Are all Bible Translations the Same?

[Bert]

In this day and age one will find many, many various Bible versions that range from hip-hop language to Old English. Can a student of the Bible glean the absolute truths from such a range of differences that are apparent in these different Bible versions? Can a new student/convert glean the truth from many of the modern Bible versions? I don't think so, for some versions deny the Godhead, or Trinity (the NWT), some versions denigrate the role of Jesus Christ in the plan of salvation, and some versions have omissions and deletions by the hundreds and hundreds, even deleting entire chapters nearly...specifically the NIV and in some cases the NKJV.

Yet, our church members use all of these versions in their Bible study and sermons. Is this potentially a serious matter for new members, or just a simple play on words?

Below is a hyperlink that spells out the many omissions and deletions, as well as links to further study on the resources and references used in the modern Bible versions:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

[ClubV12]

I don't consider a major problem for the serious bible student. The Adventist pioneers noted there were some discrepancies in the KJV as well, so they were certainly aware of the basic problem. Which has only grown over time with the many new translations. Note I said "translations" NOT "para-phrase" which is a whole different issue. But even a para-phrase which should be considered with some skepticism has it's place. Written in modern, easy to understand language the fundamental message of God's word is powerful and brings life. As you grow and begin to question and dig deeper you will soon find you need more accuracy.

Would that be the KJV? Maybe, it depends on the person. Many find the KJV just to difficult to understand compared to say the NIV. The important thing is: Are the people getting the message? I applaud whatever translation or para-phrase out there that will do that.

When I'd doing serious study of any particular verse or passage I like to use several different versions AND the INTERLINEAR. But even using the interlinear is no gaurentee you will arrive at the correct interpretation. In itself it to is a "translation", without a thorough understanding of Greek and Hebrew you can still come away with a false impression.

While the NIV deletes some sections and verses that are in the KJV it does not delete anything that is not also found in the KJV. Matthew, Mark, Luke tell the same basic story from a different perspective, for instance. The original manuscripts used for the KJV are not altogether "perfect" in and of themselves. What manuscripts can be verified 100%, which ones only 90%, which ones DO you use and which ones should be considered more carefully for use? A huge job, a huge problem, the end result "less than perfect" even in the KJV.

Do we then loose confidence in the KJV? Not at all, we use a bit of common sense when digging deep. The same approach we should use with ANY translation. The problem, as I see it, is raising the KJV to "absolute perfect" status, when the reality is, it to has it's problems.

These "problems", with any version, including the KJV, are a stumbling block to some, an excuse to throw out the entire work to others, but to the sincere seeker of truth little more than a bump in the road on their way to discovery.

[Kevin H]

There are 3 basic catagories: Word translations (I forgot the technical term for this)which trys to translate word for word with a bit of dynamic and paraphrase to make it run smoothly, or to avoid controversy of points that we think should not be in the Bible and thus prevent people from buying it because people don't want a Bible that says those things (Nothing of major theological importance, just things like being sure that Phoebe in Romans is a deconess and not like they can translate the exact same word by a man's name as Pastor or Elder, or phrases where the words could lead to a more sexual translation that they put in softer language) Dynamic translations where they translate the ideas rather than a word for word translation. Both of these work together as a team because while you may have the words, we don't know enought about the languages and culture to tell what were common expressions and proberbs and thus they translate what the words mean. How was it understood by the original readers. The third way is Paraphrase, which is basically taking the two types of translations and putting it in other words that help people to understand. I think Graham Maxwell wrote a book "Can the Bible be trusted" I know he at least has a wonderful chapter in "Can God be Trusted" in how we can trust the Bible in which he covers these issues that you are asking about.

Now all three groups have a certan amount of word translation, dynamic translation, and paraphrase. In fact the Living Bible, a paraphrase, is (or at least in the 1980s was) the ONLY Bible to accurately translate a verse into English when Elijah is taunting the priest of Baal saying that maybe Baal is going to the bathroom. Both word translations and dynamic translations like to say that Baal was busy. Also, all Bible are victims of the translator's presuppositions: The King James Bible has prejudices and presupositons held in it's day, as well as it being a compromise Bible, as Catholics wanted to translate the Bible one way and Protestants the other way, and the KJV was a middle ground between the two (Initally making both groups unhappy and the Catholics made their Bible and the Protestants eventually came around to accepting the KJV despite it's compromises.) Finally we are always learning more about the languages: There were many words that translators did not know how to translate that they had to guess. Bibles before the 20th century had a LOT of guesswork. But with Archaeology they have found many ancient manuscripts where the same words as in the Bible are used over and over again and we start to see how these words are used, what their definations and syntexts are. (Try to translate in today's language the word "Mouse") Of course we are in a trade off of on the one hand having a better knowlege of the language, but the translators tend to be either fundamentalists or modernists and this slants their translations.

What is wise is to use different Bibles, and some for different purposes. Hiphop, cottenwood, and "God is Real Man!" for those of those backgrounds for general knowlege of the Bible. The Good News, Children's International and NIV for quick and easy reading and for some dynamics (and know their shortfalls: such as the NIV being too evangelical and fundamentalist); and Bibles like the RSV, NASB, and my favorite the Anchor Bible for more deeper study.

Now if you think this is confusing, our Old Testament today is based on one Biblical family of texts, the Messeritic text which comes from the Babylonian Family. In Jesus' day there were 3 families of texts: Babylonian, Palestanian and Egyptian families, each with their different translations and versions (which is why when we read Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, unless the translator decided to smooth it over, we find it a little different from if we were to turn back to our Old Testament and read the verse. And most of us don't realize that the Sermon on the Mt. is a quote from Isaiah, because that passage in Isaiah is quite different in the dead sea scrools, a version of the Palestinian text, than the Babylon text that the Massorites used). So we have only one family. In Jesus' and Paul's day they had even more to choose from. (Jesus appears to have had a different version or versions of the Palestinian texts as it is related to the Dead Sea Scrools but not quite. And Paul appears to have used different versions of of the Egyptian family)

[Kevin H]

I just got an e-mail from a friend that appears related to this topic.I have only quickly glanced over it but wanted to share it An essay written by John McCall I hope you find it useful and hope that this adds to our discussions here.-- Kevin H

God as Power/God as Person

The term "God" refers to an Infinite Being; this Being exists outside of time and space. God -- out of love -- chose to to create self-aware beings with free choice. These created beings (all of us in the universe) exist as finite beings; all began at a particular time, and are locked within time; it is always "now" and not "then". These created beings (all of us in the universe) exist as finite beings; all of us exist at a particular limited place within space; we are always "here" and not "there".

