Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Katie, you are leaving-out another option. We do not have to cherry-pick, we have to discern and be honest. Goodness....we have to be honest.
Katy, how can you be so concerned about folks deciding what parts of the bible are in-error that you align yourself with such nonsense as,
"resist not evil?!!"
Sorry, nothing personal and I say this with all due respect, as you are likely my sis-in-Christ.
We HAVE to resist evil. We do by nature, by common sense, by Holy Spirit inspiration, of course we resist...somone break into your home and want to physically harm your children, for example....
you gonna resist it, or not?
Bible was, without question, MIStranslated there, and I believe a few other places, but so few that I can't even remember any others, and THIS should give you great peace of mind.
Not much to cherry pick about....as any mistranslations have GOT to be obvious, and there are not very many.
Sunny,
It's the doctrine I am concerned with. People will retranslate a verse, claiming that they do to the original Greek (Greek language experts that they are), to support their doctrine. That was why I started the thread.
Could I have worded my title better? Yes. Although, I don't know how at this point. Could I have written my OP better. I'm sure I could have.
I just knew that I needed to start a thread that would cause people to think (that was my hope anyway) that we can't just go into the Bible and change anything we don't like.
I speak specifically of Acts 2:38. Even though every single known English version says we are baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins, people will retranslate this verse to say we are baptized because our sins are forgiven. That way it agrees with their faith alone saves doctrine. This was my motivation to start the thread, to show how people will pick a verse that doesn't agree with them and make it say something else entirely.
So doctrinal matters was at the heart of this thread, not spelling, grammatical, or word choice in the various translations.
Maybe this will help you understand what I was trying to say and trying to accomplish with the thread.
I'm pretty much done with it now. Time to move on. Everyone has pretty much expressed their opinion on here, and I sure have expressed mine.
I still have 100% faith in my KJV and my NASV. I have a few other versions RSV, NIV, ESV NKJV, and I go to them from time to time to compare. They are all pretty much the same. I will say though that some of the newer translations are questionable (I don't own any of those), but then they haven't been commonly accepted either.
I'm not an armchair theologian or student of the Greek language. I do it for a living full time, and have spent over 12 years as a full time pastor. I graduated from an accredited US Seminary with an MDIV, with a major in Exegetical. I took over 10 classes on understanding and learning to properly translate the New Testament into English. I own several Greek grammars, and use them, along with various other lexicons and concordances to aid in my translation work.
That all being said, I did not answer your poll, because answering it gives bogus answers.
1. God inspired the authors of the Bible to put down the very words they wrote. In this process it was inerrant. However, since that day, the books have been recopied over and over again, and certain errors crept into the copies, and we know this because the different copies have some differences. In our day, the copies(over 5000 in parts or wholes) have been compiled and compared, and we have as close to the exact words that God gave the authors as is possible 2000 years after the fact. And so what pastors use with proper training is the Nestle-Alland Novum Testamentum Graece, or Greek New Testament.
Some translations are very good, like the New King James, The English Standard Version recently published, and the New American Standard. The original New International Version is not bad, but has some obvious translation prejudices and therefore errors. All the others are unreliable translations. Some are fair. Some are terrible and some deliberately corrupt the text. Therefore I normally recommend that people read one of the four translations I mentioned to get the best and most reliable text so that you know what God has said.
Last edited by augiedogie; 11-01-2011 at 05:37 PM..
Reason: small error
Katy, I see what you were doing, and how sincere you were/are. Bless you for that. I was trying to get you to relax. You can't "micromanage" another's walk with our Lord. People already abuse scripture and "cherry pick." My point to you was that our honesty about a bit of scripture obviously being WRONGLY translated is not going to cause other souls problems. The bible was inspired and the Spirit speaks to all that, in honesty and sincerity will read it and let it speak to them.
I've found much appreciation for the Lamsa translation of Aramaic into English. I've also found that it has not distorted any truths even one iota, and it's fuller, and probably more accurate than King James.
