Westcott & Hort

[Gregory Matthews]

Philip W. Comfort, Editor. THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE, Tyndale House, 1992 - 2012.

The above book, the latest edition was published in December 2012, may be of value to you in a study of the history of the Bible.

It comes from a conservative background with contributions from F.F. Bruce, Carl R.H. Henry, J. I. Packer and others. I do not consider it to be perfect. But, I do consider it to be of value and it clearly does not reflect a liberal approach.

I do not have the latest edition. But, in the older edition that I am looking at, it has the following sections with chapters in each section:

1) The Authority & Inspiraiton of the Bible.

2) The Canon of the Bible.

3) The Bible as a Literary Text.

4) Bible Texts & Manuscripts.

5) Bible Translation.

It is currently sold on Amazon and in other places. If you purchase it make certain that you know what edition your are buying.

For further information click on the following:

http://files.tyndale.com/thpdata/FirstChapters/978-0-8423-8367-7.pdf

[Gerr]

I am directing this question to the experts of the sources.

ESV | ýJas 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

ýýNASB95 | ýJas 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

ýýNIV84 | ýJas 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

ýýNRSV | ýJas 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

ýýKJV 1900 | ýJas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

The UBS-based translations have "confess your sins..." (hamartia), whereas the TR-based KJV has "confess your faults..." (paraptoma). Which is correct? Is the difference significant and does it matter?

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not claim to be an expert.

Take a look at the SDABC comment on that verse.

The KJV seems to say "faults." while more modern ones say "sins."

GM

[phkrause]

The CJB translation says: James 5:16 Therefore, openly acknowledge your sins to one another, and pray for each other, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

[joeb]

Gerry,

After your post about the ESV I've added it to my list of parallel Bible versions. I find it interesting and sometimes very useful. The software I use includes a reference system inside the ESV that links other Bible verses on the same subject the verse you're reading. I've found that very useful.

[Gail]

The idea of confessing the sins you have done against someone to that particular person I would think to be healing to the relationship. To me it seems much more humbling than confessing your sins to just anyone.

[Gregory Matthews]

In another fourm, one person has called the NIV the Not Inspired Version (NIV), the NASB Not A Safe Bible (NASB), and the ASV Another Sketchy Version (ASV).

Such statements may sound cute. But, the above treatment of Scripture is the work of the Father of Lies who wants to destroy any faith in the Word of God.

One may make valid criticisms of the various translations and versions of the Bible. But, to treat them on that level is speaking the words of the one who would destroy all faith in God and the preservation of His Word.

[Gerr]

In another fourm, one person has called the NIV the Not Inspired Version (NIV), the NASB Not A Safe Bible (NASB), and the ASV Another Sketchy Version (ASV).

Such statements may sound cute. But, the above treatment of Scripture is the work of the Father of Lies who wants to destroy any faith in the Word of God.

One may make valid criticisms of the various translations and versions of the Bible. But, to treat them on that level is speaking the words of the one who would destroy all faith in God and the preservation of His Word.

[Ted Oplinger]

In another fourm, one person has called the NIV the Not Inspired Version (NIV), the NASB Not A Safe Bible (NASB), and the ASV Another Sketchy Version (ASV).

Such statements may sound cute. But, the above treatment of Scripture is the work of the Father of Lies who wants to destroy any faith in the Word of God.

One may make valid criticisms of the various translations and versions of the Bible. But, to treat them on that level is speaking the words of the one who would destroy all faith in God and the preservation of His Word.

X100

I agree just like Gerry did - with multiple thumbs up.

If one wanted to play down to that level, there are "cutesy" acronyms that can apply to the KJV and NKJV Bibles as well. However, throwing acronyms around does nothing but build barriers, where Christ is seeking to tear them down.

As you said, each has it's strengths and each it's weaknesses. In my experience and studies, there are individual verses that I like out of each version (because those particular verses are translated the best), and each version contains verses that are horribly mistranslated, IMHO.

A person needs to do most of their reading/study out of the version(s) that they understand and relate to the most, and use the others for cross-reference if they are able to have those additional versions and the time available. If that is the KJV, then that's fine. If it's the NIV or NASB, then that's fine as well. What counts is that they are in the Word of God, and He can overcome human failings within each version.