As an Infinite Being, God is unknowable to any created being, all of us existing (by necessity) within time and space. Out of love, God determined to self-limit and come into time and space to communicate with the objects of "His" love.

Alright, that's the part about God. Let's now review what these newly-created beings, with free choice need to know:

The new creations need to know that they are utterly dependent on God for life to continue. They need to know that God as the source of all life and being is owed complete respect and obedience. They need to know God as Absolute Power, with a demonstration within time and space, where they can comprehend it. This demonstration is absolutely necessary. By itself this revelation of the Infinite God in time and space would not breed reverence and awe (biblically, proper fear). Instead, over time, it would breed a different kind of fear: terror. And the terror would cut off creatures from God.

The separation would lead to death. Which would breed terror in the survivors, leading to complete death.

What was needed was something on a personal level. How would the angels, the populations on the inhabited worlds, and eventually (last of all) the human race get to interact with God? How would they come to know what God was like as a person? What in fact IS God like as a person? Would there be any way for the Infinite One to enter time and space as a person? That is an even greater bridge in the communication gap than God as Power!

Since God created both time and space, and since God is an Infinite Being, it is perfectly possible for God to appear within time and space as a Person also. There is indeed a problem, but the problem has nothing to do with God. The problem is how the created beings will relate God as Power to God as Person and keep them together in their minds.

And remember, of course, that there is only ONE God, an Infinite Being who is coming into time and space in various ways to communicate love to them.

Does the Bible speak to the issue of God as Person? Remember, when we're talking Bible, and God's interaction with man, we're talking eons after the creation of the universe and the angelic and unfallen races. But as we said before, God is perfectly consistent in the way God is revealed to thinking creatures. What happened later with man is exactly what God did earlier with other created beings.

The place we want to begin is at the creation of mankind. As we proceed to look at creation, in Genesis 1 and 2, we're going to notice some really odd things that aren't usually noticed by the average Bible reader. But they are things that are extremely significant, and tell us crucially important things about God, and how God communicates with the beings God creates.

So we will look closely at Genesis 1 and 2 and open up the Scripture. But first, for the ignorant and unstable (Paul's very correct terminology) let's state as a rule:

ALL CANONICAL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT, AND OF

COMPLETE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY

IT FOLLOWS THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL WHO IN PARTICULAR

WROTE THE PASSAGE

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT EACH SCRIPTURAL AUTHOR

WAS GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT

That's a rule that applies to every verse of Scripture, no matter who wrote it or when. Keep that in mind, don't be alarmed, and as we point out certain things you may not have known, be assured that we will explain how they fit into God's self-revelation. It will become apparent as we move along why the rule just stated is so important. The key thing to remember is that we have a PRESUPPOSITION, something we presume to be true that will guide us as we go along. And that is a presupposition we found in Scripture: that what we find in our canon of Scripture is there by the intent of God, who inspired it all, even though different writers wrote material in different places, at different times, under different circumstances.

Oddities in the Creation Story

A long time ago Bible readers noticed some interesting and curious things about the story of creation in Genesis. For one thing, the story seems to have two beginnings. The first opener is in Genesis 1:1 (of course), but there is another recurring opener of new stories in Genesis a little further on. Words that are as familiar as openers as "Once upon a time" are found scattered all through Genesis at the beginning of new stories. The stories generally begin with a genealogy, placing the actors within a line of history, so that we can know where we are in time. The words are:

These are the generations of....

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created. Genesis 2:4a

These is the writing of the generations of Adam [mankind] when God created man.... Genesis 5:1

These are the generations of Noah; now Noah was a righteous man and.... Genesis 6:9

These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet.... Genesis 10:1

These are the generations of Shem: Shem was.... Genesis 11:10

And these are the generations of Terach: Terach was the father of.... Genesis 11:27

And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son.... Genesis 25:12

And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son.... Genesis 25:19

And these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom... Genesis 36:1

And these are the generations of Esau, the father of the Edomites.... Genesis 36:9

These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen.... Genesis 37:2

If you look up these verses in a Bible, be sure you are using a word translation, that attempts to translate every word, not a modern sense translation, that frequently departs from the actual wording in the Hebrew original. The problem with "sense" translations is that they are frequently wrong. They only tell us what the translators thought the original meant, and often their words they use actually disguise the meaning. This is one reason we insist readers learn to do exegesis, or at least what it is, and not insist to us that they are right when they don't have a clue what the Bible actually says. This is the reason that though all the above verses are exactly the same in the original, they are translated differently from verse to verse; which means a modern reader would not be able to spot the pattern that is so significant.

Clearly, these genealogical records and the stories they introduce come from a period hundreds and hundreds of years before the time of Moses. Such records were kept when writing was in its infancy, in pictographs and in the Eastern Fertile Crescent and beyond (Iraq/Iran, where the stories are set) in cuneiform, a kind of pictures created by using wedge shapes from the ends of reeds. These shapes were pressed into small clay bricks, which then became permanent records when they were fired in a kiln.

It is interesting to note that these clay bricks generally had a running heading at the top of the tablets. And these "toledoth" or "generations" incipits (the beginning of a literary piece) in Genesis may indeed have originally been the headings or titles of ancient tablets (already ancient in the time of Moses) on which the stories were originally preserved.

Well, be that as it may, Genesis 2:4 has the first of the series, and indicates the beginning of a new series, a shift to a new document, different from what immediately precedes it. As genealogical markers, the first one in Genesis 2:4 is interesting in that there are no "generations" to record. Instead, what is recorded is the beginning of "the heavens and the earth" from the moment of man's origin. Contrary to popular misinterpretation, the phrase (found in many other places) refers to the earth plane and what can be seen from it. We'll look closely at why the ancient readers would have understood the phrase to refer to the earth plane and the sky visible above it, and not the entire universe.

The concept of "the universe" as we know it was unknown to men in the Ancient Near East, and we must always read what is written from the viewpoint of the writer and original intended readers. I have seen many useless fundamentalist interpretations, giving all kinds of information and misinformation about the planet, when the concept of "planet" was yet centuries into the future, and not found among the Semites of the East, but originated with the Greeks at a time when the Old Testament was already finished.

Now let's look at the details of the creation events as recorded between Genesis 1:1 and the "toledoth/generations" notice in Genesis 2:4 and see how they compare to the record of creation after the "toledoth" notation, to see how they compare the one to the other. What we want to know, since we have two clear beginnings (and an obvious ending in Genesis 2:3 and another clear ending in 3:24) is whether -- as this structure implies -- we actually have two distinct creation accounts. And if so, how do they compare, the one to the other? Why would there be two descriptions of the same event? If there are two, are they very very similar? Or are they so different, as liberal scholars claim, as to be in utter contradiction? Why would they be different?

