The "correct" Bible version controversy

[mikeyswen79]

I've noticed that there is a sizeable amount of people who feel convicted to use nothing but the KJV version of the Bible. As with any issue, this issue varies from church to church. I was wondering what everyone here has to say regarding this issue?

[John317]

I've noticed that there is a sizeable amount of people who feel convicted to use nothing but the KJV version of the Bible. As with any issue, this issue varies from church to church. I was wondering what everyone here has to say regarding this issue?

I love the KJV but I also use about 65 other translations of the NT and about 40 of the OT. The KJV is still my favorite, though. I study the NT out of the original Greek as well, so I'm not dependent on any translation. I believe the truth of the Bible is found in all competent translations, even though I'm aware of all the differences between them.

If I had to choose one single translation to have on a desert island, it would be the KJV because I have been reading it since second grade.

I read a lot about the "KJV only" debate, and have many books on both side of that issue.

My heart is with the KJV because of its superior beauty, but I also realize that God's word is also in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TINV, NKJV, KJV II, NASB, CSV, NAB, YLT, Rotherham's Emphasized, and many others.

The bottom line is that there is no perfect translation and that God's word is found in virtually all of ancient manuscripts, not only in the printed texts.

[Woody]

Different strokes for different folks.

[aldona]

I am very wary when I hear people undermine other people's confidence in the Word of God by insinuating that certain translations of the Bible cannot be trusted, or other words to that effect.

I am also wary when I come upon doctrines that can only be upheld by using a specific version of the Bible.

Sometimes I think that we Christians don't need atheists to undermine our confidence in the Bible or make us doubt that what it says is reliable - there are plenty of fellow Christians who love to spend their time running around doing just that.

Muslims would NEVER make such disrespectful remarks about the Qu'ran as I have heard some of the KJV-only brigade make about their less-than-favorite versions of the Bible.

aldona

[John317]

Muslims would NEVER make such disrespectful remarks about the Qu'ran as I have heard some of the KJV-only brigade make about their less-than-favorite versions of the Bible.

I agree with most of your post, but something needs to said about Muslims. Muslims do not even believe that the Qur'an can be correctly translated. They don't really trust anything except the original Arabic for the simple reason that the Koran was dictated by Allah. From the Muslim viewpoint, then, the only way to really hear and understand Allah's words is to read or hear them in Arabic.

On the other hand, it is true that a Muslim would never show disrespect for a translation of the Qur'an. But they would tell you that your translation may not be completely accurate. The difference is that whereas some Christians might tell you that a translation of the Bible is of Satan, a Muslim would NEVER tell you the same thing about the Koran.

[John317]

I am very wary when I hear people undermine other people's confidence in the Word of God by insinuating that certain translations of the Bible cannot be trusted, or other words to that effect.

I am also wary when I come upon doctrines that can only be upheld by using a specific version of the Bible.

Sometimes I think that we Christians don't need atheists to undermine our confidence in the Bible or make us doubt that what it says is reliable - there are plenty of fellow Christians who love to spend their time running around doing just that.

You write a lot of good things here.

All competently translated Bibles can be trusted to tell the essential story of God's love and of Christ's life, death, and resurrection.

I would encourage you to read a different translation all the way through once a year at least.

[Gerr]

I've noticed that there is a sizeable amount of people who feel convicted to use nothing but the KJV version of the Bible. As with any issue, this issue varies from church to church. I was wondering what everyone here has to say regarding this issue?

One word: IGNORANCE!!!

[Gail]

I am very wary when I hear people undermine other people's confidence in the Word of God by insinuating that certain translations of the Bible cannot be trusted, or other words to that effect.

I am also wary when I come upon doctrines that can only be upheld by using a specific version of the Bible.

Sometimes I think that we Christians don't need atheists to undermine our confidence in the Bible or make us doubt that what it says is reliable - there are plenty of fellow Christians who love to spend their time running around doing just that.

Muslims would NEVER make such disrespectful remarks about the Qu'ran as I have heard some of the KJV-only brigade make about their less-than-favorite versions of the Bible.

aldona

Amen to that! I've said that the Bible version that's actually READ is the good one! :)

[phkrause]

We've read the Bible through a few times, each time with a different version. Also talking about the so called "correct version", I guess we'd have to read it in Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT! Because all the other translation have mistakes as John mentioned.

pk

[TreeOfLife]

We've read the Bible through a few times, each time with a different version. Also talking about the so called "correct version", I guess we'd have to read it in Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT! Because all the other translation have mistakes as John mentioned.

pk

Re the language(s) of the original New Testament writings

My experience is that when God’s People are seeking for more light and the current translations or the currently available MSS are insufficient, God will and does provide what’s needed. I believe and perceive the relatively recent awareness that Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew is a transcript of an Hebrew original writing of the Gospel of Matthew (as opposed to a Greek to Hebrew translation) is a pertinent example of that.

