women.

Yes, Johann, I noticed several years ago that the newer editions of the Strong's concordances, like the ones that are supposedly computer-updated, have had many of the newer errors laced into them. They may still be a bit better than some other references, but if you want a solid concordance, go with the older Strong's concordances. Newer is not better in this case.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

How do you know? Could that be a prejudiced opinion?

Yes, again, no mistakes have been made in the past except for those Green says are mistakes and no new legitimate discoveries have been made except for those which Green says are legitimate. The Strong's concordances should have checked with Green before fixing any errors. It's all to do with Green's own opinion as to what is correct or not correct. That is how one knows the truth: Check with Green.

It could be much worse than that.