Two Complementary Views of Creation

Almost everyone with any familiarity with the Bible has some general sense of the first creation description. It isn't a narrative story, but a rigidly structured prose poem set within the structure of the seven days of the first week. That the week involved was intended by the author to be a literal week of seven days is beyond any question whatever. Various attempts to square the creation sequence with evolutionary theories have resulted in trying to reinterpret the "days" as ages or eons of evolutionary development.

This is manifestly not what the author intended, and in fact is the opposite of what was intended, as we shall see. The idea has to be dismissed immediately as outlandish, contrary to the grammatical meaning clearly expressed, and also shows a complete lack of understanding of the background to the passage.

Now, we have noted that there is a second "Once upon a time" appearing at Genesis 2:4. That is, another story begins there. And that second narrative is, in some ways different. Often complementary, the two accounts give us a larger picture than either of the two phases would have given by themselves, but nevertheless they are quite different. One important factor (and the reason this is being discussed here) is that the complementary parts of the total creation narrative tell us much about how God communicates to created beings.

The mode of creation in the first sequence is that the divine Creator -- termed "Elohim" which is "gods" plural in Hebrew -- announces the plan to create mankind to the heavenly court. The Creator is an exalted ruler, the Master of the Universe, and His word has creative power. He simply commands or wills, and all the enormous complexity of the world of mankind is called into existence. In the second sequence, a true prose narrative, with nothing like the time/space structure of the first, man is "formed/fashioned" by the Creator -- now named "YHWH Elohim" (that is, Yahweh God) -- by the Creator using the fine red clay of the earth to fashion (the word describes what a fine potter does in making expensive pottery or an artisan creating a fine statue, etc.) the body of "adam" or "the human".

Here the Creator is literally down in the mud, and the first fashioning of man is not the complete story. A second later step will result in a true race of beings. Even more, however, is the surprising fact that before anything else in the world is created, mankind is made. And yet at that point mankind has no particular place within time and space to exist, until "YHWH Elohim" does some other work.

This involves us in the question of sequence. So, to be clear, let's remind ourselves of the sequence in the tight, carefully-worded first narrative. It is important to note here that the wording and terminology is very different between the two creation sequences. The first narrative is filled with technical terms, drawn from priestly literature. Terms for the building of "the heavens and the earth" are often terms from the technical aspects of building an ancient temple. And many of those terms were usually reserved for sacred literature, and not used in regular prose. Yet they appear in the first creation account.

And then these unusual terms disappear at Genesis 2:4 not to be seen again until the building of the Wilderness Sanctuary late in the Book of Exodus. But that event is far later in time. The text of the first story is stately, it is sparse, it is spare, it is cryptic, it is awe-filled. The English translation completely masks the care and mood of grandeur in the precise and poetic wording and syntax.

So here is the sequence of creation as we know it so well:

1. The future world is in darkness. It is "tohu we vohu" or "in total chaos" when Elohim (plural) begins the creation sequence.. There is no visible land, but Elohim's Spirit is blowing across the darkened primeval ocean. Elohim orders light (not the sun, moon, or stars) to enter the sphere of the future world. First Day.

2. Elohim builds a "raqia" or solid dome of atmosphere between upper and lower oceans. Spatial relationships begin. This non-water open space is called "the heavens" or more precisely, "the sky". "The heavens" misleads moderns to think of the modern concept of the universe. Second Day.

3. Elohim separates water and land, creating Earth and Sea. On the Earth vegetation, both plants and trees, are ordered to exist. Third Day.

Remember, as we proceed, that in each case the Master of the Universe, "Elohim" inspects the results with care, and pronounces each pleasing, appropriate, functional, up to Elohim's moral standard, all of which are contained in the Hebrew "tov" which is translated misleadingly "good".

4. Lights appear in the raqia, as viewed from the earth. The greater light (the author cannot use the term "sun" since its only names were names of pagan gods) marks days, the lesser light (again, not named since the name is a pagan deity) marks the night, and both mark off seasons. They are not "signs" as our Masoretic Text misreads the ancient Hebrew, the Palestinian and Egyptian text types reading the original correctly. Lest anyone get confused, the cryptic note is added that Elohim is also the creator of the stars, which were understood to be attached to the raqia, which rotated. Fourth Day.

5. Things that swarm in the seas and air are ordered to exist by Elohim. Swarms of sea creatures now inhabit the Sea, and vast flocks of birds fill the air. As always after God speaks the result is inspected and pronounced appropriate, functional, morally appropriate, and most of all, pleasing to Elohim. Fifth Day.

6. All land animals, from the creeping to the behemoths now are ordered into existence. They are runners-up to Elohim's jussive to the heavenly court, "Let us make mankind in our image." That leads to the next-to-last and nearly ultimate creation by fiat in this sequence. After the animals and everything else has been created, we see that all this was stage-setting for the final act, the ordering of mankind (adam/mankind) into existence. Here we find that "adam/mankind" is both male and female. There are then several sentences of reflection on the role of man in the new creation, as its sub-ruler.

Finally, though the Masoretic Text contains an error, the structure says that God ceased his works on the sixth day. That leads to what scholars call "The Creation Sabbath," the hidden mystery revealed only much much later when Israel was created. On the seventh day God "ceased" from his creative works, putting an unexplained blessing into the seventh day. (What the blessing was will only be discussed in Exodus; we never hear of the sabbath or any hint of sabbath-keeping again in Genesis, or in Exodus either, until the actual creation of Israel, a creation that finalizes the creation being described here.) Sixth day.

Don't confuse the later concepts of "rest" with the verb "sabbath" here. The Hebrew verb means, simply, "to cease/desist" and that is how it must be rendered. For, of course, God hasn't actually "worked" at all in this view of creation. Rather, the Majesty seated in the heavenly court has simply ordered things into existence, and then ceased from doing so. The idea of the Master of the Universe calling life into existence by fiat needing "rest" is ludicrous.

Alright, so in summary, we have here a very awesome view of the distant and exalted Elohim. The picture involves the whole of the earth and the structures around it. The narrative is filled with highly technical terms used for the building of temples, terms that reappear only in the building of the Wilderness Sanctuary. This story is definitely what we would call an "overview" picture, not localized in any sense. And Elohim, who is the Mover in all this, is entirely consistent with the exalted, distant, awesomely powerful and deeply mysterious picture of God we saw in the first study.

