ALL Modern Bible Versions are corrupted?

[DeaconBob3]

Chad:
I believe speaking truth in defense of defamation is required of us. When we fail to do this we are in danger of being ashamed of God or Christ and Christ said that "If any man be ashamed of me I will be ashamed of him before my Father in heaven."

Gayle Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions"; does an extensive, detailed and thoroughly researched analysis of the various bible versions in print. Anyone wanting to really understand the origins of our bible versions should examine her evidence and check her sources and then decide what to rely on.

Finally we should all remember that;

Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words : as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.KJV

 

[KJV]

What we need here is a column for "What am I doing to lead others to Christ" Then maybe we can rejoice in each others accomplishments for the Kingdom rather than squabble over ideals.

I think that would be a good column but this one isn't it. It is possible to discuss christian topics and still evangelise. The two are not mutually incompatible and a worse thing than debate and discussion among Christians (in a good spirit) is when you get a bunch of christians with no opinions or interest in doctrine; other than the bare minimum basics, or who seem to fear it.

 

[KJV]

What in the world did Christians read before 1611? What did the first century Church read? Without the Holy Spirit to reveal the scriptures, regardless of the translation( even KJV) there is no life in it. He is the final authority!

It can be summned up like this. There are two basic NT texts (although scholars have asserted 3 or 4, although they are moving away from this and there are predominately two) they are each represented in various Greek manuscripts, versions, lectionaries and church fathers.

The text which is represented by the KJV, protestant versions and the majority of manuscripts, versions and fathers is called the byzantine, syrian, traditional text and in it's printed form the recieved text. This is a more fuller and theologically orthodox text and was accepted universally by Christians until the 18 hundreds.

The other text or Alexandrian, critical text, is represented by a minority of manuscripts, which because a few of them were earlier than any other complete manuscripts (4th century), was used to replace the majority, traditional text.

Modern textual criticism developed theories to exlain the fact that both texts are co-equal in antiquity, (as proved by the quotes of the church fathers, the ancient versions and the papyrus, which contains Majority text readings despite being mainly Alexandrian) the Alexandrian text fell into dissuse in the 4th century and the majoriy text is the fuller text.

The basic theory went like this: original text-neutral; not Christian or orthodox as such, just a work of literature.
Orthodoxy develops and puts out a revised text to back up orthodoxy and to dicplace the pure, neutral, Alexandrian text. Through various means it is repressed and throughout the major portion and history of the church the KJV type text predominates until it is replaced by scholars, with what is basically todays critical text and the recieved text is all but forgotten and much malighned.

Unfortuanetly virtually all of todays modern versions use the wrong text base (even the NKJV), they freely use an interpretive form of translating called dynamic equivalence so you never know if what you are reading are the words of God, the men who translate them barely touch the hem of the garments; in their knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, cognate and other languages, of the men who translated the KJV and other protestant versions, their work, it seems, is done primarily for money and they are theologically inferior: as well as paradoxically being harder to read memorise and understand.

A KJV type bible (textually speaking) was therfore all over the place before 1611.

 

[Nigh]

Your big words confuse me. I'm just a simple cave man.

 

[KJV]

Your big words confuse me. I'm just a simple cave man.

Sorry about the big words. Unfortunately a lot of the discussion on the topic of texts and biblical criticism in general does use a lot of jargon to confuse the simple and unlearned.

I am in my last year of a divinity degree at the moment and what they really mean when they say "write an exegetical essay on a passage" is "discuss what the, mostly unsaved and liberal, scholars say". Thankfully a British theological degree is no longer considered suitable for access to ministry, accept in the Presbytarian church.

The textual differances that underlay the modern versions can be analyzed simply, by anyone, by doing a verse by verse comparason of the KJV and the most popular modern version, the NIV. Try 1 Timothy 3: 16 and Acts 8: 37 for starters.

