Westcott & Hort

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Amen, Greg! And I would add that if our people were more knowledgeable about the differences they would be able to study with people using their own Bibles rather than condemning them right off the bat.

Exactly right, Gail. If we know our Bible, we can do that.

[Gail]

Psalm 16:10

[Gail]

Ps.55:15

I haven't just now checked these two in the Jerusalem Bible, but I have done some work with this in the past, that is how I know.

Bible Gateway has an RSV, and it renders the word hell in Ps.55:15 as Sheol, which it should be. Sheol is the grave, not hell.

[Gail]

All that shows is that if you would like to prove our view on the state of the dead, the KJV might not be as easy to show it as even a Catholic Bible, the Jerusalem or the RSV.

It's like it is easy to show that the first day of the week is Sunday because some versions plainly say, Sunday. Jesus rose on Sunday morning (GNT)

[Gerr]

Everytime I read my ESV, I am now carefully comparing with the other major translations, mainly NASB, NIV, NRSV, & KJV. So far, however, I have not abandoned any major beliefs because I have been using the ESV for several years now.

[John317]

... the modern versions of the Bible. Each one says different things. They introduce contradictions into the word of God, and skeptics are given fodder for their arguments.

As I've said before, my favorite translation is the KJV, but I frequently read and study 65+ others. Although they do have differences in some details, those differences don't change the basic story of the Bible.

It's the same with the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is quoted by the NT writers all the time as "the word of God," yet we know that the LXX is frequently more of a paraphrase than an true translation, at least a literal one. Yet Paul and the other inspired men of God did not hesitate to use it as authoritative Scripture.

What, then, would Paul have said if he were alive today to hear Christians attacking translations of the Bible simply because they differ in ways that are far more trivial than the differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text of the OT? Not only do they attack the other translations--and usually without accurate information-- but they attack the people who use them and they even sometimes consign them to the flames.

Quote:

If Christians had soundly rejected the modern versions as being perversions of the pure Word of God, the skeptics would not have much leg to stand on. As it is, the devil laughs, for he sees all of the confusion he has succeeded in creating over the matter, as each Christian is forced to wade through a decision about which Bible is best.

Are you saying that SDA doctrines are so weak that we cannot find them in all competent translations of the Bible?

Did our pioneers have to use the KJV in order to arrive at the truth? Some people talk as if they did.

Virtually all the translations of the Bible into foreign languages in the past 130 years have used the Critical Texts of the NT. Does this fact mean that tens of millions of people who can only read the Bible in those other languages cannot find the full truth of God's word?

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317

Exactly.

Thanks for saying it.

[John317]

There is a distinct difference between the Majority Text and the Minority Text in many places. Luke 4:4, a verse that clearly speaks of "every word of God," is one of them......If they have no respect for every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, how should we expect them not to have innumerable other alterations?

Have you considered the fact that Matt 4: 4 reads "every word of God"?

But he replied, “It stands written, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

This is the kind of thing which occurs over and over in the translations, so that it becomes obvious that if someone was trying to change doctrine, they didn't do a very good job of it.

What textual criticism uncovers is that the ancient scribes sometimes added to a text into order to make it harmonize with a parallel verse elsewhere in the Bible.

It's possible they believed they were protecting God's word, but of course God's word needs no such protection.

[Gail]

John317 did a study here once to show just that- that all of our doctrine is to be found in both lines of Bibles.

[Green Cochoa]

John317,

I believe our basic doctrines can be found in the Book of Mormon. Did you know the Book of Mormon speaks of the Sabbath? However, should I go to the Book of Mormon, or to the Koran to find truth? Why or why not?

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy...."

In other words, I do not deny the concept that our "basic doctrines" can be found in any modern Bible. The devil is smart. He always mixes error with truth. It is the truth that makes the error palatable. If there were no truth left in the modern versions, no one would choose to be fed by them. Pure poison doesn't taste good, so it must be mixed with some actual food or sugar.

I simply prefer "eating" untainted food. That's why I favor the translations from the Majority Text.

Virtually all the translations of the Bible into foreign languages in the past 130 years have used the Critical Texts of the NT. Does this fact mean that tens of millions of people who can only read the Bible in those other languages cannot find the full truth of God's word?

Unfortunately, that is truly the case. The people in those countries cannot find the truth. I am living among people of one of "those other languages." We do not have a good Bible in their language. Our Adventist mission would very much like to fund a new Bible translation project, but it simply doesn't have the funds to do so. The Bible that they have is so far different from the truth as can hardly make the truth recognizable. I was at a Bible study a few weeks ago where the church elder tried to use the Bible passage to say something entirely different than what the Bible was saying. The passage, in English, was that of "casting your bread upon the waters." You're probably familiar with that and its meaning. The elder used that passage from his local-language Bible to support that God will make one have a prosperous business. I can't remember all of the details, but the word "bread," for example, did not even exist in his version, and the wording was so far different as to completely obscure the truth. Another man, who has done some translation work as well, and I just shook our heads. We tried to explain the true meaning of the text, based on the translation into two other languages.