In addition, the narrative is tightly structured around two features: the sequence of events, involving the timing of events, especially the sequence of days. Consistent with ancient numerology, the sixth day suggests something forebodingly evil, though the concept of evil or the fall of man is never, even briefly, discussed. That is the day that man and his associated animals were created. By contrast, the seventh day suggests the completion and perfection of the original creation, the implication of all that "seven" meant in ancient numerology.

The other aspect of the tight structure is space itself. Everything begins with the earth "tohu we vohu" or "utter chaos" and as the creation proceeds, order comes out of chaos; the land has a place; the sea has a place; the sky has a place; the sun and moon know where to shine; the sea creatures and land animals and birds know where their place is. Finally, man comes into existence and is given lordship over it all.

Then, too, the poetic and highly structured and lordly language give the whole picture a compelling sense of drama and awe, so different from what we are going to encounter next in the narrative.

And finally, the complex "broken chiasm" structure is apparent here. Rather than go into details covered in the exegetical studies, we will simply point out here the general structure:

Day 1: Elohim separates light from darkness

Day 2: Elohim separates water from sky (the dome of "the heavens")

Day 3: Elohim separates out dry land; vegetation appears

Day 4: Elohim fills in the light with the sun, and the darkness with the moon, stars also give light

Day 5: Elohim fills the water with fish and the sky with birds ("the heavens" being the sky over the ground)

Day 6: Elohim puts animals and man on the dry land; vegetation given as their food

Day 7: Elohim desists from doing further creative works; blesses the seventh day (no command to keep

yet); pronounces everything perfect

We have emphasized also not what is said but what is left unsaid. Apart from the distant imperial view of God and the highly structured account of creation, the story is wildly incomplete. In fact, as it stands, it is so incomplete as to be incomprehensible. What Elohim wrought was a perfect world, with conditions utterly unlike anything the ancient readers would have recognized. If this was all there was about to know creation, we'd be wondering why it was ever written; we would be left with more questions than answers. Not a hint of how the perfect world alleged here became the world in which we live! And no hint of how "Elohim" views the world today, so different from the one it is here alleged He actually created!

Which leaves the obvious question, Why is this story, so structured and so absolute, also so unfinished? What is there about the use of this same structure in regard to the Wilderness Sanctuary and the Temple on Zion that is being said? And is there any chance of actually communicating with the Majestic God described in this account?

This is a story for another day. Right now we have to move quickly to the other side of the second "once upon a time" and do some comparisons.

Two Names, Two Views of God

The opening prose narrative of the second creation story is almost disconcerting, after what we have just read, even looking at it so briefly and in so little depth. The story is different in many ways. For one thing it no longer is interested in the world as a whole. And it clearly is not interested in the time-structure and spatial-structure of the first creation account. Here is how it reads, and compared to the prior story, this is quite breezy, if also surprisingly complex:

In the day that the LORD God [YHWH Elohim, Yahweh God] made the earth and

the heavens [reverse of the First Creation Story] when no plant of the field was yet in

the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God [Yahweh

God] had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground,

but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground -- then

Yahweh God formed/fashioned man from the red clay of the ground, and breathed/blew

into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. Genesis 2:4b-7

One thing that stands out rather dramatically is that the picture of God is different on one side than on the other!

Another thing is that the order of events is completely reversed in this prose account.

Further, there is little interest (as we discover as we read on) in the entire earth, for the narrative soon centers on a sacred grove, a grove belonging to Yahweh Himself, where He places mankind as His gardeners.

Interest in this sacred grove is so great that details about how the earth was DIFFERENT at that time (especially as regards dealing with growing things) comes up immediately. In the prior story we heard nothing of this difference between the perfect world of creation and the current messy world, and in fact, nothing of any difference at all, or how the current world came to evolve from the prior perfect world. We noted that on that all-important fact the previous story left us hanging.

That distinction between the two stories all by itself should suggest that the person or persons who put these accounts together knew exactly what he was doing and why. Which is to say, the liberal argument that the two creation accounts are so different that they are in hopeless conflict, mutually exclusive, and cannot be historical accounts founders upon the very content of the accounts.

While Yahweh, this Person, is still "Elohim" or Absolute Deity, in some way, He is also very much an interactive Person. These two pictures of God almost imply multiple gods, but the central confession of Israel constantly denied this:

Hear O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD! or

Hear O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is One! or

Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Deuteronomy 6:4

And so we must deal with the major anomaly in the two literary pieces about the creation. Just as ELOHIM is used as the only name for God in 1:1 to 2:4, after that the Divine Being is called only YAHWEH ELOHIM, Yahweh-God. Now, names were very important in the ancient world, because they defined the nature of the thing being named.

A shift from a descriptive word ("Elohim/Ultimate Deity") to a personal name ("He causes everything to exist") is not merely a literary shift, but a shift in the view of how the Divine Being is seen. We saw the imperial majesty of the distant Overlord of the Universe in the first account. Now we have something different: now we have God, still, but God encompassed in a PERSON, fashioning red clay/mud (down in the mud!), walking on earth in His sacred precincts, talking face to face with His new creatures, searching for them (supposedly) and doling out judgment on disobedience.

The continuation of the narrative moves us even further away from the prior story and into the detail, the emphases, which this story is interested in and will expand:

The whole concept of the method of creation is different. Gone is the setting in the heavenly court, the divine "jussive" and command that instantly creates. While the verb "created" ("bara") is still present, the actual work is real work this time The kind of physical work that makes humans sweat. (And though it is real work, we will not hear one word about "cessation" or anything like a "sabbath"!)

Down in the red ochre (Hebrew "adamah") Yahweh "fashions" using "yatsar," a verb which describes an expert potter fashioning fine pottery, or a sculptor working on a statue, or an artisan fashioning any other work of art. From the "adamah" He brings forth "Adam" (not now "human being" but an individual with a name reflecting his earth-nature. The verb therefore also has in it the concept of forming an idea, a plan, and carrying it out. We even see Yahweh thinking as He proceeds. This anomalous shift will continue and deepen throughout Genesis.

Somewhat more troubling to the fundamentalist viewpoint is that both stories make an explicit issue of the order of events. And yet they emphasize different things in describing their differing order. It is tru that the order of events does not agree. At all. Of course, this anomaly arises precisely because the story is not at all interested in how Elohim created the entire earth and its related structures in the cosmos; this story is interested in how Yahweh proceeded in creating the sacred grove, and what was involved in placing it in the eastward of "the eden." And placing man (who has been in narrative-suspended animation so far) there. Now, this "eden" was an ancient word (Sumerian, in fact) for the upland tableland in the mountains of the "Armenian Knot," the place where several mountain ranges originate and fan out in different directions. More on this below.