Katy, I see what you were doing, and how sincere you were/are. Bless you for that. I was trying to get you to relax. You can't "micromanage" another's walk with our Lord. People already abuse scripture and "cherry pick." My point to you was that our honesty about a bit of scripture obviously being WRONGLY translated is not going to cause other souls problems. The bible was inspired and the Spirit speaks to all that, in honesty and sincerity will read it and let it speak to them.
I agree that Katie is sincere. She's an incredible person who is highly deluded due to the ET belief. I agree with the rest of what you said mostly. Except when you brought the bible into it.
Quote:
I've found much appreciation for the Lamsa translation of Aramaic into English. I've also found that it has not distorted any truths even one iota, and it's fuller, and probably more accurate than King James.
I'm not an armchair theologian or student of the Greek language. I do it for a living full time, and have spent over 12 years as a full time pastor. I graduated from an accredited US Seminary with an MDIV, with a major in Exegetical. I took over 10 classes on understanding and learning to properly translate the New Testament into English. I own several Greek grammars, and use them, along with various other lexicons and concordances to aid in my translation work.
That all being said, I did not answer your poll, because answering it gives bogus answers.
1. God inspired the authors of the Bible to put down the very words they wrote. In this process it was inerrant. However, since that day, the books have been recopied over and over again, and certain errors crept into the copies, and we know this because the different copies have some differences. In our day, the copies(over 5000 in parts or wholes) have been compiled and compared, and we have as close to the exact words that God gave the authors as is possible 2000 years after the fact. And so what pastors use with proper training is the Nestle-Alland Novum Testamentum Graece, or Greek New Testament.
Some translations are very good, like the New King James, The English Standard Version recently published, and the New American Standard. The original New International Version is not bad, but has some obvious translation prejudices and therefore errors. All the others are unreliable translations. Some are fair. Some are terrible and some deliberately corrupt the text. Therefore I normally recommend that people read one of the four translations I mentioned to get the best and most reliable text so that you know what God has said.
Thank you so much for your post. It was really helpful to me.
The texts you mentioned are the ones I own and use. I trust them completely. Unlike you, I don't have the training and knowledge. All I have is a faith that is strong enough to accept the translations I have as the unerring word of God. I read. I study, and I truly believe the Holy Spirit helps me to rightly divide His word of truth.
I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but if you read my last post, you will have read what my motivation for starting the thread in the first place. I find that when a verse doesn't agree with someone's doctrine, they appeal to the original Greek to make it say what they want it to say so it will agree with their doctrine. I pointed out Acts 2:38 in particular as that verse seems to be under attack most often.
My argument is that all (the ones I am aware of) of our known and commonly accepted translations say we are baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins not BECAUSE of. There are 17 translations found on biblos.com and all 17 say FOR or UNTO (towards) forgiveness.
Changing Acts 2:38 to say BECAUSE OF is a doctrinal change, one that makes a huge difference. This is not the same as changing a spelling error or misplaced comma.
I believe that the world's best Greek scholars translated these 17 (and many more) versions. Yet not one of those translations says we are baptized BECAUSE our sins have already been forgiven.
If you are a person who believes faith alone saves then I can understand why this passage is so troubling. I do not believe we are saved by faith alone. I believe we are saved by grace through faith, but never faith alone. Genuine faith always results in works.
Katie, You are exactly correct. Good works, love, forgiveness toward others, charity etc, are all the fruit of faith. As Jesus says, a good tree yields good fruit. Take Jesus illustration of the fruit of the vine in John 15:1 and ff. In order to yield good fruit, Jesus says you must remain in Me. That is, in order to yield good works, one must continue to have faith in Jesus above all things.
Martin Luther described the life of the Christian as one of faith and love. First, faith in God, FAther Son and Holy Spirit. But then from that must come love. Why love? If God so loved us, then we must love one another. See 1 John 5 for an excellent explanation of this. As a Christian, we become one with God. All three persons of the Trinity dwell within us. Therefore, Jesus' expectation is that since God is Good, so also our life will be one where we seek to do good to and for our fellow man.(The outline for this is the moral law, the ten commandments) However, those works do not save us or make us righteous before God. Christian theologians speak of this as our alien righteousness. Our righteousness is like filthy rags. But by faith we are given, clothed in Jesus righteousness.