 

[xDICEx]

The two Greek texts I have are 1)Textus Reeceptus (1550 Stephens with 1624 Elzevir in the notes, and 2) the American Bible Sociaties Critical text based on Westcott and Hort. I cannot biblicly accept the methodology or the basic assumptions of the critical text. As a recieved text(textus receptus) defender, I advocate the use of the KJV in churches. I have been witness to the defection from the authority of the bible (1955 till today), and right at the heart of it has been the proliferation of latest translations, parephrases, and the scholastisizing of the original manuscripts. Just as in the Roman Catholic tradition, liberalism has taken the bible out of the hands of the comon man; and has substituted their esoteric babble for the pope. Dear brothers we have a reliable authority for the English bible; it is the KJV and the source texts it is translated from. ...DGB

PS here is an interesting observation:My critical text is like new, though it is older; and my textus is all worn out (needs to be replaced),though it is newer. This is as manuscripts: the used ones get replaced, and the unused ones survive the ages. = Are the older surviving texts more authoritative or were they just not used?

 

[jiggyfly]

What about the Geneva Bible?

 

[xDICEx]

I have never read it jiggyfly. My grandmother had one; came down to her in her family. Just looked on-line: first verses in John look just like my KJV; it appears to be translated from the same source texts as the KJV. I have read some fragments of Tyndales translation, and it is similar also. It is the source texts I am most concirned about, but there is a reason the KJV replaced these excellent translations for almost universal use in English speaking churches befor the day's of textual criticism.

I became a Christian while reading through Good News for Modern Man. NASV came out and I read that for years. When I started reading the KJV again I was struck with the force and clearity of it's usage in comparrison to others. And I was glad to have back thoes diety of Christ, trinity, and attonement passages that were either weakened or eliminated from thoes others. Afterwards I came to conviction on the critical methods and assumptions. I came to feel wonderfully safe with the KJV. Have been now for 33years. I suppose I might feel just as safe with the Geneva or Tyndale, but for fellowship we need an available standard translation.

 

[jiggyfly]

I like all of the bible tranlations that I have read, some more than others, but I use them all including many reference works.

I feel it is important to state that where you see the statement "Authorized" concerning KJV is referring to the King's (of England) authorization.

 

[xDICEx]

I did and do too jiggfly. ASV, NASV, NEV, K.Whuest, Amplified, GNMM, NIV,Taylor's paraphrase, Jerusalem Bible...etc...add infinitun. I even translate myself when I study a passage, and I find Lenski, Alford, Robertson, Machan, Dana & mantey, Davis, and others very useful. An English translation for me is not enough, but when all is said and done, I hold up to English speaking people the KJV. This is a text all can use and study with greater accuracy, word translation consistancy, even syntaxical similarity (due to the old English) than any else. Morover, memorization, simplicity, beauty of phrase, and the recognision as a standard, all argue for its common (things are efficient when there is a standard) use in public worship and churches.

However, when I do translate I use my textus receptus(NT) and Masoretic(OT) same as the KJV translated. My critical text and the septuagint get used less and for less important issues.

 

[Nigh]

Sorry about the big words. Unfortunately a lot of the discussion on the topic of texts and biblical criticism in general does use a lot of jargon to confuse the simple and unlearned.

That's nice. However, I am niether simple nor unlearned. I simply do not understand the jargon of your profession. I could confound you with some Radio/TV production jargon, or maybe the leathercraft. Oh, or the auto repair jargon would be fun. Do you know what a flux copacitor is? How 'bout a fretinetor turnbuckle. Intermetalic compounds with a 650-750 measure of resistivity sounds simple enough to me. Also I like to blend my AC6028 (aka P500) with my HCD48 (aka P400) in my highshear blender. How do you do it?

In your own words...

...a lot of the discussion... in general does use a lot of jargon to confuse the simple and unlearned.

According to you, the jargon is used, not for clarity as in my profession, but in order to confuse the simple people. What manner of people is this that try to exclude the sheep of the flock of Christ from the discussion concerning the word of God? I don't trust any of them. The ONLY king I serve is STILL alive and was so long before 1611. I care not what an earthly king "authorised". The only "authorization" I need comes from Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society(New International Version)


May God bless you with wisdom and understanding for you to do all things that the Lord has commanded. Amen

God bless,
Nigh

 

[KJV]

I like all of the bible tranlations that I have read, some more than others, but I use them all including many reference works.
I feel it is important to state that where you see the statement "Authorized" concerning KJV is referring to the King's (of England) authorization.

