This post is being written in response to the comments I got on my last post. I didn't want to try to fit all this multitude of words into that little teeny comment box, so unless you click on someone else's blog right now, you are going to be bombarded with my reply to /johnightthirtytwo and BibleMan. Oh, wait a second. Before I invite more fire, I wanted to tell you all (all but 8 of you, 8 wonderful ladies who are my FRIENDS) that I was disappointed in the results of my delurking day! Only EIGHT?? Who's still just lurking? I got way more than that on my counter... out with it. Oh, okayyy, you don't have to say you love my blog. Just post a comment. And oh, whoever you are, Anonymous non-HSB'er, you didn't leave me a way to contact you to say thank you! So leave another one :o) And now everyone, go get your tomatoes, you have time. This is a long post.
Whoa! See what I mean about it being a divisive issue? Both of you raised some good points. In answer to Short, the titles, subtitles, and chapter headings were not a part of the inspired, preserved words of God, but were inserted later by publishers who do not claim infallibility. The chapter and verse numbers and the paragraph markings were also added later. I agree with you. I have seen some misleading headings when looking for passages in my own Bible. But that is not what I am talking about when comparing Bibles.
You said the KJV (which, by the way, was not the first English translation) has many errors when compared with the Hebrew. How many Hebrew texts are you talking about? What are you comparing the KJV to? And how do you know which one is wrong? (The originals don’t exist anymore – I know King Jehoiakim threw one of Jeremiah’s original manuscripts into the fire!) I don’t know how many Hebrew texts there are, but I do know that there are over 5000 surviving Greek texts manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. These 5000+ manuscripts agree with each other 95% of the time, and it is from these texts, called the Textus Receptus, that the KJV was translated. The other 5%, called the Alexandrian manuscripts, make up the differences between the KJV and ALL of the other modern translations, accounting for between 5000 and 36,000 differences, depending on which translation you are looking at, AND they do not even agree with each other much of the time! The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, two of the manuscripts on which modern translators rely very heavily, are in this group of revised Greek texts. This manuscript evidence stuff can get really deep, but it’s really not that hard to understand. (After all, even I can get it! lol!)
For example, look at Mark 16, regarding the resurrection of Christ. Six hundred and eighteen texts include the last twelve verses. The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus both leave out this portion of the scripture. But there is NOT ONE other manuscript that leaves out these verses! Yet look in your modern Bible. The NASB puts these verses in brackets, saying these verses “probably” were not in the original writings. The other modern versions use brackets or footnotes to indicate this unfortunate “error” or “ambiguity” in translation also. That is ridiculous! If 618 people said they witnessed a crime and two said it didn’t happen, whom would you believe? The issue here is TRUTH. If the verses are true, what is the point of removing them, except to cast doubt on God’s Word??
Thank you, Short, for challenging me! No ruffled feathers here. Iron sharpeneth iron.
Very well said my friend! You know, I use KJV. I have other versions around too, but have moved completely back to KJV and I'm so glad I did. Mr. Pearl recently did a very good article on this very thing not too long ago in No Greater Joy.
ReplyDeletemasoeretic "written" after the messiah was born. septuigant BEFORE.
ReplyDeletethe masoretic has alot off added things and changed syntax. matthew 8 in NASB, NIV and KJV are all differently worded, but the translators to KJV added words, for instance "the christ" was added when the verse was clearly describing the Ruach Hakodes, Holy Spirit. because they didn't think any one could figure it out. but they obviously didn't have the verse figured out, and the trinitarian staements of it. which is why we need to consult the entire word of G-d not just a few verses.
the biggest differnce from KJV is NASB and NIV consult both masoretic and septuigant.
so beyond which translation is word for word, and which is thought by thought, alexandrian, byzantine, etc... which translation stands only one the masoretic?
there have been alot of discussions on this falible manuscript lately as more proof of the changes made to the TEXT by the translators who composed the masoretic have been exposed ( last issue of BAR, etc..)
this is the importance of textual criticism.
it is believed one of the reasons the rabbi's changed syntax and actual words was to attempt to hide the messiah from the people. if you go to the septuigant, which was before the birth of Jesus, you will see some differences in the messianic prophecies in comparison to the masoretic.
do we throw out all the masoretic based bibles? no. do we stand on one translation done by falible men? no.
why? if G-d can use donkeys, He can used messed up manuscripts.
(just don't make me read "the message"! bah!)
heatherly
(Bubbe Bobbie's Baby)
I'm just getting around to reading these posts. THanks for your htoughts! I am totally annoyed with all the new translations they are making these days. We have a couple different versions in our house, but there are several that we will never touch - the gender neutral one (yikes!)
ReplyDeleteWe mainly have KJV, NKJV and NASB I think. Actually I have a spanish and german translation as well and in both of those there are times I see the limitation in the english language!
We agree that the Bible you use is important and needs to be carefully studied to make sure it's in line with the gospel. thanks fr your posts.
marie