The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith

There are two other threads regarding the various Bible versions, therefore, I decided to create this one with an embedded link to a video presentation under the title "Battle of the Bibles" by Walter Veith:

After you watch this, feel free to discuss his presentation here.

I know Veith's arguments... It should be noted, that it was the NIV that Walter Veith used to find God. He is a strong advocate for the KJV. Last I saw him, the Bible he was preaching from was the NKJV!

Well, I actually heard about his presentation, but haven't yet watched it, therefore, before I comment about it here, I also need to watch it first for myself.

Did you actually watch this presentation? If not, then I suggest you also watch it for yourself.

I won't have time to watch it all in one sitting, however, I have begun to watch it.

One thing he said is the original New Testament Manuscripts have been lost.

Yes Daryl, I HAVE watch it, along with most of Walter's videos. Most I have been over multiple times. Shall I repeat, that Walter was reading the NIV when he found the Lord. Yes, he is a strong proponent of the KJV/received text. Yes, he uses the NKJV which has bad tweaks. Have you met Walter in person?

Thanks for asking!

Interesting you ask if I have watch it, but then say you have not...

How do you know that Walter Veith found the Lord through the reading of the NIV?

Does he say that somewhere in one of his videos?

Veith in this video that I am watching states that all the original manuscripts have been lost in the Bible Family Tree that he shows in the video. He then says that before they were lost, they were copied.

Veith actually says that all we have are copies of copies.

Here is a picture of the Bible Family Tree from that video.

Which is true. The miracle is that there that there are not greater differences than there are.

The who problem is so much like small kids who will say,

- My ball is better than your ball.

My post should have said:

It is true that we only have copies of copies of the original Bible manuscripts.It is a miracle that there are not greater differences in those we have today.

Why do we fight so much about which are the best manuscripts? Isn't it like immature kids each claiming their particular ball is better than any other?

Where do we find a word of inspiration claiming one version of the Bible is the right one?

Johann,

We have Mrs. White claiming that the Bible the Waldensians possessed gave them the unadulterated truth. She has a few words about the lineage of their Bible. And we know which branch of the tree it belongs to--that of the Majority Text.

Yes, God preserves His Word. It is a miracle that over 90-95% of the manuscripts all agree. That's why they're called the "Majority Text." Unfortunately, some still choose to believe that the minority stragglers that come from questionable Catholic sources are somehow superior.

No Codex Vaticanus for me, thank you.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, you've never been able to support that lie. It's becoming bolder and bolder. Prove me wrong. Show where Ellen White claimed "that the Bible the Waldensians possessed gave them the unadulterated truth". You mean it to be a version. You cannot support that!

I believe it was Veith who I had watched in the past. The topic had caught my interest as I wanted to know if the KJV was the only version we should read or not and why. It went on for over an hour and I kept expecting him to come to his point. But instead, he said nothing. Just like Rick and Green. They talk a lot, but there's no content. Veith showed where lots of scriptures were different, but never did say why one was correct other than the KJV "had more". More is not always better. Then when he pulls some similar stunts as Green does with Joshua, he loses any credibility he had left.

kland, you are misunderstanding my position. I do NOT believe that the KJV is the only translation by which someone may be saved. I DO believe it comes from the best family of manuscripts, that of the majority text. The Waldensian Bibles also came from this text. NEITHER the KJV nor their Bibles came from the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, or the Codex Alexandrinus. BOTH the KJV and the Waldensian Bibles have come from the Majority Text.

No, the Waldenses did not possess KJV Bibles. Yes, they did possess Bibles of the best source manuscripts--unadulterated. The Catholics have edited those other Codices. But the Waldenses had translations from the unedited texts, just like any of us can have if we use the KJV.

Mrs. White also lauds Wycliffe's Bible, the very first one in the English language. kland, what manuscripts did Wycliffe use--the Majority or Minority texts?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green: "that the Bible the Waldensians possessed gave them the unadulterated truth".

Ellen White: "The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated,"

Green says the Bible, but Ellen White says "a translation".

Did anyone else have "a translation"? Or were the Waldenses the first to have "a translation"?

Did anyone else have a "manuscript in their native tongue"? Or were the Waldenses the first to have a "manuscript in their native tongue"?

Did the version, the translation, the manuscript give them "the truth unadulterated"? Or did having any translation, any manuscript in their native tongue which they could read rather than listen to what others told them to think give them "the truth unadulterated"?

kland,

Are you trying to imply that if one did not have a "translation" then his or her truth was "adulterated?"

I'm not following that logic. "Adulterated" means more than something that has not been translated.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

According to the book "A visual history of the King James Bible", no complete English Bible existed before the fourteenth century. (The Waldenses were not English so this isn't speaking of them)

Even the Latin Vulgate was scarce, the clergy in England usually only had copies of portions of the authorized Latin Bible. Greek and Hebrew were not yet being taught in England at this date, so Wycliffe did not know either language, but he believed a Bible in the people's language was needed.

So what did he do? He had access to a Latin Vulgate and with the help of others, like Nicholas of Hereford, produced a rather strictly, literal translation from the Latin into the English of his time in 1382.
They also included the extra books commonly known as apocryphal books.

Only 250 copies of the Wycliffe Bible exist today, and each one differs from the others.
Of course this was in an age before the printing press. The Lollards wrote out these English Bibles by hand. There was also revision done as the earlier copies were very literal translations of the Latin, while later ones flowed a little more in the English way of speaking.

It was Tyndale, 150 years after Wycliffe, who used Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to translate the bible into English.

Tyndale was a contemporary of Luther, living in the reformation age, and had the advantage of the printing press. Tyndale was fluent in eight languages, including Hebrew, Greek, and Latin and is often referred to as the Father of the English Bible.

Yes, Dedication, you are correct.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Holy Spirit can reach you even if you all you had was the Jehovah Witnesses bible, but when you go to teach you would be lacking much.

Here is a interesting response Walter Veith gave to critics on this issue..

Walter Veith response...

http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/Newsletters/2009%20fall%20Newsletter-LQ.pdf

So now in light of you reading what Dedication wrote, did you get that all straightened out or do you still have questions?

Dedication and you are on two different topics, kland. I don't understand what you are meaning to ask or imply here. Maybe you need to reread what Dedication said. Dedication is speaking of English translations. The Waldenses did not have English translations. These are two separate Bibles.

I have no questions regarding what Dedication has said. My question to you was how you can presume that an untranslated Bible was, by virtue of not having been translated, "adulterated." That logic falls short of a proper a priori justification, to my mind at least.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The attempt to "adulterate" scriptures took place even before translations were made.
To adulterate means to change some of the meaning in the scriptures in some subtle way.

Between the death of John the apostle and the reign of Constantine, a number of groups started to corrupt scriptures, saying they were "correcting" them.


Even Eusebius (who lived in Constantine's time) and who did a bit of "adulterating" of scripture himself, was appalled by some of the manuscripts being passed around. He wrote in his ' Church History, Book five, Chapter 28



The early church already had a basic (though there were still some disagreements on a couple books) New Testament prior to 312 AD. And also corrupted manuscripts were already floating around before Constantine became emperor.