Blessings,

[Gail]

In another fourm, one person has called the NIV the Not Inspired Version (NIV), the NASB Not A Safe Bible (NASB), and the ASV Another Sketchy Version (ASV).

Such statements may sound cute. But, the above treatment of Scripture is the work of the Father of Lies who wants to destroy any faith in the Word of God.

One may make valid criticisms of the various translations and versions of the Bible. But, to treat them on that level is speaking the words of the one who would destroy all faith in God and the preservation of His Word.

That thought has occurred to me before. Thank you for putting it down onto (online) paper.

[Gail]

I agree just like Gerry did - with multiple thumbs up.

If one wanted to play down to that level, there are "cutesy" acronyms that can apply to the KJV and NKJV Bibles as well. However, throwing acronyms around does nothing but build barriers, where Christ is seeking to tear them down.

As you said, each has it's strengths and each it's weaknesses. In my experience and studies, there are individual verses that I like out of each version (because those particular verses are translated the best), and each version contains verses that are horribly mistranslated, IMHO.

A person needs to do most of their reading/study out of the version(s) that they understand and relate to the most, and use the others for cross-reference if they are able to have those additional versions and the time available. If that is the KJV, then that's fine. If it's the NIV or NASB, then that's fine as well. What counts is that they are in the Word of God, and He can overcome human failings within each version.

When I talked to that person at Campmeeting (I talked to 2 about Bible versions) I said, You know, when you speak with scholars of Bible versions they don't talk like that.

Ted, I agree with you wholeheartedly!!! 100 Thumbs up for you, too!!

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

You are making some large assumptions. One of these assumptions is that God has chosen to "preserve" His Word through having a plethora of varying translations. Here are some reasons why that assumption may not be safe.

1) "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1 Corinthians 14:33)

2) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

3) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

God is particular when it comes to His Word. He will not condone the alteration of it one iota. His Word is clear that those who attempt to change so much as a word of what He has given us through prophecy are in danger of the judgment for it.

Now, what sort of "scripture" is it that has added man's own words to it? Is that "inspired" on the same level as the prophets were inspired to write?

I would call what the prophets wrote "scripture," per the Bible's own definitions of scripture. I would not call uninspired men's writings scripture. Therefore, if modern versions possess such writings, they are not scripture. Just such additions and subtractions as are warned against in Revelation were made by Westcott and Hort, and their trickle-down effect has come into all of the modern translations.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Guest]

Amen.

[Gibs]

Also know this,

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The same you can be sure applies to His Word all through,

It is all God breathed, every Word is His Word!

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The new age versions add and subtract and it cannot be if you demand His Word and not of some man.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error

[Gail]

But you are neglecting that the KJV translators also added...

[Green Cochoa]

For every place you can find where the KJV has poorly translated something, I would be happy to find multiple such examples in the NIV, and it will be readily seen that the modern translational errors are more egregious. One thing is certain: the more men tinker with the Word of God, the greater the errors that are entered into it, and the bolder people become in changing it. Furthermore, the more change people see, the less respect they have for the preservation and accuracy of the Word of God. Many today have come to believe, as did Arthur Maxwell, that just any old Bible version is "the word of God," and it matters not which one one chooses to use.

It seems similar to Satan's confounding of the churches in protestantism. One can speak of methodist truth, baptist truth, episcopalian truth, presbyterian truth, Lutheran truth, adventist truth, or any of a host of others. Are they all the same? Does it really not matter which one one accepts? Are the Buddhists right who say that all religions are equal? Are all Bibles equal too?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is the solution. Do away with all translations. Require that if people wish to read Scripture, they must learn to read the original languages, ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Oh wait, that actually was the case for many centuries during the dark ages. The only authorized translation was Latin, and the Church opposed any translation into common languages, pretty much using a lot of the same arguments we are seeing right here. And then the Reformation happened...

[Green Cochoa]

Yes, and now we have options. We can either use translations from the uncorrupted manuscripts (Majority Text), or from the corrupted ones (minority codices, including codex siniaiticus, codex vaticanus, and other Egyptian manuscripts).