And Yahweh-God planted [really, He "planted" just as you and I would]

a garden/sacred grove in Eden, eastward, and there he placed the man whom

he had formed/fashioned. Genesis 2:8

Contrast this fashioning of mankind first in the order of events, with the first account, where mankind is the last and crowning act of creation events before Elohim desists. The text is very explicit about this. Further, the concept of "adam" has changed. It meant "mankind" in the first creation story, and included male and female immediately and automatically. Here, however, the same word meand "the man" as an individual. And it means "the man" as distinct from "the woman" who is going to share the story. This is one of several shifts in the meaning of terms between the two accounts.

Before we read the next verse, you need to know that liberal scholarship has argued for the last two centuries that Genesis 3, the story of the Fall of Man, is not a part of this second narrative. That claim is made to safeguard the liberal view that Genesis contains two complete and mutually-exclusive creation stories. The liberal commentator wants to capitalize on the differences to conclude that the two stories are so incompatible that they cannot be seen as complementary, but rather in hopeless contradiction. (Fundamentalists are even worse, denying there are two different creation accounts, which does not actually provide an answer to the liberal argument.)

If, however, the Fall of Man is part of this second story, we have instead this:

THE STORY IS ABOUT: THE CREATOR IS: THE METHOD IS: THE LOCALE IS:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 THE HEAVENS ELOHIM FIAT/COMMAND HEAVENLY COURT

AND EARTH, THE COSMOS

Genesis 2:4-3:24 ADAM YAHWEH PERSONAL WORK EARTH PLANE

AND EVE AND THEIR FALL ELOHIM

Modern studies show that this section (Genesis 2:4 to 3:24), which may appear simple, is in fact a series of chiasms within chiasms, and highly complex. The language is such that it is beyond argument that from the outset, the author is intent on explaining the fall of man and the entrance of sin. He immediately adds to his description of the sacred grove/garden the ominous presence of a tree that contains knowledge (experience, there being no "knowledge" in the abstract in Hebrew thought) about good and evil! And places near it another tree that is equally dangerous: the tree of life that transmits eternal life. The possible combustion here could result in an immortal sinner!

Again, contra Fundamentalism, and what most of you have been taught, Genesis knows NOTHING about a planet, or a universal flood on such a planet. The earth is exactly as pictured everywhere in Scripture, and to that end we once again include a picture of the earth sitting on the primeval waters, as in the second commandment and Psalm 24 (and everywhere else in the Ancient Near East, for that matter):

The heavenly Cosmic Mountain was behind the North Star, the star around which the solid dome, or raqia, rotated. The stars were attached. The earth floated on the primeval ocean, which was freshwater (of course) not salt.

You shall not make any graven for yourelf a grave image or any likeness of

anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that

is in the waters under the earth.... Exodus 20:4

The earth is Yahweh's and the fulness thereof,

The world, and those who dwell therein.

For he has founded it upon the seas

And established it upon the rivers. Psalm 24:1

The 7-headed dragon, Leviathan, lurked in the dark underworld, waiting to rise up and control the earth.

...Yahweh with his hard and great and stron sword will punish Leviathan the

fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon

that is in the sea. Isaiah 27:1

Once again we interrupt ourselves to remind people that the Fundamentalist view of inerrancy was born before modern exegesis was possible. The bogus idea that anything inspired by a perfect God would be perfect in science, for instance, is exactly what this series is about. Like Christ Himself, the Bible is a perfect mingling of the divine and human.

In speaking to the people of the Ancient East, if God had introduced useless and extraneous information, such as the earth being a planet suspended on nothing, the resulting hullaballoo would have entirely obscured the message of salvation. The message would have been rejected before it was heard. The idea that God would have screwed up communication with His ancient people by discussing a "planet" and other incomprehensible ideas undermines the whole purpose of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS ABOUT EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.

AND, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THAT CONSISTENTLY MEANS THAT GOD COMES DOWN TO MAN'S LEVEL, AS HE DID WITH ALL HIS CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD BRINGS HIS CREATURES UP TO HIS LEVEL, BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. CREATURES, AS CREATED BEINGS, MUST GROW OVER TIME, THEIR EXPERIENCE TEACHING THEM MORE AND MORE ABOUT GOD. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID FORCING THE WILL.

Despite the Fundy misinterpretation, the inspired author knows nothing about a flood so severe it changed the face of the PLANET earth. He knows just where the sacred garden/grove was located, and tells his readers. because he expects them to be able to understand what he is saying. Of course, he would be scratching his head if you asked him about a "planet" and a flood that changed the surface of that planet. He fully expects that his readers, too, will know exactly where he is talking about. And his description is so clear that we can also know the locale. He even mentions the fine gold of Havilah as a leftover of the special blessings that part of the earth once received by being right where the waters that fed the earth emanated from the Garden in Eden.

.

Read verses 10 to 14 of Genesis 2. It gives an entirely different picture of the nature of the flood than modern Fundies -- with no exegetical background -- portray. The same inspired writers who preserved the flood narratives for us preserved the creation narratives, and knew there was no conflict. Only when modern misconceptions are introduced does trouble begin!

If you want to read a brief but fascinating account of how a modern Egyptologist found and traveled in Eden, and came to the Mountain of God (the original Cosmic Mountain) you can read about it on the link given below. The four rivers of Eden are still there, still flowing. The Land of Nod still lies to the east of Eden and still carries its original name to this late day. Gold is still found in the Land of Havilah. The "gan" or walled garden enclosing a sacred grove is matched by the topography. And the Mountain of God is still bathed in the red ochre that gave Adam his name. Ignore his occasional liberal bias; he is far better than most liberal scholars:

http://www.sightedmoon.com/?page_id=26

If all the rivers of Eden are still flowing, if one of them still "winds around" (the meaning of its name) the canyons of the mountains it traverses, if the topography of the Eden is still the same, if both Eden and Nod are right where they used to be, then the family of Noah recognized the post-flood earth that had been cleansed of sin as the one they had known before the rains came. The the idea of a "planetary flood" (which the Bible neither describes nor contemplates in the story of Noah) is bogus. As is so much of the evolution-versus-special-creation argument.

The Bible teaches the absolute authority of the Creator who accomplished the literal creation of the Race of Adam, and the creation narratives (both of them) -- and references to them scattered throughout Scripture -- never lessen the basic and fundamental nature of that truth. (Regardless of how confused those who call themselves "fundamentalist" today may be.)