When Constantine became Emperor, and accepted Christianity in 312 AD, he found numerous factions within Christianity, and forcefully tried to consolidate Christianity. One thing he tried to do was to adopt a "standardized" bible. But in doing this he combined and blended the various corruptions along with the true.
Basically there were three different scriptures each claiming to be the correct version.

One was the wide spread Asia Minor manuscripts (generally known as the Byzantine/Syrian or Received Text). Another was the western text, and the third the Alexandrian or Egyptian text.

Constantine orders 50 manuscripts of this "standardized" Bible.
A number of scholars believe the Vaticanus, and Sinatic MSS were from this 50.

Yet, these manuscripts did not flourish and spread far and wide.

The Christian people clung to the Received Text which remained the dominant Bible in the east, in Northern Italy and southern France and even in Celtic England.

The Waldensies and similar groups throughout the Roman world, had the Received Text Bible in the old Roman/Latin language, as this was the language they spoke.

It was years later (380-400 AD) when Jerome developed the Vulgate -- also in Latin, but a "low Latin" which differed from the Received Text not only in style but also in doctrinal accuracy. This later became the authorized Bible of the Roman Catholic church.

As centuries passed the old Latin died out as a common language, and soon the only Latin still used was by the church and the universities.

When the Reformation began and the printing press was invented. Brave men, in spite of threats from Rome, began to translate the Bible into the language of the people. They used the Received manuscripts, not the Vulgate and it's imperfect manuscripts.

It's not the fact that our Bibles are translations that is the problem, the question is -- what is their base?

Just like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther saw a need for the Bible to be in the language of the people -- that is still true today, and newer translations often bring out meanings that are hard to see in the more archaic language of the KJV.
However, for doctrinal study I want a Bible based on the Received Text, not on adulterated manuscripts. And for that the KJV is the best English Bible

I was given a research site with tools that might be good to check out... Research tool

And this is something Green gets confused on or merges together. Maybe you could explain that to him?

I guess you said differently than I thought you were saying.

But what do you mean by this?
Isn't KJV the authorized version?

Is there something you are missing on the following? Do you not know what "the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation" means? Do you not know the difference between "truth unadulterated" and the Bible unadulterated?

Green: "that the Bible the Waldensians possessed gave them the unadulterated truth".

Ellen White: "The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated,"

Green says the Bible, but Ellen White says "a translation".

Did anyone else have "a translation"? Or were the Waldenses the first to have "a translation"?

Did anyone else have a "manuscript in their native tongue"? Or were the Waldenses the first to have a "manuscript in their native tongue"?

Did the version, the translation, the manuscript give them "the truth unadulterated"? Or did having any translation, any manuscript in their native tongue which they could read rather than listen to what others told them to think give them "the truth unadulterated"?

The authorized version of scripture by the Roman Catholic Church is Jerome's Vulgate. It reigned supreme for 1000 years as the authorized ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE.

During the reformation the Catholic Church did their own translation of an English Bible.
The Definitive Roman Catholic Bible in English is the Douay-Rheims Bible. Also known as the Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R, the Douay-Rheims Version of the Holy Bible, is a direct English translation of what is still the authoritative Bible of the Catholic Church - the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome (342-420).



English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as "King James's Bible" is also AN Authorized Version. It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics.

The native language in Italy and many surrounding countries during the Roman Empire was Latin. The Bible was translated from original manuscripts into this Roman/Latin language at a very early date. Missionaries that were NOT Roman Catholic, but from the Asia Minor/Syrian area, carried this Bible all over Europe --Italy, France and Celtic England.
(The English language did not exist in the first centuries AD)

These Bibles were already widely distributed BEFORE Constantine's time.

So yes, these Roman/Latin Bibles were probably the first translations into the common language of the people that didn't speak Greek.

These Roman/latin bibles were not the same as the Latin Vulgate that Jerome translated. Jerome already had the corrupted Greek manuscripts ordered by Constantine.

So yes, the Waldenses carefully preserved the "unadulterated" scriptures -- as did many further east who possessed the Received text of scripture.


And of course -- having the scriptures was a huge protection against unbiblical theories that were being taught. That is also true.

Please show that Ellen White meant to say, as you intend it to mean, that the Waldenses had the Bible unadulterated rather than what it reads at face value, the truth unadulterated.

History itself shows that.
You want "proof" quotes -- why not just look at history.

How does one have "truth unadulterated"?
The best way is to get the unadulterated message.

And why would you defend the Catholic Bible?
Again we need to look at the history.

Why do you think the Catholic church was so opposed to the Protestant translations, and made her own translation from the Vulgate, to counter the Protestant translations?

It wasn't the Catholic church who preserved the Bible, -- read in Revelation 12 where the true church was.

These people "in the wilderness" had the Roman/Latin Bible (the Latin that was the language of the people in the west during the Roman Empire time). Those Bibles were translated from the received text years before Constantine came along.



Notice what the Catholic Church thinks of the Reformation Bibles --



They then speak of the KJV Version, but again point out it does not support Catholic doctrine.



So even by Catholic admission --
They didn't want a Bible supporting PROTESTANT Theology, they wanted a Bible supporting Catholic theology.

About 20 minutes into the video Veith speaks about the corruption of the Bible.

Veith refers to a text showing the Apostle Paul's mentioning this.

Veith, 25 minutes into the video said that the RCC is basically Arian in their beliefs.

He stated that based this on the fact that the Vulgate is Arian and that the pope had declared the Vulgate infallible.

Veith basically said that the Battle of the Bibles is in reality the continuing of the Battle about Jesus Christ.

Veith stated at about the 30 minute mark in the video, that it isn't the KJV against the other versions of the Bible, but it is the Received Text manuscripts versus the other manuscripts.

It is, therefore, the Battle of the Manuscripts, which has resulted in the Battle of the Bibles in regards to those Bibles that use the other manuscripts over the Received Text manuscripts.

The video has two parts.

Part 1 ended at 47:18 with Part 2 beginning at 47:23.

I found Part 1 full of interesting information.

Still need to watch Part 2.

My question was for you to show how Ellen White meant to say what you wanted her to say. Saying history shows us what Ellen White meant to say is like comparing "apples to grapefruit".

I'm not sure I'm defending the "Catholic Bible". Apples to grapefruit.

Maybe you can help dedication out in a similar way. Can you show how when Paul speaks about "corrupt the word of God" means the versions of scriptures rather than what the people were saying the word of God meant?

I think it can be referring to both, however, when you add to, remove, or change something in the Bible to fit your meaning, that is worse than simply giving a wrong meaning to it.

Take a look at this file attachment, which is taken from Veith's video presentation.

Notice that he refers to the Received Text as villainous.

Also take a look at this.

Then there is this one from the video presentation.

Read this one about Hort in regards to revising the Bible.

We are gods?????

Or, we are God?????

My point was not based on EGW's statement. Rather it is looking at the history of the Bible and seeing the battle over the truth taking place. I never quoted EGW in the first place. Just agreed with Green that history shows that the Waldenses had the unadulterated Bible.

