Biblical Interp

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I was reading in another forum thread that the original Hebrew used in writing the scriptures did not use vowels, punctuation, or spaces between words. Putting in one vowel or another could change the meaning of what was said. This confuses me a bit.

Does it mean that what is now written as scripture may not be accurate?

[Ron Lambert]

Welcome to the complicated world of Biblical translation, rudywoofs. What a translator believes may influence how he renders the text in his translations. This is why we need to compare many different translations in any serious study. If you want an example of how wildly variant some translators' take on the meaning of a passage may be, read the last two verses (26, 27) of Daniel chapter nine, in several different Bible translations. To whom do the various pronouns refer? Translators admit that the original text here is "obscure."

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, there are what I call "minor" errors in the text.

But, I begin with the assumption that God has preserved what God believes to be important for us to know. So, I trust the Bible.

It is good to compare Scripture with Scripture. This will help protect us from a possible problem in a single verse.

Our salvation really is not dependent upon the issues involved in what are often claimed to be errors.

Let me give you an example of a historical error:

The OT (you can look it up if you want to do so) tells us that the Children of Isreal, while they were in Egypt, built the Egyptian city of Ramses.

That is claimed to be a historical error. O. K.

Now I will illustrate the resolution of that historical problem"

In grade school, children have sometimes been taught that the Dutch founded the city of New York.

The truth of the matter is that the Dutch founded the city of New Amsterdam. Later in our history that city changed its name to New York.

That is the resolution of the claimed historical error.

Now getting to the issues of the OT text:

about 500 - 700 CE (AD is more familiar to you) Jewish scholars attempted to preserve the OT Text by inserting vowls into it according to what they believed to be accurate. This is called the Massoritic Text. The Christian world generally accepts their work as accurate, with minor exceptions.

So, we have a record of what these Jewish scholars believed to be the meaning. We are not left in the 21 Cent. with no idea about it.

In a case such as this, the fundamental meaning can generally be derived from the contaxt. Let me give you an example in a short sentence writen without vowl and spaces:

thbysrd

The above could either mean: The boy is rude, or the bay is red. The selecltion would be made from the context.

Really, the issue of vowls is not a major one.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

This is very interesting! And helpful.

Does the New Testament have the same kind of translation idiosyncrasies (I think it was written in Greek?) as Hebrew writing?

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Pam,

I have a book that I think we all should read. I was watching 3ABN about 3 years ago or so and heard a pastor Joe Grisham disscuss the different NT translations and which one we aught to use for study. I ordered his book and still have it. It has opened my eyes to many things about the Bible and he documents all of his findings. I always used the KJV and after reading this I still continue to use it and only use other translations to get a different perspective on the words.

His study is pretty exhaustive and very concise. I know many who have studied along these lines may not agree with his findings but he uses scholars, history and EGW to clearly present his findings. I was amazed at what he found! For example did you know that all of the NT Bibles that are on the market come from two manuscipts? They are catholic in flavor, corrupt and have as much as 5% missing from them when compared to the KJV. That 5% is the equivalant of taking out the entire book of John!!!

No wonder we have such confusion!

I'm not at home now so Ican't give you the name of the book. I'll do so later this evening.

In Christ,

Norman

[Ron Lambert]

rudywoofs, the Greek of the New Testament does not present quite as bad a problem as the Old Testament Hebrew. At least the Greek in the New Testament had vowels. However, it was all capitals (uncials), and there were no spaces between words, and no punctuation.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Thanks for the input so far!!!

Norman, I'll be interested in finding out about the book you described. One of the things I've been trying to do lately is figure out which translation is best for me. It *has* to be something understandable...I like the King James Version, but it *is* kinda hard to comprehend in lots of places - and I've read where even *that* was translated with a slant towards the dictates of King James. (Don't know if that's true or not.)

What do folks here think of the various Bible commentaries that are out there? Helpful or not?

[Gregory Matthews]

In general, the NT does not have the same translation issues as does the OT.

The NT was primarily written in Greek with some Aramaic, and a sprinkling of other stuff.

The OT was primarily written in Hebrew, with a few short Aramaic sections.

Biblical Greek is quite different from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Greek language had written vowls.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . . the NT Bibles that are on the market come from two manuscipts?"

Norman, I consider you my friend, and value your contribution here. But, I have got to speak frankly: The above statement is absolutely, 100%, false.

I suggest that you go back to your book as check to see if the author actually stated such, or if he stated that they came from two "text types," or some simular wording.

Folks, there is a big difference betwen a MSS (manuscript) and a "text type."

Norman, if you come back and tell us that the author said "text type." or some other simular phrase, his statement can still be challenged. But, at least it is not as bad as it is to say MSS.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "They are catholic in flavor, corrupt and have as much as 5% missing from them when compared to the KJV. That 5% is the equivalant of taking out the entire book of John!!!"

Such statements are emotional in flavor. The tear down the Word of God, and suggest that God is not trused to prserve what God wants preserved.

Serious scholars, who believe in the Bible, know that there are problems with some MSS, and issues of translation. But, throughout all of this, God has given us His written Word, which contains what God has wanted preserved today.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "They are catholic in flavor, corrupt and have as much as 5% missing from them when compared to the KJV."