We have noted some of the differences between the first and second stories. Both touch on creation, but on different aspects, and the major difference is that a different concept of God -- signaled by a different name -- is presented. In 2:16 we are told that Yahweh Elohim

... commanded the man, saying 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden,

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day

that you eat of it, you shall die.' Genesis 2:16

Note that this is before the woman is created. She has not received the command directly, but by being half of the man. But this warning ties the creation part of the narrative to the temptation and fall part of the narrative. They are not separate works. We also note that the warning given here was not carried out; the new humans did not die the at the very time of their disobedience. Some sort of basic explanation will later be called for to explain this additional anomaly.

We have already noted that "commanded" does not necessarily mean a conversation, and it definitely did not mean that in the first creation story. But here, once again, the meaning has shifted. We discover further into the story that Yahweh Elohim appears regularly within the Garden (talk about being limited in time and space!) and walks around in the cool part of the day! And that part of His purpose in doing so is to hold discussions with His new creatures.

Next, as part of this new and different view of God, we hear (as we will so very often) Yahweh explaining His thinking to His subjects. Clearly, man is something of a learning experience for other beings. And the new man must also learn. Lacking any experience, he is given opportunity to view and name the new creatures that will be part of his life. In Hebrew thought, recall, the name of a thing described its essential nature. So this was a learning experience, a chance to observe the animals and their natures and find language (the learning of language being part of the maturation process) to fit those natures. And the man is to observe that the animals come in pairs and he is without a corresponding half.

Yahweh has already explained His thinking to His audience (in this case, both the readers, and, we are expected to know, the assistants and associates, members of the "heavenly" court, here traveling with Yahweh to earth, who are ever and always at hand wherever God is.

Then Yahweh God said, 'It is not good that the an should be alone. I will make

him a fit [appropriate] helper for him.' Genesis 2:18

After their disobedience, the new pair hide themselves, giving us a clear picture that they conceive of God as finite in nature. (Seeing God as a FINITE Being was key to the whole rebellion of Lucifer; who could think they could overcome God if they understood His Infinite Deity?) Yahweh is walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Despite his nature as Elohim, Infinite and Majestic God, He is also Yahweh, God in Person. He condescends to the level of inexperienced couple, even asking "Where are you?" as if He does not know.

(Every adult who has ever played "hide and seek" with a toddler has done exactly the same thing.)

And they [the man and woman, no longer just "mankind" as in the first story]

heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,

and the man and his wife hid themselvesfrom the presence of Yahweh God among

the trees of the garden.

But Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'

Genesis 2:8,9

There then follows a judgment scene in which it becomes immediately clear (in case we had forgotten) that Yahweh, though encompassed in personal form, is the absolute Master of all that is. He quickly reorders the very nature of human life and several levels of reality in the recent creation; changes are ordered to fit the new situation. And (ironically) we are given to understand that those changes were instantaneous and accomplished by fiat; Yahweh can be both personal and absolute at the same time.

Immediately after this first judgment scene in Scripture, Yahweh further comments on His next course of action. By now we see what will soon become a standard pattern: Yahweh does not remain in solemn splendor in a remote heavenly court, much less in light unapproachable, but frequently visits the earth in person; but like Elohim, He is constantly attended by servants, members of His court, and He constantly gives them verbal explanations of what He is thinking or why He is taking a certain course of action.

Then Yahweh God said, 'Behold! The man has become like one of us, knowing

good and evil! So now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life,

and eat, and live forever....' [The sentence is grammatically unfinished; they are

to draw their own obvious conclusions. So Yahweh God sent him forth from the

garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man,

and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword

which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24

There is an enormous amount of Scriptural material to be covered regarding this second revelation of the Infinite God. And we need to look at it in some detail, to get down the patterns, the purposes, the ways, in which God as Person was revealed, first to the beings of the universe and finally to mankind. In first study we noted that the Infinite God appeared in time and space FIRST in a way that showed GOD AS POWER.

ARE THESE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, OR JUST ONE PERSON CHANGING SHAPE AND MODE OF REVELATION? WE WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION THAT SO VEXED THE EARLY CHURCH IN DETAIL IN A LATER STUDY. FOR NOW WE ARE SIMPLY GOING TO NOTE THE QUESTION, AND GIVE A PRELIMINARY ANSWER, WITH THE BIBLICAL PROOF TO FOLLOW: THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND MODES OF REVELATION, NOT A SINGLE REVELATION CHANGING MODES. WE CALL THEM "GOD, THE FATHER" AND "GOD, THE SON" AND WILL, SHORTLY, EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN AND IMPLICATION OF THESE TITLES.

WE NOTED, AS TO THE WORK OF "GOD, THE FATHER" THAT A REVELATION OF THE INFINITE GOD WITHIN TIME AND SPACE SHOWING GOD AS POWER, MAJESTY, AWE, AND JUSTICE WAS NECESSARY. BUT WE ALSO NOTED THAT THIS REVELATION ALONE WOULD NOT HAVE BRED LOVE, BUT ONLY FEAR. AND WE NOTED THAT THE GREAT LACK AT THAT POINT WAS ANY WAY TO KNOW GOD AS A PERSON, TO INTERACT WITH GOD AS A PERSON, TO WATCH, TO TALK, TO LISTEN, TO BE TAUGHT, TO SEE GOD'S THINKING MADE AUDIBLE BY A PERSON.

WE HAVE ALREADY SAID, THEREFORE, THAT THIS SECOND REVELATION OF THE INFINITE GOD, GOD AS A PERSON, WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

BUT NOW LET US REVERSE THE QUESTION, AND ASK, WHAT IF THE INFINITE GOD HAD CHOSEN NEVER TO APPEAR AS AN AWESOME BEING DWELLING FOREVER IN LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE? WHAT IF GOD HAD APPEARED ONLY IN TIME AND SPACE AS A PERSON? WOULD THAT REVELATION HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT?

Think it through. If it had been sufficient by itself, there would not have been two such different revelations and appearances of the Infinite within time and space. If created beings had been exposed only to a person, appearing in a form such as themselves, this might, by itself, have bred affection, at least initially. But over time, creatures would have begun to wonder why this person continued to exercise absolute control over them. And they would have chafed under that control, wondering if it was necessary or even good for them. Given enough time, a difference of opinion between someone and God as a Person would most certainly arise. (Free choice being really free meant that sooner or later someone would begin to make the wrong choices!)

