I did not have the option aviable to turn on HTML, maybe that is reserved for members with higher participation levels?

The one serious change in my opinion is the first revelation passage. Most of the examples have to do with obsolete measurement units, where the reader gets more understanding out of the text when he or she knows what the text says than they would do when reading a "correct" number attached to a unit that could aswell be written in chinese.

Your two first examples are inconsequent. In your first comment on the King fasting you notice that to fast is to deliberately abstain from food. But in the comment on Jesus hungry audience you complain that the translators did not use the word "fast" to describe an involontary abstination from food. So which is it? Is fasting about volontarily abstaining from food or is fasting abstination from food wether volontary or not?

Then your comment gets thorrougly absurd:
"And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. (Mark 8:3, KJV)"
If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.” (Mark 8:3, NIV)
Again, being "hungry" versus "fasting" are two different things. One is a voluntary act, associated with worship, while the other is involuntary. "

Why is this absurd? Because if the volontary act associated with worship is intended, why does Jesus act to make sure they do not walk home fasting by performing a food miracle? Does Jesus here want to prevent the crowd from worshiping through fasting by offering them the temptation of loads upon loads of food? Here the NIV translators clearly thought things through more than you did Greenie.

With the Cornelius example you get the "what" right but the "why" wrong. The issue in this example is not wether he prayed as the KJV also states this.

In acts 27, NIV does avoid "fast", but per your previous insistance that fasting is a volontary abstinence of food associated with worship, they would be correct in doing so. If you are a crewman on a boat that is enduring a two week long storm at the high seas, if you are not eating for that entire period it is not for a volontary choise. You would rather need all your strenght to do your job under such pressing conditions.

In first corintians 7 you acctually found an example that illustrates what you are trying to show.

The last examples may and may not be relevant...

I would just add that according to the Strongs information on the word used in the last examples, the meaning is either a religious fast or a fast caused by lack or want of food. Thus, the Strongs concordance does gainsay your distinction that much of your argument hinges upon.

The scoffers would have less room to move if someone had not given them the thought that it is possible for a book that has been copied for hand for thousands of years to be "perfect". When you put it like that you give the impression that there must not be even any scribal errors within the corpus of TR manuscripts.

You brought up an interesting question in my mind.

Is there such a thing as a perfect Bible?

I know there is a one and only perfect God, but is there a perfect Bible?

In my view, much of Greenies points require belief in text inspiration to be relevant. I thought we as adventists held the view that the author is inspired, not the text itself. Otherwise it would be quite unreasonable to point at sentences saying "we traveled so and so far" and complain that the unit of measure was updated..

It is also my understanding that the Bible words were thought inspired and not dictated word for word to the original Bible writers, however, we need to be careful of translations that results in an unbiblically based doctrine, as in the example of a misplaced comma in relation to the one about the thief on the cross and Paradise.

i wouldnt think there could ever be a perfect translation. i do understand some of green cochoas points but others dont seem that important. in fact they even make the niv look more attractive than the kjv, and im not an niv fan.

all translations have serious errors. being able to point them out and prove why they are errors seems more important than trying to prove which bible might be better.

On the sabbath examples:

If you look at the hebrew texts as found at the blueletter bible, there is no "the" in the examples you cite. Though I confess I am not knowledgeable enough to say wether there are gramatical reasons there should be a "the" in translation or not.

For leviticus 23:39 where you point out that NIV translates the word rest while KJV translates it sabbath. I would point out that the word form occurs 11 times in the bible, and KJV translates it rest 8 times. Thus it seems clear that it is not at all unreasonable to do as NIV did. The word also occurs in 23:24, thus you found all three examples of KJV translating it "sabbath" rather than rest.

Regarding Isaiah 58:13, I would never have guessed that "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, " meant "not trample upon the Sabbath, meaning disrespect the Sabbath". In my mind it makes much more sence to put together the two halves of the sentence as NIV does making the text mean "dont walk around doing your own buisness".

Regarding your comments on Lammentations, I think you are just ignoring the broader context there. There is no reason why your interpretation would be more likely in the context of the entire poem.

In the first Luke example, the story tells of a possessed man. Did this encounter happen on a sabbath or during several continuous sabbaths?

In your secomd Luke example, there indeed is a difference between "a sabbath" and "the sabbath". Namely this, a sabbath is one unspecified sabbath, just one out of the 150 or more sabbaths of Jesus public ministry, while the sabbath is one specific sabbath. But since the text says nothing more on which of the many possible sabbaths it might have been...

In the death examples, I fail to see the difference in meaning between the first set of examples. The versions are saying the same thing as far as I can understand it. "For in death" seems to me to mean "for the dead". If it as you suggest mean that death has no memory, Id go with the NIV rather than suggest that death itself could possibly have a conciousness of any kind.

For psalm 115, the answer to your question is found in the following verse which says: Psa 115:18
KJV But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the LORD.
NIV it is we who extol the Lord, both now and forevermore. Praise the Lord.

Generally, I think most of your examples here are more illustrations on the "sin" of prooftexting than anything else. Context equals out most of your examples. Then there are a few where your argument seems to be "I made up my mind about this and therefore anything that does not support it must be wrong".

Vaster,

I will fully agree that many of the examples I bring up are trivial. The problem is not so much that there is only a small difference between the texts in the various places, it is the vast numbers of such differences, with some of them being rather significant of themselves, while others only become significant when taken as a group with other like texts.

However, I haven't pulled out the big guns yet. There are a few MAJOR issues coming up.

Thanks for your participation!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.