Corrupted manuscripts were written by gnostic/philosophical minded in Christianity prior to Constantine's time -- then an Origin/Eusebius version was sanctioned and reproduced by the command of Constantine, and these became the foundation of the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible which the Catholic church holds as the "true" Bible.

Compare this with the scriptures the early missionaries carried all over Europe which the Waldensies had in the spoken language in Italy at the time-- Roman old latin. These are in agreement with the "Received Text" with hundreds of manuscripts still in existance that show they all come from the same "family".
These herald back to the true.

The Reformation brought this Bible to the people.
But immediately the Vatican first tried to destroy it, then worked to produce their own common language bible --the Douay Rheims Bible -- based on the Vulgate to combat the protestant's Bible.

Let's just look at one verse:
Luke 2:33
Who is Jesus' Father?
Was his a virgin birth or not?

BIBLES BASED ON Constantine's manuscripts and the Vulgate:
Douay Rheims
33 And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him.
ASV
33 And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him;
NIV
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him

BIBLES BASED ON THE RECEIVED TEXT
KJV
33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Geneva Bible 1588
33 And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things, which were spoken touching him.
Young's Literal Translation
33 And Joseph and his mother were wondering at the things spoken concerning him

The differences between the manuscripts are minimal, and I don't see how they could affect the Bible message.

As a child and youth, Jesus worked with his father Joseph... {RH, March 13, 1900 par. 9}

Perhaps you have not been following the Bible version threads here. I've posted some differences which are far from "minimal."

In the case of the example you just gave, English does not have a special grammar in which to denote the possibility of more than one father--generally speaking, one can have but one father. If we were to speak of brothers, however, we have a grammatical indicator.

For example:

1. Stephen went to town with his brother Matthew to buy oil.
2. Stephen went to town with his brother, Matthew, to buy oil.

The above two sentences tell us something about how many brothers Stephen had. In the first sentence, Stephen may well have other brothers besides Matthew. In the second sentence, Matthew is his only brother.

Mrs. White is not saying Joseph is Jesus' only father. Neither is she saying that Joseph is only one of Jesus' fathers--because there is simply no English grammar to indicate this in the case of persons who are naturally singular. The little comma convention does not apply in this case.

The Bible in places specifies that Joseph was Jesus' father. But it also indicates in places that he wasn't. Having both of these truths is important to understanding Christ's divinity. But the modern versions remove the portions which set Joseph in his proper place.

There is nothing wrong with saying "Jesus' father and mother" in one sense. The wrong is the omission of the indication that Joseph was not Jesus real father. This factors into our understanding of the later verse which says "Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?" Who is the child's father here?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Huh? Neither sentence tells us the total number Stephen had. Both sentences tell us exactly the same thing. Is this your best example???

APL,

I teach English grammar, so this is familiar ground to me. However, you can find these explanations online or in a good grammar book as well. Here's the first thing I landed upon via an online search for English comma grammar.



That explanation gives you the reason for the difference. When we speak of a "father," it is not the convention to need to specify which one, because traditionally there can only be one.

(I'll freely admit that these conventions are fast becoming either irrelevant or unrecognized in today's society, but I hope people here have the ability to recognize that these grammar rules were still firmly adhered to in Mrs. White's day.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Whether you are basing a point on EGW's statement or not, that is what is being discussed. The statement says, "They had the truth unadulterated". Not the unadulterated Bible.

So you do realize you are quibbling over English and not manuscripts, right?

And making the assumption the the translators still firmly adhered to such grammar rules as you say they did in Mrs. White's day.

And as far as your quote about "Setting off nonrestrictive or nonessential information", of all the comma rules I've been through, I do not recall any such rule of setting off a restrictive numeration. Wonder if anyone else has heard of such.


"because traditionally there can only be one. "
Traditionally? That made me laugh! Can there ever be more than one father?

I agree that commas are used to set off non-essential data. I've also learned to not trust commas, even in the KJV!!!

Who was Jesus' father?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

God. Not Joseph, who was the husband of Mary "and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS."

Mt 1:16 And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

Sorry to have provided you a way of escape from the questions.

I fully agree with you that God was Jesus' Father. Unfortunately, the NIV changed the Greek word "Iōsēph" into "his father" to try to imply otherwise. Why would they do that?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The issue is MANUSCRIPTS!!!

My post was showing how Bibles from one line of manuscripts all interpreted a verse as "father and mother", while the Bibles following the received text all had "Joseph" not "father"

When you go back to the Greek , the received text says JOSEPH.

So yes, this is about manuscripts.

Kland seems to want to argue over nuances in EGW statements, or whether a certain difference can be explained as insignificant, rather than look at the history of the development of the Bible.

To me this seems to be a cop out refusing to look at reality.

What I don't understand is why Luke 2:33 would imply that God wasn't Jesus' Father but passages like Luke 2:48 and Luke 3:23 wouldn't imply that.

No, what is being discussed, and the purpose of this thread was to discuss Veiths presentation of the HISTORY of the Bible manuscripts.

Whether a certain difference can be explained as insignificant, rather than look at the history of the development of the Bible, to me seems to be a cop out refusing to look at reality.

My post was showing how Bibles from one line of manuscripts all interpreted a verse as "father and mother", while the Bibles following the received text all had "Joseph" not "father" When you go back to the Greek , the received text says JOSEPH.

But that was seized upon to derail the subject, and focus on excusing the change.

Perhaps this is paralleled in the "Son of God" versus "Son of Man" titles which apply to Jesus. The Bible writers used both terms to help identify Him as both human and divine. But the NIV and other modern versions are translated from corrupted manuscripts that remove God's side of the equation, leaving only man's. (They appear to leave His own claims uncontested, but remove other testimonies/witnesses to the fact that He was God's Son--except for allowing the words of those crazy, demon-possessed men.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Dedication, why did you reply to GC instead of replying to me, since you consider I derailed the subject?

What is the history?

At the time of the Reformation, almost all of the available Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were Byzantine in character. The early printed Greek Testaments and Protestant translations (including the KJV) naturally followed this text, which was widely accepted down to the nineteenth century.

During the nineteenth century, manuscripts came to light that were considerably older than the Byzantine manuscripts (notably Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Then, mostly in the twentieth century, even older papyrus texts were discovered in Egypt (where they had been preserved by the dry climate). These older manuscripts generally agreed with each other against the Byzantine tradition, and their type of text became known as Alexandrian (since they were of Egyptian origin).

Basically, this is the history. There are arguments pro and con both lines of manuscripts. But how can one line be classified as "the genuine one" and the other as "the false one"?

It is clear that both families of manuscripts have additions and omissions, and both have mistakes. Or do you consider that 1 John 5:7, for instance, is a genuine passage?

Rosangela,

Regarding the manuscripts from Egypt, and how we can know to avoid them based on the Bible's own message to us, please read what I posted two years ago HERE.

Regarding whether or not the claims that the minority manuscripts were older are valid, that goes into a rather involved study of Westcott and Hort and their entire agenda to promote their doctored manuscripts.