They might have said, "Well, we love you of course, and appreciate all you have done and tried to do, but now we need to do it on our own. Your thinking is not always our thinking, and besides, we cannot be absolutely sure that you are the Source of life. Yes, you create, but perhaps that is an ability we will all have if we evolve upward. How do we know you in fact are not a person of like nature with us, only further evolved? At that point disrespect, and even contempt, would have developed, for there would be nothing in the universe constantly reminding created beings that God is always awesome and needs to be feared, which is to say, respected in the ultimate sense.

SO WE COME TO THE ANSWER OF WHETHER THE WORK OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, THIS SECOND REVELATION OF GOD, THIS TIME AS A PERSON, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF. THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO! THE SECOND REVELATION, WHAT WE CALL "GOD, THE SON" (WE WILL EXPLAIN THESE TERMS LATER) IS NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

WHEN WE HAVE COMPLETED FURTHER STUDY ON THIS SECOND REVELATION, WE WILL CONSIDER THE QUESTION: IS THE WORK OF "GOD, THE FATHER" AND "GOD, THE SON" SUFFICIENT WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER? OBVIOUSLY, THE VERY REVELATION OF GOD IN MAJESTY AND LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE AND GOD AS A PERSON CREATES SUCH DISSONANCE THAT CONFUSION COULD ARISE UNLESS GREAT CARE WERE EXERCISED TO EXPLAIN TO CREATURES THAT BOTH WERE INFINITE GOD REVEALED IN TIME AND SPACE.

But next, let's go deeper into Scripture and find out much more than you ever imagined was there about this second revelation of the Infinite One, God as Person, within time and space.

Next: Yahweh, the Walking Talking God, or Revelation Deepens

-- John MacCall

c. Melek Enterprises 1998-2011

[Gerr]

no.

[12tribes]

I don't consider a major problem for the serious bible student. The Adventist pioneers noted there were some discrepancies in the KJV as well, so they were certainly aware of the basic problem. Which has only grown over time with the many new translations. Note I said "translations" NOT "para-phrase" which is a whole different issue. But even a para-phrase which should be considered with some skepticism has it's place. Written in modern, easy to understand language the fundamental message of God's word is powerful and brings life. As you grow and begin to question and dig deeper you will soon find you need more accuracy.

Would that be the KJV? Maybe, it depends on the person. Many find the KJV just to difficult to understand compared to say the NIV. The important thing is: Are the people getting the message? I applaud whatever translation or para-phrase out there that will do that.

When I'd doing serious study of any particular verse or passage I like to use several different versions AND the INTERLINEAR. But even using the interlinear is no gaurentee you will arrive at the correct interpretation. In itself it to is a "translation", without a thorough understanding of Greek and Hebrew you can still come away with a false impression.

While the NIV deletes some sections and verses that are in the KJV it does not delete anything that is not also found in the KJV. Matthew, Mark, Luke tell the same basic story from a different perspective, for instance. The original manuscripts used for the KJV are not altogether "perfect" in and of themselves. What manuscripts can be verified 100%, which ones only 90%, which ones DO you use and which ones should be considered more carefully for use? A huge job, a huge problem, the end result "less than perfect" even in the KJV.

Do we then loose confidence in the KJV? Not at all, we use a bit of common sense when digging deep. The same approach we should use with ANY translation. The problem, as I see it, is raising the KJV to "absolute perfect" status, when the reality is, it to has it's problems.

These "problems", with any version, including the KJV, are a stumbling block to some, an excuse to throw out the entire work to others, but to the sincere seeker of truth little more than a bump in the road on their way to discovery.

The KJV and modern versions do not have the same source. modern versions come from a corrupt source. Look at this verse from both the KJV and NIV

Exodus 20:8-11

King James Version (KJV)

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So is the 7th day a sabbath or the sabbath?

King James Bible

[John317]

...These "problems", with any version, including the KJV, are a stumbling block to some, an excuse to throw out the entire work to others, but to the sincere seeker of truth little more than a bump in the road on their way to discovery.

You're exactly right, ClubV12. All the good translations tell the same basic story of God's love. My favorite is the KJV but I have over 60 other translations, and I constantly compare them along with studying the various primary NT Greek texts.

I don't know of any significant teaching of the Bible that can't be found in all three of the main published Greek texts. We can teach SDA doctrines from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the ESV.

[John317]

The KJV and modern versions do not have the same source. modern versions come from a corrupt source. Look at this verse from both the KJV and NIV

Exodus 20:8-11

King James Version (KJV)

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So is the 7th day a sabbath or the sabbath?

The KJV and the NIV both translated Exodus 20: 10 from the same Hebrew text. Both are based on Masoretic manuscripts.

The existence of the seventh-day Sabbath does not depend on whether the translation reads "the Sabbath" or "a Sabbath." The truth is that the original Hebrew reads "a Sabbath," not "the Sabbath. It reads, literally, "the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God." The Hebrew lacks the definite article. Therefore the NIV at Exodus 20: 10 is more accurate than the KJV.

But it doesn't matter.

If we compare many other verses dealing with the Sabbath, we see that the seventh day is indeed THE Sabbath of the Lord our God.

Isaiah 58:13

"If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,

from doing your pleasure on my holy day,

and call the Sabbath a delight

and the holy day of the Lord honorable;

if you honor it, not going your own ways,

or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly."

NOTE: The Sabbath is called "the holy day of the Lord," "My holy day," and "the Sabbath."

Exodus 20:8

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

NOTE: "The Sabbath day" has reference only to the seventh day of the week.

This is made even plainer in verse 11:

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

NOTE: THE Sabbath-- the Seventh day-- was the only day of the week that God rested on, blessed, and made holy. That is why God calls it "My holy day."

[Guest]

I don't know of any significant teaching of the Bible that can't be found in all three of the main published Greek texts. We can teach SDA doctrines from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the ESV.

Don't forget KJ2000....my personal favorite.

[John317]

There are 3 basic catagories: Word translations (I forgot the technical term for this)...

Are you talking about literal translations, such as Young's Literal Translation or Rotherham's Emphasized?

Some word-for-word translations are:

King James Translation, New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version,etc.

[John317]

Yes, wish I had that one. Is it in printed form yet?

[12tribes]

Quote:

The KJV and the NIV both translated Exodus 20: 10 from the same Hebrew text. Both are based on Masoretic manuscripts.

The existence of the seventh-day Sabbath does not depend on whether the translation reads "the Sabbath" or "a Sabbath." The truth is that the original Hebrew reads "a Sabbath," not "the Sabbath. It reads, literally, "the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God." The Hebrew lacks the definite article. Therefore the NIV at Exodus 20: 10 is more accurate than the KJV.

But it doesn't matter.

If we compare many other verses dealing with the Sabbath, we see that the seventh day is indeed THE Sabbath of the Lord our God.

