The "correct" Bible version controversy

[Kevin H]

The contradictions are not of major theological issues, but they have meanings. All of them show us different aspects of God like the angles on a diamond. Some of the other things is that they show us what is important to God and where God can live with us dissagreeing and defending our arguments.

For who Jesus is it does not matter if we agree with Luke or Mark's details, they both agree that Jesus is God, that Jesus is the Messiah. Where they squabble over is whether no one recognized him except for this pagan with his horible potty mouth, or if Jesus was indeed known by people and that while the centuran was on the right track did not quite catch it.

Now Marks view is teaching the truth that while we might have the advantages that someone with out any advantage might be about to recognize truth when he sees it, and Luke is teaching the truth that the Holy Spirit impresses on people in a very loud and clear way as to who Jesus is.

They dissagree over the details, and we have an inspiried record on how we can dissagree over theological details and Jesus still loves us. We would be so much poorer if we were to side only with either Luke or Mark instead of enjoying both books dispite the dissagreement, and thus how we can learn to agree to dissagree without becoming dissagrable.

Don't be too quick to dismiss contradictions in the Bible. There are not as many as the critics would like, but the ones that are truely there are there for a reason.

We approach too much with a win-loose situation, I'm right and your'e wrong. The Holy Spirit says here that maybe it does not matter who is right or wrong, just present and be fair to the evidence and look to Jesus and you are responsible to know who he is.

[oldsailor29]

We have covered a lot of ground here. Something was said about the timing of the 2300 day prophecy, and somebody jumped to the age of the earth, and then it seems that John thinks I was talking about contradictions when I brought up the different lists of generations. I wasn't talking about contradictions. It was customary for important people of ancient times to trace their lineage back to other important people by listing a certain number of ancestors, sometimes 7, sometimes 10, and sometimes maybe 12. They would list the ones they thought were important, leaving many others out, skipping a generation or two. Bible scholars have counted the generations as if none were skipped, and that is why they have theorized different ages of the earth. There is no real contradiction there. Nobody knows the age of the earth, especially not the Irish Bishop Ussher.

Getting back to the topic of the 2300 day prophecy, the fall of 1844 saw the beginning of the end. "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." An investigative judgment was begun. I have no doubt this is true. There are investigative judgments all through the Bible. I think this is part of the midnight cry which should not be denied, but that which lights our path from behind.

And from the New Testament, I think we can safely trust the quotations of Jesus. I find myself coming back to this more and more often, what did Jesus say?

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

Also, the Septuagint is the older version, translated from the more reliable Palestinian text. The Masoretic is much newer, translated from the Babylonian text, which was largely reproduced from the memory of the Hebrew priests in Babylonian exile captivity.

Quote:

from TreeOfLife

As I understand it, your above statement reflects the common thinking and the attitude of “the higher critics,” whereas a thorough study of each of those texts supposedly shows that the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch are both derived from the original Masoretic text. Please correct me if I am in error on that point.

Quote:

from wikipedia

The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries AD. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early second century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BC) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is often quoted in the Christian New Testament.

[oldsailor29]

The contradictions are not of major theological issues, but they have meanings. All of them show us different aspects of God like the angles on a diamond. Some of the other things is that they show us what is important to God and where God can live with us dissagreeing and defending our arguments.

For who Jesus is it does not matter if we agree with Luke or Mark's details, they both agree that Jesus is God, that Jesus is the Messiah. Where they squabble over is whether no one recognized him except for this pagan with his horible potty mouth, or if Jesus was indeed known by people and that while the centuran was on the right track did not quite catch it.

Now Marks view is teaching the truth that while we might have the advantages that someone with out any advantage might be about to recognize truth when he sees it, and Luke is teaching the truth that the Holy Spirit impresses on people in a very loud and clear way as to who Jesus is.

They dissagree over the details, and we have an inspiried record on how we can dissagree over theological details and Jesus still loves us. We would be so much poorer if we were to side only with either Luke or Mark instead of enjoying both books dispite the dissagreement, and thus how we can learn to agree to dissagree without becoming dissagrable.

Don't be too quick to dismiss contradictions in the Bible. There are not as many as the critics would like, but the ones that are truely there are there for a reason.