Yes, I have experienced, firsthand, the dilemma of not having a good translation. In one Bible that I saw years ago in another local language, Jesus was given "orange juice" on the cross instead of "vinegar." To some, they would just smile and shrug it off. To me it is an appalling error, because it erases a part of the truth about the central focus of the entire Bible--Christ's sacrifice for us. Whether these errors are based on the Westcott and Hort manuscripts or not might be a debatable point. The point I would make is that any alteration of the Word of God makes it less clear and therefore less effective in accomplishing God's purposes with us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gail]

Quote:

In other words, I do not deny the concept that our "basic doctrines" can be found in any modern Bible.

Awesome- because I have heard someone say that you can't prove SDA doctrine using the NIV.

I feel for you in your efforts to find a good translation in another language. But I shouldn't get started in other languages... It was in a French translation that I found a word for juice as it is in the grape instead of "wine," which is what the KJV renders it. That was a case where it was better translated than the KJV.

But yes, I imagine it must be frustrating to have a tool that is totally faulty. That is where your knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew will come in handy. It's not like you'd be able to grab another version or two or more to study with.

[Johann]

Here is a link to some scholarly material written by someone who reads the Bible in Greek, English and Italian. He supports the KJV translation to English, and analyzes the work of Westcott and Hort. I present it simply as further material worth studying for those who are desirous of finding the truth about the Bible manuscripts.

The Majority Text of the New Testament (PDF)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

In one Bible that I saw years ago in another local language, Jesus was given "orange juice" on the cross instead of "vinegar." To some, they would just smile and shrug it off. To me it is an appalling error, because it erases a part of the truth about the central focus of the entire Bible--Christ's sacrifice for us. Whether these errors are based on the Westcott and Hort manuscripts or not might be a debatable point. The point I would make is that any alteration of the Word of God makes it less clear and therefore less effective in accomplishing God's purposes with us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Such errors do not appear in the Greek text, neither the Westcott and Hort or any other.

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

... the modern versions of the Bible. Each one says different things. They introduce contradictions into the word of God, and skeptics are given fodder for their arguments.

As I've said before, my favorite translation is the KJV, but I frequently read and study 65+ others. Although they do have differences in some details, those differences don't change the basic story of the Bible.

It's the same with the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is quoted by the NT writers all the time as "the word of God," yet we know that the LXX is frequently more of a paraphrase than an true translation, at least a literal one. Yet Paul and the other inspired men of God did not hesitate to use it as authoritative Scripture.

What, then, would Paul have said if he were alive today to hear Christians attacking translations of the Bible simply because they differ in ways that are far more trivial than the differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text of the OT? Not only do they attack the other translations--and usually without accurate information-- but they attack the people who use them and they even sometimes consign them to the flames.

Quote:

If Christians had soundly rejected the modern versions as being perversions of the pure Word of God, the skeptics would not have much leg to stand on. As it is, the devil laughs, for he sees all of the confusion he has succeeded in creating over the matter, as each Christian is forced to wade through a decision about which Bible is best.

Are you saying that SDA doctrines are so weak that we cannot find them in all competent translations of the Bible?

Did our pioneers have to use the KJV in order to arrive at the truth? Some people talk as if they did.

Virtually all the translations of the Bible into foreign languages in the past 130 years have used the Critical Texts of the NT. Does this fact mean that tens of millions of people who can only read the Bible in those other languages cannot find the full truth of God's word?

Well defined!

[Tom Wetmore]

It is puzzling to me that this is even a debatable issue. The idea that our doctrinal foundation is in the KJV and that modern translations support doctrinal error overlooks a fundamental fact. Practically every doctrinal error and heresy in Christianity today was well established using the KJV or earlier translations and/or the manuscripts they were based on long before any modern translation. It is not about errors in source material. It is about errors in interpretation and understanding of Scripture regardless of what versions was used.

[Green Cochoa]

It is puzzling to me that this is even a debatable issue. The idea that our doctrinal foundation is in the KJV and that modern translations support doctrinal error overlooks a fundamental fact. Practically every doctrinal error and heresy in Christianity today was well established using the KJV or earlier translations and/or the manuscripts they were based on long before any modern translation. It is not about errors in source material. It is about errors in interpretation and understanding of Scripture regardless of what versions was used.

Are you aware that the modern versions abolish the Ten Commandments? Why do you suppose they do that? Would that be a mistake or an agenda?

Regardless of how that is answered, the KJV is a superior translation on that point.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

Evidence?

[Green Cochoa]

Evidence?

Certainly.

Perhaps Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 are the most injurious alterations to the Word of God to have been introduced in the modern perversions. The modern Bibles want to make your worship "easy." You don't have to keep the law anymore--that would be too difficult. So they abolish the law. The KJV does NOT abolish the law in those verses. Look at the comparison closely.