You should know that the Catholic church has indeed openly spoken of editing those manuscripts, and making changes in them for the express purpose of putting them forward to be accepted by the public. They say so themselves. The Catholics have never been inclined to keep it a secret that they have changed God's times and laws. See more on that HERE.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,
The apostolic church ordinarily followed the Septuagint, an Egyptian Bible.
And it's very strange, to say the least, that the Catholics would shoot their own foot by promoting Bible manuscripts which demolish their own doctrines, like the virgin birth (by implying, as you said, that Jesus had a human father, not a divine Father) and the Trinity (by omitting 1 John 5:7).

Rosangela,

The Septuagint was not always followed by the apostolic church. There are places where it was expressly rejected by the Bible authors who chose to retranslate from the Hebrew in different wording from that which was to be found in the Septuagint. Where it was close enough to the correct meaning, they used it. Otherwise, they didn't.

Regarding Catholic inconsistencies--anyone who denies God's truth will end up contradicting himself or herself in one or more ways. It is my understanding that the early Catholic church also founded the Muslim religion--which presents some interesting contrasts.

As far as why they would imply Jesus had a human father as opposed to a divine Father, my first thought would be that the Catholics don't really worship God the Father. To them, the highest being they can pray to is Mary. After all, Mary was Jesus' mother, and as a saint of the highest order, is considered to be alive in Heaven as we speak. As Jesus' mother, she can tell Him what to do--and being a human, mother and saint, they imagine her to have more compassion and listen to their prayers. So they don't pray to the Father. They pray to Mary. Why should they emphasize God the Father as being Jesus' Father when they want to emphasize the mother-figure instead?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe Green was the one who seized the opportunity for derailment.

But why did you say:
"Just agreed with Green that history shows that the Waldenses had the unadulterated Bible."

"So yes, the Waldenses carefully preserved the "unadulterated" scriptures -- as did many further east who possessed the Received text of scripture."

This is incorrect. As I have shown. It is dishonest to maintain your position.

Ellen White: "The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated,"



By the way, do you really think the NIV intend people to think God marveled at what was said about Jesus?

Lu 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
(KJV!)

Like! Like!

For, "Why should they emphasize God the Father as being Jesus' Father when they want to emphasize the mother-figure instead?" Maybe by fabricating whole manuscripts from scratch to support their intentions, that's why they so cleverly and deceitfully changed the NIV to read:
Luke 2:27 When the parents brought in the child Jesus
Luke 2:41 Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem
Luke 2:43 After the festival was over, while his parents
Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished.

Not.

Seems to me that Green has promoted the idea that no matter how intentional they are to deceive, they make many mistakes in failing to change the Bible, and in fact, make a whole lot mistakes in failing to change. And that perhaps God indeed stands behind the promise of preserving the Bible for the salvation of all. All that read it need not worry about a few mistakes here and there, since if they were to actually read the Bible, they would fully understand what it says, specifically here that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. But there are some among the sheep, (Green, Dedication, Rick), who come along to tell people they should not read the Bible in the English or language they can understand, but should only read it in an English that they struggle with understanding, to discourage them from reading the Bible. Kind of like how the Vatican did, huh?

Luke 1:35 (NIV) The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

kland,

You have the privilege of knowing English. It is a privilege. It is an enlightened language, the modern lengua franca of the world, including the religious world. I hope you appreciate your privilege.

I've had the dubious privilege of trying to encourage non-native speakers of English--people who spoke only very broken English--to read the Bible in their own native language. You know what I heard them say? "I understand the KJV better than my own Bible." It's sad, really. It's sad that we don't have better translations.

It bothers me that Jesus is given orange juice on the cross. It bothers me that the translation of "cast your bread upon the waters" yields an understanding of how your business will prosper via certain business practices. Many other mistranslations bother me. But you know what bothers me most? It is that the people who do not know English are hugely disadvantaged here--and there's very little hope of reaching them with the Bible that is available in their language.

If I passed out local-language Bibles here to everyone I met, it would almost do more harm than good. People would try to read it, would not understand it, and would develop a disinterest in the Bible from that point forward. Witnessing here is only done in a personal, one-on-one relationship. The Bible is nearly useless. I'm sure God cries too.

And, how can we make it better? Ninety plus percent of the board members of the local Bible Society are Roman Catholic, and they have no special interest in translating the Bible accurately, nor in dispersing it to people for them to know and understand it. I spoke with the chairman of the Bible society once for an hour in his office. I left disappointed with the stance he had taken, and quite without permission to use the Bible translation to reach people for God.

Where are the Adventist minutemen? Where are the youth of the church, skilled at language learning, who are willing to devote a lifetime to a project like Bible translation? We need young people who are willing to give their whole lives in service to God, not just a year or two.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I should have been making a comparison of the KJV:
Lu 2:27 and when the parents brought in the child Jesus,
Lu 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem
Lu 2:48 behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

kland,

As I already stated in this thread, Jesus was called both "Son of Man" and "Son of God." The NIV has no problem with the former, but erases the facts of the latter from third-party testimony save that of the crazy demoniacs. Why?

The KJV has both sides of the story. Certainly the verses you quote are the one side. You didn't quote the other side. Why?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

First the topic was derailed by Kland and others, not just you. I just pressed the "reply" on the last post entered at the time, which happened to be Greens.


Just curious, did anyone even bother to read the first posts -- and watch the Video on the history of the Bible manuscripts?

Daryl posted numerous quotes from the video but these were basically all ignored.

Why?

True there are three supposedly "older manuscripts"
the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and the Alexandrian

So you have three that kind of agree with each other but are different than the thousand or so received manuscripts that basically agree with each other.

It's also rather interesting that the Latin Vulgate (the standard Catholic Bible throughout the Middle Ages), seems to agree with those three "older" ones.



Go back and see what is said about their origin, as well as the origin of the thousand or more received texts.

I think it can be quite clearly documented that the received text is the more authentic.

I appears people haven't really taken the time to read or hear the history.

Paul wrote that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day. (See 2 Thes. 2:7)
"Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I cease not to warn every one night and day with tears," (Acts 20:30,31)

Yet, while the apostles were living, it was held in check. But after they passed off the scene it is amazing how fast the church started sliding.

One of the dangers threatening truth was Gnosticism. Gnosticism in it's fullness was resisted by the church, but many of its concepts were still accepted. Before Constantine there were groups who "revised" the biblical manuscripts to match gnostic ideas.
By the time of Constantine there were three "families" of scripture that were receiving recognition in different areas.

The first one was the scriptures carried far and wide by apostles and missionaries all over Europe and Asia. They still comprise 99% of all Greek manuscripts.

The other two "families" were small.
One came from Alexandra where Tatian, then Clement and Origen, led out in new teachings "clothed in pagan ideas". Origen's six column Bible was called the "Hexapla. Origen corrupted the scriptures. He himself said, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written" And Schaff says, "His predilection for Plato (the pagan philosopher) led him into many grand and fascinating errors." (Church History Vol. II, p. 791)

The other "small family" was Eusebius' version (260-340) Eusebius was an admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. Eusebius edited Origins Hexapla bringing it closer to the original scriptures but still intermingling the two. It might be called the adaptation of the Word of God to Gnosticism.