We approach too much with a win-loose situation, I'm right and your'e wrong. The Holy Spirit says here that maybe it does not matter who is right or wrong, just present and be fair to the evidence and look to Jesus and you are responsible to know who he is.

One good explanation of many contradictions is that they were written by different people, and edited together into one narrative by another person or group of people. Moses was a Yahwist, and might have written some of the scriptures up until he died. If I correctly recall, correct me if I'm wrong, Isaiah was an Elohist who wrote, or whose students wrote, the Elohist scriptures found edited together with the Yahwist scriptures by either the Priests or the Deuteronomists. The Priests I mentioned were likely those of the Davidic kingdom. Jeremiah was likely the chief Deuteronomist. I believe he and his students were the later Bible editors through second Chronicles.

The differences found, which some people call contradictions, are thus easily explainable, and fit very nicely with the disagreements between the Northern tribes and Judah. In our era, these differences mean very little. I mean it doesn't really matter if God created Man first or later in the creation week. He created. And it doesn't really matter which flood story is correct. There was a flood. And it doesn't really matter where or when Jacob's name was changed to Israel. It was changed.

These studies are interesting, but they can distract a person from Jesus. I think we should be very careful that we continue to follow Jesus alone, for He said, "No one enters heaven but by me."

[TreeOfLife]

…

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.

[John317]

[John317]

At one time I used to believe that the Scriptures suffered from errors and weaknesses due to the fact that human beings were instrumental in writing the Word of God.

Then a neighbor who became a very good friend gave me a book to read entitled Roots of the Bible by Friedrich Weinreb, a Dutch mathematician, author of some 50 books, and from a Jewish family. After reading and reflecting extensively over his book I realized that the original Hebrew original text of the Holy Scriptures contains a huge amount of information over and above what any translation can possibly ever give justice to or reflect. Among other things I also realized that the original Word of God is an amazing text which is literally exact with mathematical precision in a way that can never be reflected by any translation. I learned a lot of amazing information brought out from the Hebrew Scriptures that I’d never before had an inkling ever existed in the Holy Scriptures in spite of having read it through from cover to cover a number of times. As a consequence, my confidence in the precision and exactness of the Holy Scriptures grew by leaps and bounds. A secondary consequence that came to pass within a few months of reading said book was that all of a sudden my reasons for distrusting the writings of Ellen G. White disintegrated… but that’s another story…

I have absolute confidence that the physical universe is what it is and that it is perfectly one with itself. An event that happens or that happened in the past took place exactly the way it took place and in no other way. Every event may be viewed from any number of aspects and from various points of view, yet every event was what it was regardless of from how many differing points of view it was being observed.

When I perceive an apparent contradiction between two real events I am absolutely convinced that the error is outside of reality itself and that it is due either to my own false presumptions or errors of perception or else to some other intermediary between myself and the real thing. This absolute conviction has helped me many times in my research when I’ve been tempted to give up due to apparent impossibilities. The same is true when I’ve stood before an apparent contradiction between a real event and the original words in the Holy Scriptures or even between two different passages from the Bible. Eventually, praise the Lord, most of the times I’ve been blessed with eventually finding the harmonious solution to that which at first seemed like an impossible contradiction. As a consequence of these experiences my faith and my confidence in the Word of God and in the guidance of the Holy Spirit has grown step by step.

Realizing that even the best of translators is hampered by any number of limitations making it impossible for him or her to perfectly reflect the original text is very helpful indeed. Getting as close as possible to the original writing is in every instance most important. Yet, I’ve found that even the mostly tertiary Greek translation, i.e. the Textus Receptus, is amazingly reliable and need not much be questioned, especially when studied with the understanding that it is indeed a translation from an original Hebrew script.

Thank you John 3:17, for your very poignant and valuable posts re the reliability of the Holy Scriptures, and also for sharing those very valuable quotes from Ellen G. White re the same!