I have read about thirty books on the subject and the common understanding is that the KJV recieved no official authorisation from anyone and though it was commisioned "by his majesty's special command" it became known as the Authorized Version purely through popular concent usage.

A good book on the translation of the KJV is by Alistair McGrath (though by no means an "AV man") is "In The Beginning, The Story of the King James Bible".

He says (p164) "There is no record of any final royal authorisation of the completed translation-for example, by an Order in Council. However, a fire at Whitehall in January 1618 led to the destruction of the records of the Council, including its registers, for the period 1600-13." This means there may or may not have been a royal authorisation, but the use of the term Authorised Version came about later through its own intinsick merits and the love of the common people. Originally it was just called The Holy Bible.

 

[KJV]

That's nice. However, I am niether simple nor unlearned. I simply do not understand the jargon of your profession. I could confound you with some Radio/TV production jargon, or maybe the leathercraft. Oh, or the auto repair jargon would be fun. Do you know what a flux copacitor is? How 'bout a fretinetor turnbuckle. Intermetalic compounds with a 650-750 measure of resistivity sounds simple enough to me. Also I like to blend my AC6028 (aka P500) with my HCD48 (aka P400) in my highshear blender. How do you do it?
In your own words... According to you, the jargon is used, not for clarity as in my profession, but in order to confuse the simple people. What manner of people is this that try to exclude the sheep of the flock of Christ from the discussion concerning the word of God? I don't trust any of them. The ONLY king I serve is STILL alive and was so long before 1611. I care not what an earthly king "authorised". The only "authorization" I need comes from Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society(New International Version)
May God bless you with wisdom and understanding for you to do all things that the Lord has commanded. Amen
God bless,
Nigh

Yes I agree exactly. Which is why the modern textual criticism which led to the modern Bible versions (which some say are corrupt; compare the text in English and they are textually different) cannot and should not be trusted by Bible believing Christians.

 

[jiggyfly]

"King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.

"At a conference at Hampton Court in 1604 with bishops and theologians, the king listened to a suggestion by the Puritan scholar John Reynolds that a new translation of the Bible was needed. Because of his distaste for the Geneva Bible, James was eager for a new translation. 'I profess,' he said, 'I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst.'" (The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation by Gary DeMar)

This helps us to better understand why the Geneva Bible was so despised by King James. It is not an overstatement to say that much of James' conduct as king of England was reactionary, done to counter an unacceptable turn toward egalitarianism. There is little doubt in our minds but that a clandestine scheme lay at the heart of James' decision to translate his new Bible.

After James came to England and was crowned king, a bishop by the name of Richard Bancroft, soon to become archbishop, sought to save the church and the nation of England from the puritan "false prophets." Bancroft was aware of James' exalted view of kingship and used that knowledge to promote his own agenda. In presenting the Puritans as a threat to the crown, Bancroft solicited the king's help in suppressing this greatest threat to his position and power and in so doing made himself the highest authority in the Church of England, second only to the King himself. There can be little doubt but that the true motive behind Bancroft's intrigue was a desire to preserve the power of the unbiblical bishoprick.

Alister McGrath explains Bancroft's strategy.

"Bancroft's strategy for coping with James was simple. He would persuade James that the monarchy was dependent upon the episcopacy. Without bishops there was no future for the monarchy in England." ("In The Beginning" - Pg. 152)

This political cunning played a significant role in the decision to translate a new Bible, an Authorized Version that would make all other versions unauthorized. From all appearances, the new translation was a calculated initial step toward ridding England of the despised Geneva Bible and its marginal notes. This new Bible would preserve and promote the divine right of kings and bishops to rule. Bishop Bancroft was placed in charge of the translation. This move was akin to a CEO entrusting the company finances to a known embezzler! There is little doubt that Bancroft stacked the translation panel with a goodly number of translators who shared his views.