Isaiah 58:13

"If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,

from doing your pleasure on my holy day,

and call the Sabbath a delight

and the holy day of the Lord honorable;

if you honor it, not going your own ways,

or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly."

NOTE: The Sabbath is called "the holy day of the Lord," "My holy day," and "the Sabbath."

Exodus 20:8

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

NOTE: "The Sabbath day" has reference only to the seventh day of the week.

This is made even plainer in verse 11:

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

NOTE: THE Sabbath-- the Seventh day-- was the only day of the week that God rested on, blessed, and made holy. That is why God calls it "My holy day."

Do you know that the NIV leaves out 17 verses and 180 portions of verses in the NT?

[John317]

Do you know that the NIV leaves out 17 verses and 180 portions of verses in the NT?

I wouldn't defend everything the NIV translators did. The NIV does contain some errors.

However, when it comes to the 17 verses and the 180 portions you refer to, we need to ask why the NIV left out those portions.

Was it because of some conspiracy on the part of the translators?

Or was it because of the manuscript evidence?

Yet even so, can we teach all the SDA doctrines from the NIV?

[12tribes]

They do not have the same source

King James Bible

[John317]

Please tell the Hebrew manuscripts that the KJV was based on and then tell which Hebrew manuscripts the NIV was based on.

Which Hebrew manuscripts have "the Sabbath" in Exodus 20: 10?

[12tribes]

Go to the site that I have put it has alot of info. John 317 I always like reading your comments on subjects you make alot of sense so Just go to this site and read the info for youself.

God Bless

[John317]

Your link is mostly about the New Testament and has very little about the Old Testament manuscripts upon which the KJV was based.

Do you know which Hebrew Manuscripts read "the Sabbath" in Exodus 20: 10?

I didn't see it at the link you gave me.

The Septuagint (LXX) also lacks the definite article in Ex. 20: 10. It reads, literally, "But on the seventh-day, a Sabbath to the Lord your God." It lacks both the verb [is] and the definite article.

[ClubV12]

I went to the site and was largely unimpressed with their reasoning. I found it quite biased toward the KJV and the suggestion that the KJV and it alone is the "authorized" by divinity translation. I don't agree with that.

The verses you mention (and the site as well) as missing from the NIV are well known by many scholars as coming from questionable original data sources. In that respect, the KJV may not be "all that" either. Anything "missing" is told in other books of the bible taken from, what is largely considered, better authentic manuscripts.

Scholars have to make choices, what to include or not. Luther wanted Revelation removed from the Cannon! He didn't think it was relevant. There was much disagreement with the KJV at the time it was written. That is not a problem for me, I like several different versions anyway.

[12tribes]

NIV

Whole Verses Omitted

Matthew 17:21

18:11

23:14

Mark 7:16

9:44

9:46

11:26

15:28

Luke 17:36

23:17

John 5:4

Acts 8:37

15:34

24:7

28:29

Romans 16:24

1 John 5:7

Verses omitted 17

[John317]

NIV

Whole Verses Omitted

Matthew 17:21

Why do you believe it's omitted?

Notice that, except for the word "fasting," it's included in Mark 9: 29:

Mark 9:29

And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."

[Bert]

NIV

Whole Verses Omitted

Matthew 17:21

18:11

23:14

Mark 7:16

9:44

9:46

11:26

15:28

Luke 17:36

23:17

John 5:4

Acts 8:37

15:34

24:7

28:29

Romans 16:24

1 John 5:7

Verses omitted 17

I agree with your summation on the omission and deletion of words, phrases, verses and portions of chapters in the NIV, as well as other modern versions. The NIV version was compiled from the manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus by two men...Westcott and Hort. These two Codexes were corrupt, having numerous errors and corrections, both manually and in interpretation. One of these Codexes was found in the waste basket in a monastery. In their texts, Westcott and Hort have quite successfully interwoven their bias against accepted beliefs in regard to hell, salvation, redemption through Christ, and changed scriptures to diminish the role of Jesus in the plan of salvation and His sacrifice on the cross. The NWT used Westcott and Hort's texts for their New Testament, and it is really a corrupt Bible.

I placed a good reference hyperlink on my first post that provides most of the changes made by Wescott and Hort in the NT...from Matthew to Revelation. Adventists are well aware of the three verses in Revelation that refer to the 'keeping of the commandments' as confirmation that Sabbath-keeping is still in effect. One of them, Rev. 22:14 (NIV), leaves out the 'keeping of commandments' and substitutes 'those who wash their robes'. The NIV leaves out the ending to the Lord's prayer. Matthew 9:13 leaves out two important ending words...that Christ came to call sinners 'to repentance'. The NIV deletes a promise by Jesus in Matthew 18:11, which says, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." There are many, many more texts that have been compromised and/or changed. Try reading Mark 15:28 and 16:9-20 in the NIV.

Lastly, for those who have the SDA Commentary set, look up the history of manuscripts and the sources of our scriptures today. Though the KJV may contain minor errors that doesn't affect the gospel message, it was good enough to launch the Protestant movement during the last 300-400 years or so.

[John317]

They do not have the same source

Have you checked out Jay P. Green Sr.'s Interlinear Bible?

It gives the same Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text that was used by the KJV translators.

You'll notice that the Old Testament is basically the same as the text used in translating the OT today. Most of the variants are in the New Testament, which consists of the Textus Receptus.

[ClubV12]

Luther was "good enough" to launch a revolution as well,300 or 400 years ago. But that was then, this is now. Truth has marched on. The light we have now would have stunned Luther.

The various translations, commentairies, versions we have now are right at our finger tips! Luther and those who worked on the KJV could not have dreamed of whats available today. I think they would rejoice at such a treasure trove of God's word. This is good news, in so many languages and versions so people can read the word in an understandable way. I think it's wonderful and certainly within the scope of Gods work.

[John317]

The NIV version was compiled from the manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus by two men...Westcott and Hort.

I'm not a big fan of the NIV, but we need to make sure we are telling the full truth about the translations.

The preface of the NIV says, "The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one." That is to say, it was not a translation of a single text or source.

The Greek printed texts used today as the basis of most translations are the United Bible Societies' 4th edition and Nestle-Aland 27th edition, not Westcott and Hort's Greek NT.

[John317]

NIV

Whole Verses Omitted

1 John 5:7

What is the reason for the omission of this verse?

Notice the SDA Bible Commentary agrees that this verse was not a part of the original writing by the Apostle John.

Personally I believe 1 John 5: 7 teaches the truth, but I don't believe it belongs in our Bible because it lacks manuscript evidence.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not need it.