As to the translations. If you have doubts about a text, since you don't read Koine Greek, Just use either a New American Standard, NIV, English Standard Version, or NKJV. Don't get flustered by somebodies weird translation. Put it where it belongs, in the trash. Living Bible, the new NIV, all are far too corrupted to be confidently used.
As to your question about Acts 2:38 Yes baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. See also serveral other texts that speak of baptism as a washing that forgives sins.
Ac 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
Mk 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Katie: You're on the right track, just keep studying and God will teach you through his word as long as you listen to what he says, not what people tell you God says. It would also help to find a pastor who has a reverence for the Word of God, and isn't just using his position to make a nice income.
Moderator cut: personal info discouraged
Last edited by june 7th; 11-12-2011 at 10:21 AM..
Reason: typo
I have repeatedly brought up the same point since my original post, and no one has addressed it so far.
As soon as you say the Bible is in error, or it is mistranslated, you open the door wide to every wind of doctrine to come down the pike.
You either accept the Bible we have as 100% accurate, or you do not. There is nothing in between. Otherwise, you become a cherry picker, choosing scriptures that agree with your doctrine, and retranslating those you don't. Who decides which scriptures we change, and which ones we keep as written?
This is the point I would like addressed.
Katie, the bibles today and even in the time of Jeremiah had become corrupted by men. Jeremiah tells us that the lying pen of the scribes ADDED to the laws of Moses. You say we have to believe everything in the bible 100% or we open the door to any doctrine. Yet those who say the same thing as you do here do NOT believe Jeremiahs statement that the lying pen of the scribes ADDED to the laws of Moses.
What it boils down to for me is I believe Jesus, through the working of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.
I do NOT believe the writings of men that have ADDED to and taken AWAY from the scriptures.
Here are two posts I gave out on this topic before, it might help if you read them to see where the lying pens of the scribes ADDED to the scripture.
The lying pen of the scribes have a lot to answer for
I just think most Christians rely way too much on English translations and Church tradition, while ignoring the culture and context the Bible was written in. The behavior described in the Bible on this issue does not exist anymore, because there is no Caananite or Grecro-Roman pagan worship rituals anymore.
And for being this generation's biggest moral issue, you'd think out of 37,000 Bible verses, there would be more than 3-5 verses even discussing same-sex behavior, and Jesus would have said something.
Thank you so much for your post. It was really helpful to me.
The texts you mentioned are the ones I own and use. I trust them completely. Unlike you, I don't have the training and knowledge. All I have is a faith that is strong enough to accept the translations I have as the unerring word of God. I read. I study, and I truly believe the Holy Spirit helps me to rightly divide His word of truth.
I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but if you read my last post, you will have read what my motivation for starting the thread in the first place. I find that when a verse doesn't agree with someone's doctrine, they appeal to the original Greek to make it say what they want it to say so it will agree with their doctrine. I pointed out Acts 2:38 in particular as that verse seems to be under attack most often.
My argument is that all (the ones I am aware of) of our known and commonly accepted translations say we are baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins not BECAUSE of. There are 17 translations found on biblos.com and all 17 say FOR or UNTO (towards) forgiveness.
Changing Acts 2:38 to say BECAUSE OF is a doctrinal change, one that makes a huge difference. This is not the same as changing a spelling error or misplaced comma.
I believe that the world's best Greek scholars translated these 17 (and many more) versions. Yet not one of those translations says we are baptized BECAUSE our sins have already been forgiven.
If you are a person who believes faith alone saves then I can understand why this passage is so troubling. I do not believe we are saved by faith alone. I believe we are saved by grace through faith, but never faith alone. Genuine faith always results in works.
What say you?