I suspect that the Aramaic Peshitta NT writings may well be, to a large extent, the ancient original translation of the original Hebrew writings of at least Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Revelation?

Likewise, I suspect that the available Greek MSS of said NT books are largely translations based upon an Aramaic translation from the Hebrew original?

I’d be most interested in knowing the results of serious research into the origins of the Peshitta with a view to answering questions such as the above.

. . . . .

Lastly, I believe that, without a reference to the recent discussion re the original language of the New Testament writings, this thread/topic would be missing something of value relative to its name and its focus. A good place to begin reading that recent discussion would be John317’s post at this link…

Shabbat Shalom / Happy Sabbath,

Tree of Life©

[mikeyswen79]

Haha I didn't even consider the original languages. Shame on me! I just can't imagine what is going through people's minds when they come to the conclusion that only the KJV can be trusted. I assume one who holds this view might be thinking that the current translations have been tainted by the biases of the scholars who created the translation but that would probably only be true to a certain extent, especially for paraphrastic translations.

TreeOfLife, I wholeheartedly agree that God reveals truths that can't easily be discerned with our current Scripture references. The Holy Spirit's assistance is essential to discerning any Biblical truth in God's order. :)

[oldsailor29]

If I want to compare versions in search of accuracy, I generally depend on the New Revised Standard Version. However, there are a few texts which are only correct in the Septuagint version. As SDAs it is important to correctly date the temple decree, which calls for the correct version of Ezra.

On another level, the only texts which are really important are the teachings and sayings of Jesus, printed in red letters in many NTs. Whether we have correct versions of anything else is basically irrelevant.

[TreeOfLife]

Re the Holy Spirit’s assistance…

Dear MikeySwen79,

TreeOfLife, I wholeheartedly agree that God reveals truths that can't easily be discerned with our current Scripture references. The Holy Spirit's assistance is essential to discerning any Biblical truth in God's order.

Yes, the assistance of the Holy Spirit is indeed very necessary in order to be able to discern the truth of the reality behind the words as written. The words of a firsthand witness are a direct reflection of that reality. In contradistinction, anyone carrying those same words onwards while dressing said words in his own words, such as every translator must necessarily do, is necessarily filtering the original record while superimposing also his own experiences upon the said record as he is perceiving it.

Thus the nature of gossip and the distortions of original truths as originally faithfully and carefully recorded – even under the best of circumstances and intent…

Thanks for your feedback and may the peace of God rest over you and yours,

Tree of Life©

[TreeOfLife]

Re the value of the Septuagint

However, there are a few texts which are only correct in the Septuagint version.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: mikeyswen79

I've noticed that there is a sizeable amount of people who feel convicted to use nothing but the KJV version of the Bible. As with any issue, this issue varies from church to church. I was wondering what everyone here has to say regarding this issue?

One word: IGNORANCE!!!

You might be interested in what Ellen White said about the Bible and in her response to various translations.

The following is from an article Arthur White wrote:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed."—EW 220, 221 (1SG 116, 117).

On Mrs. White's attitude toward the English revision of the 1880's, her son, W. C. White, reports:

"Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother's attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us."—W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

It is significant that almost immediately after the appearance of the English Revised Version, Mrs. White made use of it in her books, as she did also of the American Standard Revision when it became available in 1901. It is also significant that four major statements from Mrs. White's pen concerning the Bible and the Bible writers were penned during this decade of the appearance of the revised versions of the New and Old Testaments.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

One word: IGNORANCE!!!

[/quote']

You might be interested in what Ellen White said about the Bible and in her response to various translations.

The following is from an article Arthur White wrote:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed."—EW 220, 221 (1SG 116, 117).

On Mrs. White's attitude toward the English revision of the 1880's, her son, W. C. White, reports:

"Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother's attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us."—W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

It is significant that almost immediately after the appearance of the English Revised Version, Mrs. White made use of it in her books, as she did also of the American Standard Revision when it became available in 1901. It is also significant that four major statements from Mrs. White's pen concerning the Bible and the Bible writers were penned during this decade of the appearance of the revised versions of the New and Old Testaments.

