Bible Problem

[JimmyB]

1 hour ago, Solus Christus said:

a) My quote was scholarship, Luther and Erasmus noticed in the Greek it’s “repent” not “do penance” like the faulty Latin Vulgate translation. 

b) I know the original languages were Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Hebrew wasn’t even the major language then, but now scholars use the Masoretic Text, a 9-10th century A.D. text instead of Septuagint, even though the Sept has the least bias because it was translated in Alexandria in 60 B.C. by 70 Hebraic scholars for the Pharaoh, and before Jews became bitter towards Medieval Christians which is reflected in changes they made. The Septuagint is also before Jews started removing messianic passages like Isaiah 53 from their Tanakhs, most Tanakhs today are half-Tanakh, that omit passages and chapters like Isaiah 53. Jesus quoted from The Septuagint, and his words don’t line up with Masoretic Text. 

c) I know Jerome’s translation was Latin, I was using it to make a point, that if someone’s translation or copy differs from the scholarly majority texts it is .to be thrown out, for instance if you have 4999 Greek texts saying “Jesus is Lord” and 1 text says “Jesus is like the Lord” you throw out that one faulty text. This is how the compilers of Bible operates in addition to taking into account authenticity, authorship verification, cross referencing, did the early churches circulate those texts, and etc. 

 

Neither Luther nor Erasmus knew English.  So how can you claim that they noticed that the Greek had the meaning you claim in English? Secondly, repentance and do penance both mean to turn away from sin.

Your point b has no value, especially "now scholars use the Masoretic Text, a 9-10th century A.D. text instead of Septuagint, even though the Sept has the least bias because it was translated in Alexandria in 60 B.C. by 70 Hebraic scholars for the Pharaoh, and before Jews became bitter towards Medieval Christians which is reflected in changes they made."  Scholars use a variety of sources to arrive at the best and clearest translations, so claiming that they use only the Masoretic Text is wrong. And claiming that "the Sept (nickname?) has the least bias because it was translated in Alexandria in 60 B.C. by 70 Hebraic scholars for the Pharaoh, and before Jews became bitter towards Medieval Christians which is reflected in changes they made" is anti-Semitic speculation only.  The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

Also wrong is your claim that "if someone’s translation or copy differs from the scholarly majority texts it is to be thrown out".  The best translations are based on the earliest, and therefore most authentic, sources.  If a majority of later texts repeat an earlier error, that does not mean that they are accurate. Citing your example: "if you have 4999 Greek texts saying “Jesus is Lord” and 1 text says “Jesus is like the Lord” you throw out that one faulty text", it obviously never occurred to you that the one text may be correct because it is the earliest (and the example you give is both biased and silly!).

Also wrong is your claim that "most Tanakhs today are half-Tanakh, that omit passages and chapters like Isaiah 53".  The writings of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah) are included in the Tanakh. 

I don't know what the sources of your information are, but they are clearly wrong.  You are coming from a clearly biased point of view that doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by JimmyB

[Guest]

“The doctrine of preservation does not guarantee the preservation of the autographs, for they perished within a few years after their writings. Neither does it guarantee the accuracy of the copies, because errant men copied them. It does guarantee that the complete contents of the infallible Scriptures have been preserved, not in any one manuscript, but somewhere within the manuscript tradition!” –D.O.Fuller, D.D. 

[Solus Christus]

1 hour ago, WordSword said:

Yes, the Pope wanted him to hide the Bible from the Greek speaking people by translating it into Latin, which was never a familiar language to most of the world. Hence the phrase Jerome's Latin Vulgate; or Latin Vulgar to be more precise! Lots of problems with it, and is still the RC church's Bible.

Indeed, Jerome even translates Moses coming down from Sinai with two goat horns rather than his face covered in light. Hence why Michelangelo‘s Moses statue has horns. 

[Solus Christus]

On 8/4/2023 at 10:48 AM, JimmyB said:

Neither Luther nor Erasmus knew English.  So how can you claim that they noticed that the Greek had the meaning you claim in English? Secondly, repentance and do penance both mean to turn away from sin.

Your point b has no value, especially "now scholars use the Masoretic Text, a 9-10th century A.D. text instead of Septuagint, even though the Sept has the least bias because it was translated in Alexandria in 60 B.C. by 70 Hebraic scholars for the Pharaoh, and before Jews became bitter towards Medieval Christians which is reflected in changes they made."  Scholars use a variety of sources to arrive at the best and clearest translations, so claiming that they use only the Masoretic Text is wrong. And claiming that "the Sept (nickname?) has the least bias because it was translated in Alexandria in 60 B.C. by 70 Hebraic scholars for the Pharaoh, and before Jews became bitter towards Medieval Christians which is reflected in changes they made" is anti-Semitic speculation only.  The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

Also wrong is your claim that "if someone’s translation or copy differs from the scholarly majority texts it is to be thrown out".  The best translations are based on the earliest, and therefore most authentic, sources.  If a majority of later texts repeat an earlier error, that does not mean that they are accurate. Citing your example: "if you have 4999 Greek texts saying “Jesus is Lord” and 1 text says “Jesus is like the Lord” you throw out that one faulty text", it obviously never occurred to you that the one text may be correct because it is the earliest (and the example you give is both biased and silly!).

Also wrong is your claim that "most Tanakhs today are half-Tanakh, that omit passages and chapters like Isaiah 53".  The writings of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah) are included in the Tanakh. 