Mr. McGrath explains,

"A further point that helped win Bancroft over to the new translation was that he was able to secure for himself a leading personal role in selecting the translators, and then in limiting their freedom. Bancroft had realized that it was better to create a new official translation that he could influence than to have to contend with the authorization of the Geneva Bible. It was decidedly the lesser of two evils. He was in a position to exercise considerable influence over the new bible, by laying rules of translation that would insure that it would be sympathetic to the position and sensitivities of the established church of England. And finally he would be in a position to review the final text of the translation, in case it needed any judicious changes before publication." (In The Beginning Pg 164)

Determined to ensure that the translation process was prudently guided, Bancroft limited the freedom of the translators by drafting fifteen rules of translation, which were approved by King James.

Two of these rules are of special importance.

1.) The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, was to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

3.) The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, vis. The word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

The Bishops Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, which was expressly translated in hopes of replacing the Geneva Bible. Archbishop Matthew Parker commissioned this revision. A company of bishops did the translating - thus the name "The Bishops Bible." Archbishop Parker faced considerable opposition from the Puritans for his insistence upon the use of robes and his writings that held to the old line.

Ironically the Bishops Bible, which until that time had been ineffective in accomplishing its original purpose of replacing the Geneva Bible, would now, in the hands of another ambitious bishop, be used to that very end. In order to preserve their precious power base, King James and Bishop Bancroft took a giant step backwards in order to negate the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles.

Rule number three was clearly designed to insure that Tyndale's translation of the Greek word ekklesia as congregation instead of church would not be used in the king's new Bible. Tyndale had translated the Greek word ekklesia as congregation, and revealed his contempt for the word Church by using the word churches in acts 19:37 to refer to heathen temples. Could he have been trying to tell us something?

Clearly, an accurate translation was not the objective of Bancroft and his team. As if that were not enough, when the translation was complete, Bancroft took the final draft into his home and further altered it before giving it over to the king to be published.

Alister McGrath explains,

"Having completed their recommendations for revision (of the work of the translators of the Kings new Bible), the text was passed on to Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson, who were charged with the adding of the finishing touches. It is not clear whether their role was to review the overall text of the translation, or simply to comment on the specific changes proposed by the editorial committee that had met at Stationers' Hall. Then, in an apparently unscripted development, Richard Bancroft reviewed what had been hitherto regarded as the final version of the text. It would be one of his final acts; Bancroft died on November 2, 1610, and never lived to see the translation over which he had held so much sway (by order of the king). Smith complained loudly to anyone who would listen that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation. Yet we remain unclear to what those alleged changes might have been." (In The Beginning - Pg. 188)

This is only a sample of the kind of political jockeying that was going on behind the scenes and the ambition that sponsored the translating, editing and publication of the king's new Bible, which could not escape being tainted by such ambition.

King James prohibited his translators from removing the old ecclesiastical words that had taken generations to weave into the text. He had to make a special emphasis in order to keep them, since any honest translator would have translated them out. Bancroft and King James intended to keep them no matter what the translators discovered.

"I am convinced that the King James Translators, laboring under an 'institutional church' mentality, selected the strongest words possible which conveyed the idea that the people must submit to the authority of the clergy. In this way King James could control the people through the Church, of which he was Supreme Ruler." (Dusty Owens - quote taken from "It shall not be so among you" by Norman Park)

Taken from "The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy" by George Davis and Michael Clark

 

[xDICEx]

Interesting read fellas, thanks. Something so clandestaned to have so much detail documented so 395 years later historians can still discuss it is unique. We are beter at hiding things today. I would like a list of translators names, never seen one myself. Was under the impression Calvinism was prety much the Putitan, noncomformist, as well as babptist dominant view of things at this period. The first pastor to ever confront me in this relm was a calvinist who's concirn was the purity and uniformity of scriptures in public settings, and that textual criticism was breading doubt in the common man: doubt that he had in his very hands God's word. From 1960 to arround 1980, the KJV was used in most assemblies--we all had the same book--word clarifications were part of the preaching/teaching; it is just a translation; the original Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic was explained to refine what was ment--we all could fallow along--can't do that effeciently anymore, as in another thread people have translations that fallow entirely different source texts: q.v.
"mistakes in the bible." Keep it up, it's interesting.