For those of you who prefer the KJV, tell us what you think of the NKJV, and why.

Folks I am going to give you an example:

1) Go to your Bibles and read I John 5:. Notice the difference between the KJV and most modern versions in relation to verses 7 & 8.

2) If you know the history of this, you know that the KJV contains a major error. You can eithr attibute this error to an honest mistake, made by a scribe who copied an exegetical comment in the margin of a MSS into the text. Or you can state that it was an intentional forgery. I happen to beleive the latter.

3) This is probably the best example of a corrupted passage in the NT. This type of corrupted text comes nowhere near the claimed 5%.

4) Where was God in this? Well, this corruption came into the KJV through the efforts of Erasmus. But, in a marginal comment Erasmus stated that he did not believe it was accurate.

5) God has preserved His truth. We have the record of this event.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Gregory,

I will look at this book again and make sure of what I read but I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Gregory,

The name of the book is "Dealing with the devil's deception how to choose a Bible" His name is Joe W. Gresham

Norman

[Jim Wood]

There are some real advantages to non-KJV versions. For example, take at look at the NIV if you want to study state of the dead. Compare all the "soul" verses in the KJV OT with those in the NIV.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

But there's so MANY versions! How does anyone know which is the best? Or right? How do you *weed out* the corruptions and keep the truth?

[Jim Wood]

For inspirational reading I like the new versions. I am currently reading the New Living Translation. I have friends who like The Message. I learn something new from any version I read. But if I am studying I use the New American Standard Bible, plus others to compare.

Today's translators have more resources -- ancient mss, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. -- than were available for the KJV. So newer translations can be "technically" superior to older ones. "Can be" is the operative phrase there.

As far as weeding out "corruptions" is concerned -- be careful that you don't weed out the wrong stuff. Compare version with version, scripture with scripture, always asking for the Holy Spirit to help you understand.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

---

Today's translators have more resources -- ancient mss, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. -- than were available for the KJV. So newer translations can be "technically" superior to older ones. "Can be" is the operative phrase there.

---

Are the newer translations, then, best for a *beginner*?

[Jim Wood]

Let's consider that a "beginner" may be more likely to read a new version than an older one, simply because the language and terminology is more familiar.

The people who heard Moses, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Matthew, Paul, John, etc., generally heard their own vernacular language spoken. The Greek of the New Testament is not classical Greek but the "vulgar" vernacular Greek spoken in the first century CE (AD).

Here's another consideration: Newer versions that are translated by a large number of scholars are less likely to reflect one person's personal views than translations (and paraphrases) done by a single individual. Each version will give you that kind of info in the introductory pages.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Yes....makes sense about the number of contributors.

[Ron Lambert]

More than one SDA minister (including some that were really scholarly) have told me that they prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it is more precise and aimed for scholars. One told me he especially liked the fact that all the translators had to sign a form declaring that they believed the Bible was verbally inspired (word-for-word) in its original form. While we as SDAs do not believe in verbal inspiration, it is good to know the translators did, because that means they were much less inclined to be too free in their translations.

The NASB is the one I carry around with me, and take to church. But whenever I am studying a Bible subject, or doing writing on a Bible subject, I use my computerized Bible program, which has about a dozen Bibles in it. I usually compare the NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, and KJV. I also have the Greek version, since I can read Greek a little. I have the standard Textus Receptus, and the Nestle Aland versions of the Greek. I do not have the Hebrew text, since I do not read Hebrew. I do have Young's Analytical Concordance (in hard copy), and I have Thayer's Bible dictionary on my computer accessible as hypertexts in my Bible software. I also have the SDA Bible Commentary on my hard drive.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Jim,

The problem is not with the OT but with the NT. Here's an example of the corruption. 1st I've got the KJV then the NIV and the 2nd one is the KJV and the NASB

Mark 7: 17- 19

KJV

17 "And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"

NIV

17"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Tell me that's not twisted.

Now look at Rev 22:14

KJV

14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

NASB

14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city."

No wonder the sunday keepers have a hard time understanding our message.

John 1: 12

KJV

12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

NIV

12 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—"

Power means the Holy Spirit, but "The Right?" What is that? is it talking about permission? Sounds watered down to me.

There are a lot of other verses that are twisted and some are missing completely. If you want, I can post more of these so you can see it for yourself.

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Ron,

Quote:

---

I have the standard Textus Receptus, and the Nestle Aland versions of the Greek.

---

Do you have the Textus Recptus on a CD ROM or in book format? In either case where can I get one of these?

Thanks

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Pam,

The book that I mentioned in a post above talks about that very thing. Why so many Bible translations and which one has the truth? His conclusion is the KJV and he gives many proofs. I mentioned something from the book and Gregory told me that the book was wrong if it said what I said it did. I still have to go back and look at it to see exactly what it said. As soon as I have more time I will do this.

Norman

[Gregory Matthews]

RE: "Do you have the Textus Recptus on a CD ROM or in book format? In either case where can I get one of these?"

NOTE: Such is not written in English.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Gregory,

If that is the case then I will ask you to pray that I receive the gift of tongues and interpretation.

Norman