When Constantine became Emperor, he sought to unit his empire with Christianity, thus He wanted a "standardized" Bible.
He chose the Eusebius edition of the Hexapla and had 50 copies produced.
Many believe the Sinaitic MS and the Vatican MS were part of this project.
The following quotation shows the Sinaitic MS was based on the Hexapal.

"It (Sinaitic MS) seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors adds this note at the end of Esdras, 'This Codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus (died in 309) which exemplar contained at the end, the subscription in his own hand: 'taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen" (Catholic Encyclopedia Vol IV p. 86)

Jerome followed this same line when translating the Catholic Bible (the Latin Vulgate).
The Latin Vulgate was the authoritative Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and still is.

Now the question --
Is the Bible of the Catholic Church the most accurate? Did they preserve the "unadulterated truth"?
Or is the Bible of the Reformers which is based on thousand or more manuscripts from all over (which basically agree) the most accurate?


Both contain truths, but which is the most accurate?




.

So, if the majority of manuscripts (95% or more?) all agree, and just a few are different, which is more likely the most accurate and correct?

If I'm watching a piano tuner tune my piano, and the piano tuner has 10 different tuning instruments, all the same model, to tell him what note he's playing, and 9 of the 10 all say he's playing a "C", but one says "C+" (C sharp)...which note will the piano tuner believe he is playing?

Those who say they'd believe the fluke reading of the one over all of the other nine are rather...well...let's just say they must have an agenda.

While the answer seems so blatantly obvious to this question, some still try to find "proof" that the aberrant manuscripts don't have the right doctrine and/or aren't the most accurate. It all boils down to the fact that people will choose to believe what they want to believe, even if this means believing it against all odds or facts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Much of the Christian world believe in an eternally burning hell (state of the dead), and reject the 7th-day Sabbath. A small group, let's call them "SdA" people, believe otherwise. What are the odds that the "SdA" people are right? I guess the answer is blatantly obvious... To bring this to the battle of the Bibles, these unique interpretations can be found in all mainline Bibles today. Who do you believe?

APL,

Your attempt to turn the Bible manuscripts into mere "opinions" or "interpretations" or "beliefs" is noted. But you should be ashamed of yourself.

The Bible tells us it is not any man's opinion merely--but is inspired by God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You make a point of the majority of manuscripts and the minority. A big deal is made of leaving verses such as 1 John 5:7. Does this devastate all doctrine? Not at all! What I said if you read it, is that the SDA doctrines can be supported in the current day translations. Should we be ashamed of that green????

That is what we have been doing in Europe since the beginning of our history.

The main problems I have experienced is when we have American visitors claiming their KJ Version is superior. That creates confusion and people start loosing confidence in the Word of God.

In the process of copying the Bible manuscripts there were unintentional mistakes as well as intentional alterations, yet the Word of God was preserved. The truth of the matter is, both the Alexandrian text and the majority text are close enough to the originals and to one another that God can work through either text to bring people to salvation. There is at worst a 5% difference between the Alexandrian text and the majority text.
The Alexandrian text is smaller and there are some differences in words, but no Christian doctrine is omitted from the Alexandrian text.
Ellen White quoted Bible versions based on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Rosangela,

Please find for me the doctrine of fasting to cast out demons in the Alexandrian text.

It's not there. It was intentionally removed. There are other doctrines that are removed as well, but many are very subtle. Satan is subtle...when it serves his purpose. If we are to avoid his purpose, we must be wise.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It is a miracle how the Word of God has been preserved, Rosangela. We must be grateful for what He has given us.

Yes, God preserved His Word --
It is amazing that there are not greater alterations --

However, I have found time and again that it is more difficult to prove our doctrines from the newer versions than from Bibles based on the received text.

Don't other languages also have Bibles from the received manuscripts in their history --
Do you think it is about time we start asking that people have the received text Bible in their own language? Whether it is in Japanese, or Swahili or Romanian or Russian, it's not about them believing in the King James Bible, but whether they have Bibles following the received text or the adulterated critical text.

I am aware that many of these languages don’t have a good Bible available. And the other Bibles are better than none at all. But I would think it should be the burden of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to seek for and get Bibles based on the received text in different languages. Certainly we should support those who are trying to provide a good Received Text Bible in their language.

Take the Sabbath doctrine for example --

It is more difficult to prove from the newer versions.

Sure it's still in the old Testament in the critical text Bibles, and even the new testament shows the Jewish people still keeping the Sabbath.
But the issues we face out there is the claim that when the gospel went to the Gentiles the Sabbath went out the window along with the Jewish festivals and was no longer required by Gentiles. The only laws still applicable according to many Christians, are the laws specifically mentioned in the New Testament.

The sanctuary --
I still remember the time I had a talk on the sanctuary and my "scripture reading text" was

Ps. 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?

The person doing the scripture reading got up and read:

"Your way, O God, is holy;
What god is great like our God?"

Oh sure one can find other sanctuary texts, yet I find this happening to me quite often -- a text that I know says one thing but when I need it to show someone, and they are using newer translations, the text is different projecting a different meaning.


Then there is Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Those verses clearly show Paul being addressed to preach to GENTILES the next Sabbath, which He does.

But that completely disappears in the new versions. I remember talking to one person and wanting to show them these verses AND I COULD NOT FIND THEM because it was a NIV.

Why? Because it was a completely different rendering --
"As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath."

Easily written off as just a bunch of Jews keeping the Sabbath and Paul -- well of course if he meets with Jews will do so on the Sabbath.

BUT the KJV clearly shows GENTILES begging Paul to come and preach to THEM, on the next Sabbath.

Amen, amen, amen! Well said. Oh, how I wish we had better Bibles here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It is impossible to prove from the NIV that the Sabbath is to be kept from sundown to sundown (even unto even). They mangled that verse royally.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This can be a problem when your proof text is just one verse, and a verse that is contested. Just keep reading. Acts 13:44-45 NIV On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.

Who is included in "the whole city"? Just the Jews? The next verse shows that it not the case. This is from the NIV.

What is the definition of a day? Use all the text on the topic. Here is one! Genesis 1:5 NIV God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

So has the NIV persuaded you to change your Sabbath doctrine? If the Sabbath "day" is holy, and that is only the "light" portion of a 24-hour period, you are in a different category of Sabbath keeper.

My Bible--and the one which follows the true, unadulterated text--says "from even unto even shall ye celebrate your sabbath." That includes the night portion as well as the daylight portion. In the NIV, however, this doctrine is no longer provable.

Considering that the Sabbath commandment is one of the Ten, it surely follows that the NIV / adulterated text / Codex Vaticanus / Codex Sinaiticus / Minority Text / virtually all modern English translations are part of the product of the entity who will "think to change times and laws," for the Sabbath is both a time and a law.

NOTE: I know of no text in scripture that says we are to keep the "Sabbath night" holy. The Majority Text / Received Text informs us correctly, however, that the Sabbath is from evening to evening.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Leviticus 23:32 NIV It is a day of sabbath rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath."