 

[Nigh]

Yes I agree exactly. Which is why the modern textual criticism which led to the modern Bible versions (which some say are corrupt; compare the text in English and they are textually different) cannot and should not be trusted by Bible believing Christians.

You're missing the point. The very reasons you can not trust the "modern textual criticism" leading to modern versions is EXACTLY the same reason not to trust the KJV. Do you really think that an argument can't be made to completely discredit the KJV? Just look at Jiggy's last post. You have read some thirty books on the translation of the KJV. Did any of those thirty critisize the KJV?

Understand, that I believe that the KJV is inspired by God and guided by the Holy Spirit. Or, more precisely that my understanding of it is so guided. The Holy Spirit isn't in here for nothing. He's busy at work while I read my Bible. This goes for which ever version I happen to be reading at the time. So I'm saying the KJV is NOT better than say the NIV. It's the Holy Spirit who is "better", or should I say "best".

I would like to here a reply on this question though... Did any of those thirty critisize the KJV?

May God bless you in all you do,
Nigh

 

[xDICEx]

Nigh, it's a simple question; don't know why you havent got an answer. I can't answer for KJV above, but I can answer for myself. I critisize the KJV translation every time I switch messanger/angel, assembly/church, Yahway/LORD, imerce/baptise, and others. jiggyfly's post is not the whole truth, but that doesen't matter either; as far as English translations go, the KJV is far the better of them all, partly for its consistancy, and partly for the source texts. My advocacy is not for the schoolar he is equipted to do his oun research, but for the simple: you can trust the KJV. I don't want to suggest equivocation or doubt to simple believers. When you change the source texts for the current theory of Text derivation, you create a new generation of Priestcraft: we must wait for them to hand us down their latest version of the word of god. I believe it is entirely possible to demonstrate that God has preserved the faithfull copies of the autogrph manuscripts in the textus receptus and the Mesoritic text both biblicaly, and historicaly. The whole process depends on sound doctrin in the first part, and a sound historiography in the second. It is kind of like the creationist/evolution controversy. Your presupositions not only select what facts you incorperate, but also color or skew the facts you do see. A Godly textual critism founded on sound doctrin and guided by biblical inferences about how texts might deviate due to error and wresting of the word, is a foundation on which to reconstruct this area of investagation. But I never want to suggest to the common man that the texts are in question. And they are not. God has been with his people preserving the texts in the hands of his servants using them. Just like he has been amoung the English for almost 400 years.

 

[snigglefrig]

translations

i have been reading through this thread and have only come up with one thought. thee will be fallacies anywhere there is human interaction. we are all human and have been since the beginning. the only perfect man ever on earth has been our Lord Jesus. as for the translations??? even for those who go back to the earliest manuscripts it is hard to find manmy of them that agree with ALL the others. all translations thorughout time have tried to base their work on the earliest scripts found. The Latin Vulgate, the Codex of Ephraim, the Codex Bezae, the Vatican manuscript. All very old and closer to the original then any other found at the time, and all vary in differetn respects from the others.
my reply to all this is trust in God to show you the way whichever translation you read and if your heart is right with Him he will show you the way, The devil is the one that is trying to lead everyone astray by trying to get them to forget the Bible vecause of its mistakes. the only way not to have mistakes is to find the original written by the true authors, and as i see it, noone has found them. so let us get as close as possible and stop detracting from the study of the word that God has given us.

 

[Cognitive]

If this thread were a room, and we were people inside it.

Every word of our conversation and opinions were recorded,

Jesus enters, he reads it.

What would he say?

He never said follow religion, or christianity, or the KJV or NIV. He said to follow him.

God Bless

I would like to add maybe by spirit be it good or bad but you sound like a group of Pharisees to me arguing over words. Not brothers in Christ.

 

[jiggyfly]

If this thread were a room, and we were people inside it.
Every word of our conversation and opinions were recorded,
Jesus enters, he reads it.
What would he say?
He never said follow religion, or christianity, or the KJV or NIV. He said to follow him.
God Bless
I would like to add maybe by spirit be it good or bad but you sound like a group of Pharisees to me arguing over words. Not brothers in Christ.

Amen!!!!!! To you both, snigglefrig and Cognitive.