Shalom,

Tree of Life©

Thank you for the post!! I enjoyed reading it very much. I do not know Hebrew but I've studied enough of the languages to know what you are talking about when you say that "the Holy Scriptures contains a huge amount of information over and above what any translation can possibly ever give justice to or reflect. Among other things I also realized that the original Word of God is an amazing text which is literally exact with mathematical precision in a way that can never be reflected by any translation." Those lines really rang a bell with me. What you say is SO true. Thanks again.

[Jeannieb43]

Dr. Graham Maxwell used to say "All translations of the Bible are in fact interpretations."

I believe in reading all versions of the Scriptures in order to get the best understanding of the meaning.

[oldsailor29]

All Bible versions contain errors. The one with the fewest is the New Revised Standard Version. However, I prefer to use the King James Version, mostly because of "Strong's Concordance."

[Gail]

How far does one have to do in examining before one loses the "it" of the Bible? By "it" I mean its life-changing power and beauty and hope endowing attributes?

[Gerr]

All Bible versions contain errors. The one with the fewest is the New Revised Standard Version. However, I prefer to use the King James Version, mostly because of "Strong's Concordance."

I have found the ESV to be very good. I have chosen it as my primary Bible now because it has a Heb & Gk interlinear which also has Strong's numbers. The NRSV has a NT interlinear but the last time I checked none for the OT as yet.

[LifeHiscost]

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.

Perhaps it would be good to recognize our Father's capacity to pass on to all those who depend on Him, the same principles in each succeeding generation that He was able to give to the preceding generations, no matter how dark the night.

"[My purpose is] that you may know the full truth and understand with certainty and security against error the accounts (histories) and doctrines of the faith of which you have been informed and in which you have been orally instructed. Luke 1:4 AMP

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17 KJV

And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.Luke 16:8 KJV

While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus... John 12:36 KJV

Blessings!

[John317]

Dr. Graham Maxwell used to say "All translations of the Bible are in fact interpretations."

I believe in reading all versions of the Scriptures in order to get the best understanding of the meaning.

What Maxwell says is correct, but I know that he would agree with me when I say that not all translations are equally correct or valid. Some are better than others at representing the original languages. I do like you are doing and read as many translations as I can.

(G. Maxwell is a great user of the RSV, the Good News Bible, and J. B. Phillips' NT in Modern English, among others.)

I wouldn't recommend it to everyone but I have found that even the JWs NWT has some good parts, such as the first Psalm. Other parts are absolutely awful, such as John 1:1 and Col. 1: 15-17. Also Ps. 23 which speaks of "greasing my head." Yikes!

[LifeHiscost]

Yet she stated that the Scriptures are infallible:

The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will.(1958), page 13, paragraph 2

[John317]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

All Bible versions contain errors. The one with the fewest is the New Revised Standard Version. However, I prefer to use the King James Version, mostly because of "Strong's Concordance."

I have found the ESV to be very good. I have chosen it as my primary Bible now because it has a Heb & Gk interlinear which also has Strong's numbers. The NRSV has a NT interlinear but the last time I checked none for the OT as yet.

The underlying Greek Text for the ESV is the Critical Text-- USB 4th edition-- as opposed to the Majority Text (NKJV) or the Received Text (KJV). I use all three printed texts but for some people these differences (or at least as they perceive them) are a major problem.

[LifeHiscost]

Thank you for the post!! I enjoyed reading it very much. I do not know Hebrew but I've studied enough of the languages to know what you are talking about when you say that "the Holy Scriptures contains a huge amount of information over and above what any translation can possibly ever give justice to or reflect. Among other things I also realized that the original Word of God is an amazing text which is literally exact with mathematical precision in a way that can never be reflected by any translation." Those lines really rang a bell with me. What you say is SO true. Thanks again.

The information from TreeOfLife, about the extent of the original writings does not surprise me in the least. We humans have this habit of putting God in a box, and when someone brings along a bigger box that they are sure is needed to give God enough room, we cannot resist the temptation to build a bigger box yet lest God find it too comfortable to rest in someone else's box.

I'm wondering how soon God's people will just admit to the infinitude of the Majesty of God Almighty, and humbly add their little tidbit of information as but a speck to hopefully allow the most simple little child a measure of encouragement toward their knowledge of Jesus love for them.

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt 11:25-30 NIV

"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. "John 21:25 NKJV

Blessings!