Leviticus 23:32 KJV It shall be to you a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even to even, shall you celebrate your sabbath.

Do you see a difference here?

Genesis 1:5 NIV God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Genesis 1:5 KJV And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And where do you get off saying I only observe the time when the sun is shining?????

APL,

You don't see a difference between NIV and KJV on Lev. 23:32?

NIV says the only sabbath to observe from even to even is that of the ninth day of the month.

KJV speaks of that day, but then clarifies that sabbaths are to be kept from even to even--thus it broadens the application of the principle significantly.

Of course, you'll probably continue to argue they say the same thing. But then, you have probably not had a difficult Bible study where the other individual sees it as I have just shared it here. If that is their view, there is nothing in the NIV to dissuade them from it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So, it is not a problem with the verse, it is a problem with the interpreter! I get it. That is why it was hard for you to support the Sabbath. The NIV is clear: From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath." By this reasoning, then the KJV is also wrong based on Genesis!

APL,

How is the KJV "also wrong?" That doesn't make sense. The KJV does not tell us that the "even to even" principle applies only to a "ninth day of a month." That is the NIV saying that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well green, Genesis gives us the definition of a "day", evening and morning. The quote of Leviticus 23:32, which is where "even to even" is quoted, (is there another that I missed?), it not speaking of the 7th-day Sabbath, but the Day of Atonement.

I see. So, you basically would say Leviticus 23:32 does not properly apply to the seventh-day Sabbath--therefore, it's wrong of Adventists to use it that way. Is that what I'm getting?

Anything to support your favorite errors.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did I say what you are accusing me of? NO. Was it me that was making a big deal about the ninth of the month in leviticus 23:32, no it was you. This is describing the Day of Atonement! Surely you know that, right? So where do you get your accusations from?

Try Ellen White.



Now, if Ellen White was shown this verse, and had it explained to her by the angel as applying to the Sabbath, I believe it. I'm not surprised, however, that you do not--because the NIV obscures this truth, and you will go to any lengths to uphold it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again - you make baseless claims. The NIV supports the same conclusion as the KJV.

Leviticus 23:32 KJV It shall be to you a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even to even, shall you celebrate your sabbath.

Leviticus 23:32 NIV It is a day of sabbath rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath."

Perhaps you'd like another "modern" version?

Leviticus 23:32 NLT This will be a Sabbath day of complete rest for you, and on that day you must deny yourselves. This day of rest will begin at sundown on the ninth day of the month and extend until sundown on the tenth day."

Leviticus 23:32 ESV It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath."

Leviticus 23:32 NET It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you must humble yourselves on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening until evening you must observe your Sabbath."49

I haven't heard of the NET before, but whatever it is, along with ESV and KJV, those are the only ones which in this case preserve the concept of every sabbath following the even-to-even principle. The other versions explicitly apply that principle to the ninth day of the month--which changes things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It has taken out the most convincing statement.
The Gentiles ASKED for Paul to preach to THEM on the next Sabbath --
that is missing in the new version.


The anti-Sabbath people will quickly explain away what is left of the scene in the new translations by saying -- sure the Jews met on Sabbath and others were curious enough to meet then too -- big deal.


But when the first part is left in --
we see the Gentiles asking Paul to come to THEM the next Sabbath. Now if the Sabbath was changed, Paul would have said "no need to wait till next Sabbath, tomorrow (sunday) is the new Sabbath, I'll come tomorrow. But Paul doesn't say that to the Gentiles -- it is the next Sabbath that he holds a city wide Sabbath service.


You see the new versions leave enough to make it seem there is no problem, BUT THEY HAVE taken out the strength of the verses to make them easier to rationalize away.

The new versions leave enough to make it seem there is no problem, BUT THEY HAVE taken out the strength of the verses to make it easier to rationalize true doctrine away.


Saying that true doctrines can still be found in the new versions by someone who ALREADY believes it, is true, but it still makes it very, very easy for those who want to believe differently to rationalize the weakened doctrinal truths away.

And believe me -- there are MANY who rationalize these doctrines away and vigorously teach others to do the same.

Even though you come to them with Bible in hand, people will simply tell you, you are reading the Bible through EGW's glasses, as the newer versions have made it easier to rationalize the doctrines away.

OK - so you admit that SDA doctrines can be found in the "modern" versions. How many of these people that rationalize away these doctrines, and going to be open to only use that KJV? If they are that savvy to rationalize away these doctrines, do you expect that they will be open to reading the KJV only? And how about a JW? Are you going to convince them that the KJV is superior to the NWT? Nope. Christ met the people where they were. You are saying the people need to move away from where they are in order to be reached. Good luck!

Green, sometimes, you cause one to suspect you have the hint of intelligence regarding manuscripts. Then there are the majority of the times you devolve into quibbling over English words.

If you are unable to show a difference or show how the manuscripts do not support a version, then please stop quibbling over English words.
It is annoying.

kland,

What words do the majority of English speakers read when they read the Bible? Greek? Hebrew? Nope.

Why should I discuss those? The end result is what they read--and that is English. Yes, the real problem is the faulty manuscript underlying the translation. But in one's first layer of investigation into this, the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" is the first indicator of a deeper problem, and in this case, the surface language of English is the first indicator of the errors in the underlying manuscripts.

I'm not sure why this would be difficult to grasp. I use English on this forum because most here would be excluded from the conversation if I were to use the local language of my residence. However, the local Bibles face the same problem--their translations are poor because they come from the same corrupt manuscripts that all of our modern English translations come from.

Incidentally, I have recently begun a new edition of the Bible. In English. Seeing an accurate translation of the Bible means much to me.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Whoa green!!! Are you writing an accurate translation or an accurate interpretation of the Bible into English? I did not know you were a Hebrew and Greek scholar! Why did you not say so?

Actually there are English Bibles out there that have updated the language but followed the KJV rather precisely.

The Lighthouse or Little Sable Bible

Its objective was to modernize the language but not to be a new translation rather it tries to follow the meaning of the King James Version as much as possible.

I have not checked this Bible out in any thorough manner -- just found it interesting .

He means he hasn't a clue. But he does like certain English words and not others. Therefore, he is taking an old English version, ignoring the manuscripts, and then putting his pet English words into it.

In other words, what I've suspected all along, he doesn't really grasp the issue, whether it is an issue, nor what some are even talking about. But he does like some English words...

'If the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say, rewrite it to say what you want it to say.'

kland,

Would you like a few examples of what revisions are being made? Perhaps you would like to identify some of my "pet English words." Here are a few examples.

KJV	Revision
Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?	Why is it that you ask for my name?
Doth not your master...	Does your master not...
Considerest thou not...	Do you not consider...
The LORD was entreated of him...	The LORD heard his petition...
...he doth judge and make war...	...he judges and makes war...
etc.

If you have any special concerns, please feel free to let me know.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

How do modern ancient Greek and Hebrew scholars come by their knowledge? Is it not by the study of books and the words of modern "experts" who tell them what those words used to mean? Obviously, no one in the world today is a first-hand expert (native speaker) of ancient Greek or Hebrew. No one. The same tools that modern scholars use to become familiar with the ancient biblical languages are, in a great degree, available to any English speaker today. I have tools I use to check any words that are substantive and where a change is made beyond that of modernized grammar or orthography.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hm - -
KJV Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest...
KJV Heb 4:8(margin) For if Joshua had given them rest...