Of course Ellen White knew the true nature of divine inspiration and how it worked. She was not taken in by the fundamentalist belief that scripture came from God's mouth to the prophet's ear. She was aware that all versions contained errors. She knew that there were translation errors, and errors in the original manuscripts. As it comes from the mind of the prophet, the "word of God" is not inerrant. We need to keep this in mind as we study.

[John317]

Of course Ellen White knew the true nature of divine inspiration and how it worked. She was not taken in by the fundamentalist belief that scripture came from God's mouth to the prophet's ear. She was aware that all versions contained errors. She knew that there were translation errors, and errors in the original manuscripts. As it comes from the mind of the prophet, the "word of God" is not inerrant. We need to keep this in mind as we study.

Yet she stated that the Scriptures are infallible:

Quote:

In His Word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience. The Faith I Live By (1958), page 13, paragraph 2

So also says our official doctrine:

Quote:

1. Holy Scriptures:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

In what way are they infallible? Do you read them that way?

[oldsailor29]

Re the value of the Septuagint

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

Of course Ellen White knew the true nature of divine inspiration and how it worked. She was not taken in by the fundamentalist belief that scripture came from God's mouth to the prophet's ear. She was aware that all versions contained errors. She knew that there were translation errors, and errors in the original manuscripts. As it comes from the mind of the prophet, the "word of God" is not inerrant. We need to keep this in mind as we study.

Yet she stated that the Scriptures are infallible:

Quote:

In His Word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience. The Faith I Live By (1958), page 13, paragraph 2

So also says our official doctrine:

Quote:

1. Holy Scriptures:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

In what way are they infallible? Do you read them that way?

Infallible - not able to fail, or is it not liable to fail? In any case it does not mean inerrant. Through prayerful study, the scriptures can reveal God's will. But the Pharisees prayed and studied, and they had it wrong. We may pray and study just like they did, and we may have it wrong too. After years and years of prayerful OT study, including proof text method, scientific method, historical critical method, and just reading it, I came to the realization that this is the wrong road. This is the road of chapter xxx in "Life Sketches." This is the road which must be abandoned. I have learned that the right road is described in chapter vii of "Life Sketches." This is the straight and narrow road on which we began, illuminated from behind by the midnight cry, and illuminated ahead by the "Light of the World," Jesus Himself. Where we went wrong was turning and looking elsewhere for light. I have learned through many years of living and study, that the quotations of Jesus are the most dependable scriptures.

Moses gave our fathers manna, which was from God. They ate the manna and are dead. Jesus offers us living bread and living water. When we partake of His living bread, He promises we will live forever. This is just one sample of the many gems of truth I have discovered by reading the quotations of Jesus. Jesus teaches us about many things. And there are some things about which He is silent. But I think He teaches everything which is vital and important. Just remember, He was God in the flesh, walking in the holy land, talking to the people, healing sick, raising dead, and teaching truths of infinite nature. He is God, so

Have faith in God

Surrendering all pride

Have faith in God

Turning not aside

Have faith in God

And in His love abide

Have faith, dear friend, in God.

[TreeOfLife]

Re the Elephantine Papyri &c. vs. the Temple Decree of What King…

The date of the temple decree is important to SDAs.

[oldsailor29]

As I said previously, it doesn't much matter how we get to the 457 BCE date, which will bring us to the 1844 date, but it is important in SDA understanding of time prophecies that we do get there. In the grand scheme of things however, 1844 is of little importance, except as a guidepost and another point of awakening to present truth. The midnight cry lights the path behind us. As we move forward in present truth, our direction is toward the Holy City, and the only guide in that direction is our creator God who stands outside of time and space, creating time and space and all that does exist, and who came and walked among the people of the earth as the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. He is the only guide who can lead us to the Holy City, and it doesn't matter what language we use to say His name. He has no beginning and no end, and it is He alone who we must follow.

[Kevin H]

In the days of Jesus there were three textual families: The Palistanian text, best known are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus used versions of this family of Bibles. The Egyptain text, best known version is the Septutuant, but other versions, which apperently a different version (or versions) of this family was the Bible(s) of Paul. And the Babylonian text from which eventually developed the Masseretic text which is our Bibles.