I don't know what the sources of your information are, but they are clearly wrong.  You are coming from a clearly biased point of view that doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

 

My point is Erasmus and Luther caught that the majority of the original texts said “repent” which fits with plethora of scriptures (even OT), and that Jerome had mistranslated it “do penance.” That stands for any language, because its the Greek New Testament that even the English Bible is bow translated from. Erasmus translation was Greek, do you not know about him? It wasn’t a German translation. Erasmus wanted to go back to original language The NT is written in and found differences in them. The Apostle Paul wrote in Greek, not Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Coptic, and etc. The Gospels were written by the Apostled in Koine Greek, because it was the common tongue, The French, the English of the time. 

The ‘earliest manuscripts’ you speak of like The Alexandrian / Textus Receptus are Egyptian (it is even called Egyptian Text) and used by Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Church, and other erroneous denoms. There are major error via the gnostics, coptics (who arn’t Christian, I can gladly prove this from their own creeds). I stay away from Egyptian Christianities, they are very corrupt from my own experience around them. 
 

The Majority Text is on Byzantine or Greek Speaking texts without Egyptian or Roman Catholic interference.  
 

Oh really, so if all your relatives have 4999 copies of gradma’s secret sauce they say use pesto, and 1 copy says salsa verde, you would go with the one? 
 

The Majority or consensus is right. Hence The Council of Nicea agreed Jesus and Father are One Essence (Homeostasis), with only two bishops out of Two hundred & fifty to Three hundred disagreeing. Those two are the heretics, not the majority. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On 7/3/2023 at 2:03 PM, teddyv said:

There has been a few of these thread topics lately.

I believe that these threads do a disservice to the gospel placing doubt in a new Christian's mind.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

I believe that these threads do a disservice to the gospel placing doubt in a new Christian's mind.

If people are genuinely seeking truth, they will find it (seek and find), so no worries there, this would mean their name is in the Book of Life, and nothing can change that.

Concerning Bible translations, it is the most important issue when relating to spiritual growth. Spiritual growth can only come from studying God's Word and applying it by the Spirit! Only the NKJV and a few others like it contain the entire Word.

No other modern translation can claim this because of the hundreds of omissions (Mat 4:4); what's just as bad is the changing (transpositions) and adding (interpolations) to much of Scripture.

Thanks for your sincere reply, and God bless!

[SavedOnebyGrace]

4 hours ago, WordSword said:

If people are genuinely seeking truth, they will find it (seek and find), so no worries there, this would mean their name is in the Book of Life, and nothing can change that.

Concerning Bible translations, it is the most important issue when relating to spiritual growth. Spiritual growth can only come from studying God's Word and applying it by the Spirit! Only the NKJV and a few others like it contain the entire Word.

No other modern translation can claim this because of the hundreds of omissions (Mat 4:4); what's just as bad is the changing (transpositions) and adding (interpolations) to much of Scripture.

Thanks for your sincere reply, and God bless!

God bless you too.

Temporarily, my wife and I are going to a KJV preferred church. It's the first bible version I read all the way through. That was over 40 years ago. Now, I read three different translations primarily: ESV; NASB (1977/1995) and NIV (1984). There are a lot of errors in the KJV/NKJV that are not corrected.

Source: KJV Errors

The type of bible is important too. I have a fondness for The Thompson Chain Reference (NIV &  NASB) and The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NASB), and The NIV Study Bible. I prefer reading the bible with one or more conservative commentaries handy, whatever translation I'm reading.

[FJK]

FWIW, I don't find the "errors" in the various Bible versions hide the Truth of it.

Seek Truth and you will find Truth no matter which version you use.

What you find is what you seek.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

God bless you too.

Temporarily, my wife and I are going to a KJV preferred church. It's the first bible version I read all the way through. That was over 40 years ago. Now, I read three different translations primarily: ESV; NASB (1977/1995) and NIV (1984). There are a lot of errors in the KJV/NKJV that are not corrected.

Hi and thanks for the replies and comments! All translations have errors and are fallible, because men are not infallible. But God did not allow this to hinder His Word from being complete (plenary) within a translation.

 The only two primary sources from which all translations are derived are the Majority Text; the Minority Text. The prior Text is derived from using most of existing manuscripts (5000 plus). The latter is derived from only a few oldest manuscripts recently discovered (1800's), and is why all the modern translations were not produced until now.

These older manuscripts were rejected by scribes and were never used (thus didn't ware out like most did), because they were excessively different in content and context. It's also important to note that this Minority Text is much the product of scribes that were Gnostic scholars, who did not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus.

If you check to see if the primary Trinity passage is omitted in 1Jn 5:7, the translation  is from the Minority Text; and it will contain hundreds of omissions  and also many passages that read different from the Traditional Bibles because of interpolations and transpositions.

None of these modern translations can claim to be the Word of God due to the omissions (Mat 4:4). They mixed a lot of truth with enough error to be corrupt, but many are unaware of this because many do not read the Word much.

It's the same method as making rat poison, which consists of 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic. Or, the boiling frog syndrome, in which if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out. But if it's warm water he'll stay in; and you can gradually turn up the heat until it is boiled alive.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Seek Truth and you will find Truth no matter which version you use.

What you find is what you seek.

True, if we don't find truth it's because we're not genuinely seeking it for the right reason ("seek and find"). Also true that the Gospel is in all modern translations; but they lack a great deal of Scripture that one can be encourage and learn from for spiritual growth.

Also, all the modern translations use the same corrupt manuscripts, thus none of them can claim being the entire Word of God, due to the multitudinous of omissions; and they reword many passages to say something different from the Traditional Bibles by using transpositions and interpolations. Only the NKJV and a few like it have all the Word of God! Most important issue (Mat 4:4).

Edited August 6, 2023 by WordSword