Green! WHO made the tools that you use???? Certainly not modern scholars, right????

Yeshua --the name is rendered Jesus or Joshua, so one must look to context as to whether it is referring to Joshua (the one who took Moses place) or Jesus our Savior. The name is actually the same.

The KJV translates the name consistently, and is upheld by Mrs. White. No need for any revision here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yep. And it is a sticky point for green.

Green, will you STOP with your nonsensical English word quibbling. It's very annoying. Show some depth. Dig deeper. Show how the manuscripts are different rather than whether a version uses your pet English words. Yet you insist on doing it....

But you're talking English words yet again. Are your tools making a difference in what the manuscripts say. Did you think that?

Not! Not upheld by Mrs. White!

Uh, Green, what about "another than Joshua" do you not understand?

kland,

Are you a Greek and Hebrew expert? Do you even read those languages at all?

If not, I don't suppose posting Hebrew and Greek here, as you appear to require, would actually benefit. I could post Sanskrit with as little benefit. English is the language of this forum. The differences in the manuscripts have made their appearance in English. Those differences are easily seen and recognized here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Who is "another than Joshua," kland? Please tell us who that is.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, why don't you list the scripture, list what Ellen White says, and then see if it makes sense to you who another than Joshua it is?

Is that a fact or a hope on your part?

That is a fact. Very much so.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You mean "Jesus?"

I think you mean Jesus.

If this is the case...why do you have a problem with the KJV saying "Jesus?"

THAT is the bigger question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Because it IS Jesus who gives them rest and Joshua who failed to give them rest. That's why both the Bible and Ellen White says it is another than Joshua. I suspect you think Ellen White's goal in writing that is to show the verse was wrong.

Why don't you list the scripture, list what Ellen White says, and then see if it makes sense to you who another than Joshua it is?

Could you please show it? Show where the English word from the Greek/Hebrew word of one version comes from a different Greek/Hebrew word in another version.

For instance, since you listed this example, please show it here:

NOW dedication, can you see the problem that Green is having? "Jesus" in Hebrews 4:8, as it is says in the KJV, can only mean Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. It cannot mean Joshua that led Israel into the promised land. The same with Acts 7:45.

You mean, Jesus led Israel into the Promised Land, right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The distinction in the above case is not the source language. It is the target language. The meaning is entirely unchanged.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's very odd. I thought you had listed them to show how the meaning was changed. Maybe someone convinced you it was not changed?

Anyway, pick your best verse, your very best one, which shows a change of meaning between versions, and

Show where the English word from the Greek/Hebrew word of one version comes from a different Greek/Hebrew word in another version.

kland,

Perhaps I have not been sufficiently clear in my purposes. I have more than one purpose.

1) To have a "modern" translation from the Majority Text.
2) To adhere as closely as possible to the original wording.

For the most part, the KJV translation can form a good base, having been translated from the Majority Text and having many tools available for research into the original Hebrew/Greek words from which each KJV word is translated. At times, such as in the Ten Commandments where the KJV mistranslated the Hebrew word as "kill," a word is changed which alters the meaning of the text (murder). At times, the words are changed simply to update them to modern equivalents, with no change of meaning.

In other words, I want a modern translation that improves upon best of the Majority Text translations available in English, and is more readable at the same time.

For example, we might change words like "apothecaries" to "herbalists," and "apparelled" to "dressed." These word replacements serve only to make the text more readable, without significantly changing the meaning.

So, while some word changes might adjust the meaning, others will be simply updating the language to a more understandable word which has the same meaning as the archaic one. As the Hebrew/Greek words behind each are consulted before a change is made, it can be considered a retranslation to a certain extent--though I would not propose to claim it is a full retranslation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green:

It looks to me like you are working on a revision of the KJV, rather than a translation.

Isn't that what the NKJV is?

What do you not like about the NKJV that causes you to compete with it?

Opinion!

You show your ignorance. You obviously haven't studied that issue in depth and/or with an open mind, comparing scripture with scripture. I somehow think your preconceived ideas tie into this somewhere as well.

Which brings us back to Walter Veith. How can he hope to help anyone understand these issues when their minds are already so firmly entrenched?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Whose mind is entrenched? I'd suggest you read EGW's description of 6th commandment, and read it putting aside your creed. It is very interesting.

APL,

First of all, Mrs. White told us many times to study the Bible itself, and that her writings were merely to help us understand the Bible better, not a replacement for the Bible. This topic is about the Bible.

It is unfortunate to have to define such a common-sense word as "kill," but you apparently do not understand it. What is "kill," APL?

To me, to the dictionary, and to society in general (though I wonder if it will be so with you), "kill" means to end the life of any living creature. Did God give us such a command? No. The Hebrew word mistranslated as "kill" in the commandments was not the same word used as "kill" in many other contexts. It is actually the word used for "slay," "manslaughter," "murder," etc. The translation the KJV holds for the sixth commandment is an anomaly compared to the word's translation in other places. It should have been translated as "murder."

You appealed to Mrs. White. Here you have some of her words on the subject, though she doesn't tell us about the Hebrew meaning--she addresses (as would probably irritate kland) the English side of the translation.



Obviously, "kill" in the commandment does not really mean "kill." If it did, one couldn't kill any animal, not even so-called "pests," without breaking the commandment. But Mrs. White tells us that not only does it NOT break the commandment to kill these pests, but that we MUST do so in order to "preserve ourselves and our possessions from harm."

Again, APL, the Bible version is not the real cause of trouble with you here. It is your bent to support preconceived opinions that causes you to misinterpret the Bible. Mrs. White had no problem redefining the word "kill" to mean we must sometimes kill and destroy. Mrs. White would applaud the translation "murder" in place of "kill," for it is more accurate.

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on the merits or validity of the translation from the original language. We have other threads on punishment--that's not what this discussion is about, ok?

Clearly, the KJV is inferior in this text to most modern translations which accurately have translated "murder." This is one place where updating the KJV is more than appropriate.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Unfortunately, the NKJV muddled and made more difficult to understand a number of passages. In many places, the translators, while ostensibly using the Majority Text as the KJV did, leaned toward the minority manuscripts. There are certain passages that are remarkable in this.

At one time, I spoke on the topic of Bible versions in my home church, and a lady who was a somewhat nominal Christian but who was making some new steps in the right direction, took from me that the NKJV, also being translated from the Majority Text, was a good and reliable translation. She began using it. I later heard from her that she had begun to question it, based on some unusual readings she had encountered in it. (I no longer remember what she ran across, only that it raised my own eyebrows too.)

It's too bad that we don't have a truer translation that is commonly available in present-day English. (I would say "modern," but that's a relative term, and most linguists would consider "modern" English to go back several hundred years.)