Katie
Katie, if you will refer back to my post where I presented the view that Acts 2:38 is parenthetical, I mentioned that I used the Bible Knowledge Commentary which was written by the faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary.They teach both Koine Greek and Hebrew there. That was not something that I came up with on my own in an attempt to explain the verse. Another viewpoint also presented in that commentary is the viewpoint that Acts 2:38 should be translated as 'because of the forgiveness of your sins', or 'on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins,' rather than 'for the forgiveness of your sins.' Grammatically speaking, both of these make arguments in explaining Acts 2:38. However, it turns out that they are weak arguments because they do not take into consideration the context of Acts which is a transitional book in which the Jews are being transitioned into the church age from the age of Israel, and the circumstances that are involved in that transition.
I've been studying what pastor Mike Smith of Country Bible Church in Brenham TX., taught on the subject of water baptism. And while I won't go into much detail here, I will say, based on what I learned, that Acts 2:38 is specific to the generation of Jews who were guilty of handing Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified, and who yelled 'crucify Him'.
There were three groups of people, the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles, each of whom had to be ushered into the church-age by Peter, in specific ways at different times.
Acts 2:38 deals with the way the Jews were ushered into the Church age.
Acts 8:14-17 deals with the way that the Samaritans were ushered into the church age.
Acts 10:44-48 deals with the way the Gentiles were ushered into the Church age.
The Jews to whom Peter was speaking were already save as of Acts 2:37 when their hearts were pierced by Peters words. They recognized at that point that Jesus was the Messiah and that they had crucified Him. So they were saved, but could not be ushered into the church age by receiving the indwelling and baptism of the Holy Spirit until they repented (they had already repented - changed their mind) concerning Christ, but they still had to repent with regard to the sin they had commited in handing Jesus over to be crucified. So they had to both repent and be baptized in water as a public announcment that they were removing themselves from that perverse generation. That is, they were no longer identifying themselves with that perverse generation, but were now publically identifying themselves with the church - the body of church age believers.
So for the Jews, the gate to the church age was opened when they having believed Peter's message of the gospel, repented of their sins, and became water baptized.
For the Samaritans, however, They had already believed in Christ and had been baptized in water, but they could not receive the indwelling and baptism of the Holy Spirit until Peter arrived and laid hands on them. The reason for this was because the Jews and Samaritans hated each other, and the Jews would never have believed that the Samaritans were a part of the church unless a high ranking apostle were present to be a witness to the fact. So Peter had to be there, and he had to lay hands on the Samaritans before they could receive the Holy Spirit. Once Peter opened the door to the church age to the Samaritans, it remained open for all Samaritans after that.
In the case of the Gentiles, they received the Holy Spirit immediately after hearing Peter's words, and were saved and entered into the church age BEFORE being baptized in water.
So, initially, to open the door to the church age, and once the door was opened for each group of people it remained open...
1.) The Jews believed and were saved, they had to be baptized in water, and then they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).
2.) The Samaritans believed and were saved, they then got baptized in water, but did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter arrived to lay hands on them. (Acts 8:14-17).
3.) The Gentiles believed and were saved, received the Holy Spirit, and THEN got baptized in water. (Acts 10:44-48).
Do you see the difference in the order between the three groups?
Acts 2:38 was specific to the generation of Jews who handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified. Acts 2:38 did not apply to the Samaritans, or to the Gentiles, and it does not apply to us today.
The purpose of water baptism was fulfilled during the pre-canon period of the church-age. It is fine for someone to be baptized in water if they want to, but it is not necessary.
If you're interested, the entire 7 hours of Pastor Mike Smith's teaching on this is presented below. He also explains the great commission.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
The pen of the scribes is in vain - The deceitful pen of the scribes. They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
the pen of the scribes is in vain; in vain, and to no purpose, were the scribes employed in writing out copies of the law, when either it was not heard or read, or however the things it enjoined were not put in practice; or the pen of the scribes was in vain, when employed in writing out false copies of the law, or false glosses and interpretations of it, such as were made by the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time, and the fathers before them, by whose traditions the word of God was made of none effect: and so the Targum,
God warns us of this happening, problem is not many seem to believe these warnings or do not believe it was possible that it could happen. However if it was not possible that it could happen then why did God warn against it.
Deuteronomy 4:2
King James Version (KJV)
2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
King James Version (KJV)
32What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Proverbs 30:5-6
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
