Bible Problem

[Guest]

The Adversary wants you to doubt the accuracy and reliability of any Bible translation you read and trust to put doubt foremost in your mind. This is why you should read and study from multiple translations. I am using a Thompson Chain Reference of the NASB (1977), English Standard Version (2016), and the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible NASB (1977). I have other translations but commonly use these plus a plethora of conservative commentaries. I attend a KJV preferred church and I use a KJV at church.

[Who me]

14 hours ago, WordSword said:

In my opinion, the omissions are enough to change the text and be condemned.

So prove that these ' omissions ' change essential  doctrine.

[Marathoner]

Let's review the first verse of the Gospel of John in order to see how a number of different translations compare, yes?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 21st Century KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 ASV)

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 Darby)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 ESV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NASB)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. (John 1:1 NET)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 WEB)

This verse of New Testament scripture, which expresses an essential of our faith in Jesus Christ who is indeed the Word of God --- and thus is God --- is rendered faithfully in each version I sampled in this post. The New English Translation (NET) renders "and the Word was fully God" which, as we know, expresses the same truth. 

[Dennis1209]

There are many other examples of textual variation in the Bible. The Lord promised to preserve His word forever:

Psalm 12:6 (KJV) 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.

A natural question that comes to mind is which version or translation?

I want to preface something before I continue. 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness: [also note an italic].

As someone mentioned, italics in our Bible are inserted to make a comprehensive English sentence, or the exact word(s) could not be rendered. Translations can be subdivided into accuracy, ease of reading, ease of understanding, etc.

Regarding accuracy and the message, is it a coincidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, when and where they were discovered, and who copied and preserved them? Many of our Bible’s italics have been removed, and we know the correct wording.

Not that we need it, but this verifies which manuscripts used are the most accurate. Studying John, the Baptist, the DSS, and the Essenes is fascinating.

I favor this commentary:

21:19 This verse raises the question of who killed Goliath the Gittite. First Samuel 17:50–51 credits David, but this verse credits Elhanan. One interpretation suggests two different Goliaths, though the identical description of Goliath’s spear being like a weaver’s beam (cp. 1 Sa 17:7) makes this option doubtful. Another explanation is to understand Elhanan as David’s original name and David as David’s throne name, but this is not supported elsewhere in Scripture. By far the most likely explanation is that Elhanan killed not Goliath but Goliath’s brother, as 1 Ch 20:5 states, and that an early scribe simply miscopied the present verse. Although this verse and 1 Ch 20:5 read a bit differently in English, in the Hebrew text only a minor alteration is required to change from one reading to another.^[1]

Some translations use “descendant” of Goliath.

 

 

 

---

^[1] Beyer, Bryan E. “2 Samuel.” Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary. Ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Jeremy Royal Howard. Broadman & Holman, 2015. 342. Print.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Jayne said:

2 Samuel 21:19 - The King James has "the brother of" Goliath in italics.  That means the translators of the King James added these words for clarity's sake.  "the brother of" is not in ancient texts.  I have no answers for all of this as I have not studied it, but there has to be an answer other than just adding words.  I think I'll ponder on this a while.

Concerning the error in the original manuscript copy of 2Sam 21:19, scribes who did much of the copying attributed it to the plain fact that too many writers forgot to insert the phrase "the brother of," because there are no known extant manuscript copies that contain the phrase.

[Guest]

I believe those who detracted (omitted Scripture) readings from the Bible are in danger of Rev 22:18, 19!

[warrior12]

20 hours ago, believeinHim said:

I don't know which translation to use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Which translation should I use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

Thank you so much for this post ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I now understand so much more about myself ! ! ! ! ! ! ! So, Which translation do you recommend ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

When you pray, you ask the Lord for wisdom, discernment and help in your seeking out his ways. The Holy Spirit is with you as a born again believer to help and guide you along the way. Maturity in the word is a life long journey until you are called home.  Many have lived faithful lives before you and has gone to be with the Lord, so don't make it sound so complicated that you cannot come to reason.   

The core beliefs is sufficient to get you along. If you want scholarly depth, then get the tutoring and learn the Hebrew and Greek and whatever is necessary for in depth  study for your satisfaction.   

If there were only three, you would be asking the same question. So, get past your phobias and you will be fine.   

[JimmyB]

21 hours ago, believeinHim said:

I don't know which translation to use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Which translation should I use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

Thank you so much for this post ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I now understand so much more about myself ! ! ! ! ! ! ! So, Which translation do you recommend ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

I strongly recommend that you visit a site such as biblegateway.com and read parts of Scripture in different translations.  Each translation is different, so it's best to choose the one that you understand most clearly.  Let God speak to you through His word.  I would strongly advise against listening to anyone who claims that their preferred translation is the word of God.

 

Personally, I prefer the latest (2010) version of the NIV, followed by the NRSVue and the NET.  The NLT is very readable for someone just starting out.

Edited July 4, 2023 by JimmyB

[ISofSYRINX]

On 7/3/2023 at 10:33 AM, WordSword said:

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture.

It is believed by some scholars that the Masoretic text was intentionally altered by scribes/rabbis who wished to alter/remove many specific prophecies that might lead one to believe Jesus was the Messiah. They also adjusted more than 600 years of genealogy to attempt to prove Melchizedek was Noah’s son, Shem. They also removed the name that had identified someone else as Melchizedek. 
Is is alleged that many original scrolls were burned to prevent anyone from discovering the alterations. That may be speculation, but the older, complete manuscripts that have been found were not under the control of the rabbis & scribes. 

Online versions and apps alter words all the time. A number of churches have declared the Masoretic text as accurate and the final authority. Sadly for them, there’s so much to learn from the pre-altered texts. 

[Not me]

Scripture says;

2 Timothy 2:2 (NASB20)
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To me that means that whoever did the translating, if they were faithful people God would honor that entrusting, if in truth they did their best to be honest and true, their putting forth would be honored by God….

Be that if one honest and true man translated the words this way, and brought forth this truth, but not that other truth, that other truth would be brought forth in another scripture… 

This I hold true that God Himself works so that the work and works of a faithful man would be to the keeping of all scriptural truths available to him that of themselves are of an honest, faithful and true heart….

These are my thoughts on the difference in the translations, being all for the purpose of getting to know Him,

 

May we all be blessed in the getting to know Him, a fellow believer, Not me