There are a few specific errors that I do not agree with in the NKJV. One of those has already garnered some attention in the forums here: Isaiah 14:12. The NKJV includes as a footnote the blasphemous translation that appears in the modern versions. Only a footnote--but strongly implies it's the truth. Then there are the simply inaccurate and unnecessary adjustments like in the first verse of the Bible....

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, KJV)

IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, NKJV)

The word "heaven" is singular in Hebrew. Why make it plural? The KJV and the NKJV differ only on that one letter "S" for that whole verse...and it's less accurate to add it. Why did they?

The NKJV uses some convoluted language at times, whereas the KJV is more readable. For example, the NKJV trades the KJV word "hell" for "Hades" at times. If "hell" is not correct, why not render it more correctly instead of more obscurely?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Me thinks green, you are doing exactly what EGW is saying when you stretch the word kill to include everything, which as she says, is not sound reasoning. I agree with her that the earth has been cursed by sin [not God!!!], and that it is SIN that has "created" the vermin. How does that happen green? "God has given no man the message, Kill not ant or flea or moth." What does the COMMANDMENTS deal with??? Our relationship to GOD and to MAN. Do you doubt that? Your attempt to extend my definition is all is only to discredit myself and the truth.

Green says, "If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on the merits or validity of the translation from the original language." That is what we are doing! The KJV translation needs no change on this point. And is it not interesting that it is one of the 10C that is in question? Walter Veith has talked about how the whole law will come under attack in the last days, not just the 4th commandment.

APL,

You might have more credibility if you were consistent. Are you a staunch KJV supporter now? It seems you have ordinarily fought for the legitimacy of the modern translations. Now, when a modern translation does not fit your pet ideas, you stick with the KJV--even though in this case the modern versions all have a better translation!

Even the NKJV, ostensibly translated from the same manuscripts the KJV came from, renders the verse "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NKJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But yet, next he says, well... I can't support it...well, well,....why do you hold me to my claims.

Oh, I understood your purpose to not be clear alright. You jump from one side to the other depending upon whether it serves your purpose.

1) is what I thought you were trying to support somehow by quibbling over English words. Guess not. Guess your list(s) comparison was a meaningless list.

What I understand you talking about 2), "the original wording", is that the KJV is the standard because..... well, you said so.


Yep.
Yep!
I think Green means his opinion is deeply entrenched in what he as determined as "the original language" (except when it isn't!?) and so don't bother him.



(English side does not irritate me. It's when people make things up and cannot or won't even attempt to support their claims)

I note she quotes the KJV, uses the word "kill", and no where there uses the word "murder". Seems to me she is explaining what it means and does not require it to be switched to another word.

So..., you are saying the KJV is THE standard, except when your opinion is different.


....Which is what I've been saying from the beginning that you've been saying... Absolutely nothing!






'nuf sed. Green yet again, gives proof, [fill in the blank]

kland,

Your conflation of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1 does not prove anything to me. Your attempt to use said conflation to call me names is both disingenuous and unChristlike.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

ROTFL - - WHO has switched the versions allegiance???? GREEN! Thanks green, made my evening.

APL,

If you think I've switched, you've misunderstood something somewhere. I have not. My allegiance has been and continues to be in the Majority Text. In English, the best translation from the Majority Text is the KJV, but I have never claimed it is a perfect and flawless translation. I have never claimed that the modern versions are always incorrect in their translations either. In fact, the devil gets a greater advantage by mixing truth with error--so they must have some truth in them, or no one would swallow the errors.

I have not changed. But you seem to have done so. I wonder why? If the NIV was good for telling us that all meats are clean, why is it suddenly bad in commanding against murder?

Is murder acceptable in your sight? Honestly, I cannot understand your resistance to this point of truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You do switch when you do not like the interpretation the KJV puts on a verse. You are not a good observer of what I have written. The NIV is not a favorite of mine. But it is for a number of people I interact with. If I were to tell them, your Bible in inferior, that would be a turn off. Work with what you have. Perhaps you have forgotten my question to you about the the JW and their NWT and the divinity of Christ. One sometimes has to work with what they have. I doubt you recall the version that I read and mark up most. Sigh.

You ask, "Is murder acceptable in your sight?". It is this kind of question which is easy to cast doubt onto a person. In reality, I see you as accepting certain kinds of murder as being OK, for my understanding of the term from the Bible and EGW is much more strict than yours such that you don't like how strict it is.

Green said:



Correct.

I'm glad you recognize this truth. Some in this forum do not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Arrrgh - - I've been waiting for someone to point out Matthew 19:18 in the KJV, but nope, not happen'n. Green focuses on English words. Let me quote it. Matthew 19:18 He said to him, Which? Jesus said, You shall do no murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,... Of course this is translated kill in the other Gospels (Gospel - -> GOOD NEWS). The same Greek word is also translated kill and slew in the KJV NT. The big question is what does the commandment actually mean? Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:21-22 The Sermon on the Mount: Anger Toward Others
“You have heard that it was said to the people of old, [Literally “ancients”] ‘Do not commit murder,’ [A quotation from Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17] and ‘whoever commits murder will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’ [Greek “Raca,” a term of verbal abuse involving lack of intelligence] will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’ [Perhaps with the idea of obstinate, godless foolishness; some take the word to be a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for “rebel” ( Deut 21:18, 20)] will be subject to fiery hell.

Green said:



First, I do not consider any person, to include both you and I to have absolute truth. All humans, due to their humanity may be the source of some error.

I call it like I see it. You were correct in what you said, so I acknowledged it.

Can you honestly tell me that you are not "focusing on English words" in the above? Yet you seem to ridicule others who address biblical passages in this manner, focusing on the English words.

Why is the English word important to you, APL? (After you answer this, perhaps you'll better understand why it might be important to other speakers of English.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

G: IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, NKJV)
G: The word "heaven" is singular in Hebrew. Why make it plural? The KJV and the NKJV differ only on that one letter "S" for that whole verse...and it's less accurate to add it. Why did they?

k: (KJV!) Ge 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

G: Your conflation of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1 does not prove anything to me.




One day, as I was walking along, I came across and surprised some raccoons. They made a bee-line towards the woods. I calculated a trajectory course to cross their path before the woods. It was not my purpose to get bit, but merely to get them to stop and reconsider whether it was wise for them to pursue their direction of travel. It works with domestic cows. When my confrontation crossed the raccoon's course, they snarled and snapped at me. I yielded and let them continue on their course. Wild animals become very irrational and hostile when confronted with the errors of their course.

The above is incorrect. Check your Young's Analytical Concordance, if you wish to check on what I say.

The Hebrew word transliterated into the English alphabet is: shamayim.

That word has been translated a large number of times in the singular form.

That same word has also been translated a large number of times in the plural form.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa,

Green, I am uncertain as to whether you agree with me or disagree with me.

In any case, I stated that the Hebrew word in question has been translated both in the singular and in the plural and many times for each. You supported my statement.

My disagreement was with Kland who made the following statement:



That statement is false. The Hebrew word in question, as you (Green) agree with me on, has been translated both in the singular and in the plural.

Actually the "G:" in front signified that it was Green who made that statement. So you are coming face to face with yet another instance of where Green contradicts himself.