I have no argument with those who choose to educate themselves on the source and lineage of their Bible. I feel compassion, however, toward those who have ignorantly accepted that which is popular, thinking there is safety in numbers and that everything must be all right.

The Bible invites all to "seek" God. How? With all of their heart. We are to study "diligently." This is our duty and privilege.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

BIble has been translated into several thousand languages. (A significant percentage have been translated from what you describe as the "uncorrupted" manuscripts.) If you did a comparison of those translations how much consistency would you expect? Said differently, how many discrepancies in meaning across all those languages do you think you might find? More specifically, how many of those translations do you think likely come to similar, or worse, translation "errors" that some folk seem so worried about?

Just one example. In a small study group of which I am a part the observation was made by a man who is French that he had read the passage under study in both his French Bible and in English. He said the translations were different. ANd that was only a few verses in one NT book. I strongly suspect that if we brought more languages and included the whole Bible in such a comparative study we would find many variations that diverged substantially from one another. Shall we insist that all people, English speaking and other language groups, must learn 16-17th Century English so they can only use the KJV?

[Johann]

In another fourm, one person has called the NIV the Not Inspired Version (NIV), the NASB Not A Safe Bible (NASB), and the ASV Another Sketchy Version (ASV).

Such statements may sound cute. But, the above treatment of Scripture is the work of the Father of Lies who wants to destroy any faith in the Word of God.

One may make valid criticisms of the various translations and versions of the Bible. But, to treat them on that level is speaking the words of the one who would destroy all faith in God and the preservation of His Word.

Gregory, this needs to be repeated. Such attacks of the Word of God are out of place here.

[Naomi]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

In another fourm, one person has called the NIV the Not Inspired Version (NIV), the NASB Not A Safe Bible (NASB), and the ASV Another Sketchy Version (ASV).

Such statements may sound cute. But, the above treatment of Scripture is the work of the Father of Lies who wants to destroy any faith in the Word of God.

One may make valid criticisms of the various translations and versions of the Bible. But, to treat them on that level is speaking the words of the one who would destroy all faith in God and the preservation of His Word.

Gregory, this needs to be repeated. Such attacks of the Word of God are out of place here.

Agreed ... just bumping this up a bit

[Green Cochoa]

If one sees that the modern versions attack the purity of God's truth, is it out of place to say anything about it on this forum?

If people do not want to know the truth, there are fewer rewards in sharing it, of course. Even Jesus advised His disciples not to cast their pearls before swine. Does God give us up to our delusions? I believe He does exactly that at times. What else can He do? He grants us freedom of choice. God is a gentleman. He will not force His truth upon any mind this side of probation's close.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not out of place on this forum. But don't expect that you will find agreement or support for your point of view. And don't expect to get support by implying that those who disagree with you are delusional.

Really, if you expect to be given a fair hearing and consideration that you may be right, you likewise need to be open to being wrong yourself and give other points of view a fair hearing too with the real possibility that they may be right.

[Gail]

As for myself, I found out that when I took a more informed stance on the Bible versions and a positive for the good instead on focusing on the bad or the wrong either real or misinformed, my witness was blessed.

[8thdaypriest]

Someone asked whether a poor translation, or an edit by the Catholics influenced any fundamental doctrine.

I mention Matthew 28:19, because there is some scholarly work strongly suggesting that the translation which Constantine authorized and paid for (The Byzantine) includes some changes.

The only surviving pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts all have the last portion of Matthew MISSING - with verse 28:19. There is ONE pre-Constantine Aramaic manuscript. In THAT manuscript, Matthew 28:19 reads "baptizing them in my name" - NOT "in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Other passages confirm that the disciples followed the Aramaic - they baptized in His name - in the name of Jesus Christ. See: Acts 2:38, Acts 8;16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Romans 6:3, I Cor 15:29 (Baptized for the dead one=Christ), and Gal. 3:27.

There was a great argument going on in 300AD about about the origin(or not)of Christ. Was He begotten, or created or had He always existed as an aspect or manifestation of God. Arius held that He was created by the Father. I do NOT agree. I believe that He was begotten "in the express image of" the Father. He was an exact copy (image) of the Father. An "image of" is a COPY of the original. I know there is a thread on the Trinity question, but thought I'd throw that in here.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Blessings