Reference	KJV	NASB	NIV	Notes
Ephesians 2:15	Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;	by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,	by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,	The KJV here preserves the link to "ordinances" which is a reference to the ceremonial laws of types which pointed forward to Christ. The NIV totally abolishes all of God's law--commandments, law and regulations--with no mention of the context of ordinances. The NASB here follows the text more accurately, with a nearly identical reading to that of the KJV.
Colossians 2:14	Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;	having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.	having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.	Again, the KJV here is clear in speaking of the ordinances. The ordinances referred to the ceremonial laws pointing forward to Christ, and these were abolished at the cross. The NASB is less clear now, speaking of a "certificate of debt" that has no ties to anywhere else, least of all to the ordinances that were fulfilled in Christ. The NIV writes a blank check for the reader to fill in his or her own meaning with the term "written code." The NIV removes all reference to the ordinances as the NASB has done.

The KJV has not spoken of God's law--only of the ordinances. If you do not believe that the ordinances were abolished at the cross, it would naturally follow that you should be sacrificing animals to God as did the Israelites. But the NIV abolishes God's commandments in their entirety, which is heresy. The NASB just muddles the issue with its rendering. Of course, the real difference between the KJV and the NASB or NIV is the source manuscript chosen. The KJV follows the Textus Receptus, whereas the modern versions go with the altered Alexandrian codex.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

It was when we were mainly using the KJV that other Christians were really accusing SDA of not following Paul in annulling the Ten Commandments. I have found it easier in my ministry to use the new wording because then we do not have to clarify the old testament ordinances which do not save. There are plenty of other verses to use in connection with the Sanctuary Service when you get into that in your studies.

By comparing the new wording with other texts it becomes clear that it is our sins Jesus carried on the cross. We are forgiven and renewed.

You have to give us some better samples if you insist on your salvation as dependent on the KJV.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Are you aware that the modern versions abolish the Ten Commandments?

Please explain what you mean.

I am looking at the NIV. Exodus, chapter 20 is titled: The Ten Commandments.

I am looking at the NKJV, clearly a recent translation. Exodus, chapter 20 is titled: The Ten Commandments.

The Contemporary English Version titles Exodus chapter 20 as: The Ten Commandments.

The Douay version of the O.T. (Roman Catholic) titles Exodus, Chapter 20 as: The Ten Commandments.

Green, I could go on and on. I simply do not understand your comment. Please explain.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, your examples have shown that you do not have a basic understanding of the Greek as used in the Bible.

Ephesians 2:15: The phrase "Law of Commandments" is generally considered to relate to the ceremonial law.

In both your Ephesians and Colossian passage the Greek word "ordinances" in not considered to relate to religious law. Rather it is thought to relate to the various laws of the Jewish legal system, IOW, Jewish civil law.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Are you aware that the modern versions abolish the Ten Commandments? Why do you suppose they do that? Would that be a mistake or an agenda?

Regardless of how that is answered, the KJV is a superior translation on that point.

Green, a translation, of any type--modern, ancient, etc, is based up0on a text or MSS for the Bible.

An argument as to what is a good translation has to be founded upon the text that was translated. You fail this every time you open you mouth and put words into text.

If the text is translated accurately, it is a good and valid translation, whether or not you like the translation.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quite true. As Johann pointed out and I noted earlier, this heresy, as well as many others, came to us not by modern translations, but the erroneous interpretation of the KJV. I do not see the difference in the examples as so dramatically different. The meaning of the English words ordinances and regulations are quite similar really. To arrive at either understanding of the the texts can be done in any of the translations identified.

But more importantly, I believe that the basic premise of Green that it is the fault of the source manuscripts is fundamentally flawed. I suspect that if one compares the various Greek manuscripts for the two verses in question, and more particularly the precise words/phrases in question, there is no substantive differences at all. It is an erroneous assumption to see the differences in the translations as resulting form different source material. Translating form one language to another is not an exact science that will always yield the exact same result like a mathematical equation. It requires first of all a significant amount of interpretation of the source language and expressing the same idea and meaning in the other language also involves multiple choices words and phrasing that are also subject to interpretation.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

But more importantly, I believe that the basic premise of Green that it is the fault of the source manuscripts is fundamentally flawed. I suspect that if one compares the various Greek manuscripts for the two verses in question, and more particularly the precise words/phrases in question, there is no substantive differences at all. It is an erroneous assumption to see the differences in the translations as resulting form different source material. Translating form one language to another is not an exact science that will always yield the exact same result like a mathematical equation. It requires first of all a significant amount of interpretation of the source language and expressing the same idea and meaning in the other language also involves multiple choices words and phrasing that are also subject to interpretation.

I agree.

HIs basic premise relates to the source MSS. That can be debated. But, he does not have the knowledge of the MSS to make a valid argument of that fundamental point.

So, he speaks of translation and fails to understand the work of a Bible translator.

[donovan]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

The KJV is not copyrighted, it is still the very best from the best manuscripts.

People will vehemently defend the corrupt versions but have at it.

You are forgetting that EGW used a Hort/Westcott bible.

I think you'll find with some research that EGW did not ever use the RV for doctrinal paragraphs. She did use when the wording made more sense to what she was writing, but never for doctrine.

I like the KJV. So it's my preferred one. I do have the Clear Word for tough verses. That helps. I have the Andrews study Bible too. the NKJV does change one thing I don't like. Hebrews 9:12. It said Jesus went into the Most Holy place at His crucifixion. So there goes the Sanctuary message of 1844.