The three families are nearly word for word in the minor prophets, Issiah, Jeremiah and I think Ezekiel. (although there are some. We now know that Jesus' sermon on the mount was a sermon on a passage of Isaiah from the Palistainian text that we would not recognize in our Masseretic text). Out side of those books the agreement is not that close, but no major theological differences. As to adding up the ages to figure out the age of the earth, the Palestain text would have the world have just turned 7,000 years old about the time Jesus was born (and this was used by a Rabbi who compaied the days of creation to the thousands of years of the age of the earth saying that the 7000 year would be the messanic time which we used trying to make Jesus come when the world is 7,000 years olf). The Messeritic text has the world about 4,000 years old in Jesus' day and about 6,000 in our day, and the Egyptian text has it being one to four thousand years older than the Masseritic text. (Thus making the word 7,000 to 10,000 now)

Yet these texts are ALL the Bible.

[Kevin H]

One criticism about todays translations is how some are so upset over how the Roman Centurian in Mark calls Jesus "A son of the gods" instead of "The Son of God." and they are accusing the translators of wanting to make Jesus less than the Son of God.

However, if we go back in history, the term "The Son of God" was a title for the Davidic king. Soloman was "The Son of God" Ahaziah, Ahaz, Heziakiah, and Manasseh was "The Son of God" In Jesus day the term would have been a local political term over who someone believed should be sitting on David's throne. It had nothing to do with divinity. It is only after Jesus and the realization that Jesus was God that the term "Son of God" meant what we mean today.

The term "a son of the gods" was what pagans used to discribe a divine being.

A theam of Mark (which was violently dissagreed by Luke) was that no one knew who Jesus really was. That people who should have known who he was did not recognize him. Finally when he died someone realized who Jesus was and it was a guy so far away from the truth that he would phrase it in words that would horrify a good monothiestic Jew.

So would a Roman centuran say "Yes, Jesus should have been the king of Judah" or would he have used the best in his language to recognize that Jesus was indeed divine, was indeed God.

(Now this drove Luke up the wall, and Luke has Jesus known from before his birth, kept running into people and demons who knew who he was, and the centuran was clueless saying that he was only a good man.}

Now speaking of Bible versions, here we have two very contradictory views on the life of Jesus. Was Jesus unknown by all but this heathen Roman centuran, or was Jesus known by many but only seen as a good man by this heathen Roman centuran?

We cannot choose. Both are THE authorative Bible. Have you noticed that those who like a correct version of the Bible tend to be powerhungry and like to use the Bible proof texts to force their views on on others. God likes to put in conflects like this theam on who recognized Jesus in Mark and Luke to keep us humble.

[oldsailor29]

I didn't know we were talking about the age of the earth. I don't think it can be determined by either version, because in the toledot we have no way of knowing how many names were left out of the list of generations.

[John317]

I know what you are saying and I can see why you say it, but I don't believe the Holy Spirit inspired two writers to say opposite things and to contradict each other. By that reasoning, we might conclude-- and some have-- that the Bible is full of contradictions, such as on death, the Second Coming, the gospel, etc. There are even some who are saying that God allowed the devil to be represented in about 1/4 of the New Testament books by a man named Paul.

It seems to me that when we see what appears to be "contradictions," they are only apparent contradictions but not genuine ones. A good example of this is the contradiction that many people see between Paul and James.

All of the Gospel writers have a different perspective of Jesus. They each give a different emphasis because they are for different audiences. So it is only reasonable that they give a somewhat different view of Jesus.

Mark 1: 1, 3, 8, 11, 15, 24, 34; 2: 28 show that within the first two chapters of Mark, we have a very good idea of the true identity of Jesus--

1) He is "Christ," the anointed, the Messiah. (cf. Mark 12: 35ff)

2) He is God's Son. (cf. Mark 14: 61, 62)

3) He is the one about whom the prophets speak when they predicted that there would be a messenger sent to "prepare the way of the Lord [and] make His paths straight."

4) He is the one who is spoken of in Isaiah 44: 3, who would baptize with the Spirit of God.

5) God called Him "my beloved Son" and testified that He was well pleased with Him.

6) He ushers in the Kingdom of God.

7) The demons knew who He was: "the Holy One of God." (See Ps. 16: 10)

8) He was someone who had power over demonic forces and even over illnesses and the forces of nature. (Compare Mark 6: 45ff; Is. 49: 8; Luke 4: 18, 19)

9) He is the Lord, or master, of the Sabbath.

10) He is "the Son of man." (Compare Daniel 7: 13; Mark 14: 61, 62)