[John317]

So also says our official doctrine:

Quote:

The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.(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?

Yes, as I study the Protestant Bible, I believe the whole Bible to be the infallible revelation of God's will to me personally. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through its pages.

This verse, 2 Tim. 3: 15-17, states it well--

Quote:

15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

NOTE: If we study the Holy Scriptures with a teachable attitude and open to the Holy Spirit, the Bible will make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The Bible then becomes to us an infallible revelation of God's will to us for the purpose of leading us to salvation and for training us in righteousness.

2 Peter 1: 20-21--

Quote:

20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

NOTE: Men spoke (and wrote Scripture) as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Rev. 1: 1-3--

Quote:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

NOTE: Jesus sent his messages to us through the angels and the prophets and we are blessed when we read and obey the word of God which is written in Scripture.

[Kevin H]

OK, back to redaction theory. I remember that from my classes in Bible as Lit at public colleges. Higher Criticism and all that. I understand it but I don't buy it. They would take a story like that of Joseph and say that it is a combination of two contradictory narratives. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The evolutionary theory in our Bibles, along with Hegel and a little Marx and Freud to top it off. People who accept these theories of how the Bible came to us would say that Paul was homophobic and a misogynist.

I know you probably aren't going there, but on the basis of my experience that is where I put those theories about the Yahwist, Priestly, and Elohistic traditions. It leaves one with a great deal of uncertainty and seems to lead ultimately to the kinds of things we see in the Jesus seminar where they only accept a fraction of Jesus' teachings as possibly genuine, and the rest is mere fiction or something.

Higher criticism was developed by believers in, I believe the 1700's looking at the different writing styles. Higher and Lower criticism were originally used together. Higher criticism meaning looking at the wider use of sources and lower looking at the final product. Eventually there developed the JEDP theory, the Yahwest, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Pristly writings.

In the 1800s as evolution became popular they looked for evolution in everything including the Bible and they took JEDP to mean the evolutionary development of the Bible, the JEDP theory, that first there was the Yahwest, then Elohist, then Deuteronomist and finally the Priestly writings. Besides this lining up of the sources according to their understanding of evolutionary theory, they also believed that it was fiction. In reaction to this fundamentalism started and wanted God to be the streight forward author of the Bible, and especially after World War 1, since higher criticism was started in Germany, they said that it was anti-American to use this German research.

Durring the 20th century a more moderate view was offered; again based on JEDP, but instead of seeing it as evolution and fiction, they suggest that J and E were how the Bible devloped in the Northern and Southern tribes prior to David, then P continued in the South while D was developing in the North and finally P edited by Isaiah or his inner circle, and later D came south to Jerusalem and finally edited together by Jeremiah and his inner circle. and that instead of saying JEDP that it should be JEPD. There is a lot of P material edited into D, indicating that D was later. Also in this moderate view the stories are seen as historical, and that rather than saying that JEPD are the writers of the Bible, that they are rather editors of the older writings, more like the White Estate. The SDA Bible Commentary supports Jeremiah being the editors of the D writings. And the enemy of the JEPD studies Gerhard Hasel did not deny the existance of JEPD, but even says that there is evidence for them, but that we are simply to leave them alone and to only study the Bible as the finished product.

And NO you don't end up as the Jesus seminar who sees only a few words of Jesus as actually of Jesus. But you can live with issues such as how many faithful spys were there: One, two, or twelve. Depends on where you read. Did Moses die for his sin of striking the rock or was Moses the only Hebrew worthy to enter the holy land, but died as a substitutionary sacrifice so that the others could go in. We only have the same types of issues we find in Ellen White and in the New Testament, such as did no one know who Jesus was except the Roman Centuran at the cross, a guy who was so ignorant of the truth that he expressed the truth in language that would horrify a good monothiestic Jew (Mark) or did everyone know who Jesus was from before he was born and the centuran being so ignorant that he could not see Jesus as any more than a good man (Luke). These do not lead us to say "Oh there was no spys, and there was no Moses and there was not centurian" but that indeed these were historical events but understood differently in different parts of the country or by different sub groups of Chrisitans.