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.
Even though I hold dear to my heart the NASB, saying that a verse missing doesn't constitute malicious intent. Furthermore, adding words or verses is just as bad as omitting them, don't you agree?
(KJV)
Mat 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.(NIV) NON EXISTENT
This verse is in (parenthesis) in the NASB with a sub-note saying it wasn't in the early manuscripts. The NIV just left it out instead of putting in the parenthesis. But the verse is a mirror verse for Luke 19:10, which is why the NASB authors left it in, as it doesn't go against other scripture.
(KJV) Mat 9:13But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(NIV) No need to repent in the NIV Mat 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[fn1] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Verses like these show the difference between the Stephanus 1550 and the Westcott-Hort / Nestle-Aland 26th edition variants. These Greek texts are different for sure, so how can one be sure what is right to the letter and not? Here is a description broken down thanks to Blueletterbible.com
Quote:
Stephanus 1550 editionThe Authorized Version of 1611 (King James Version) utilizes the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") as the basis for the Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus is based upon various Greek texts as well as some influence by the Latin Vulgate. The earliest work being prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, revised by Robert Estienne (better known as Stephanus), and further revised by Theodore Beza. The text produced by each, is substantially the same, there are some variations between their various editions.
Quote:
Westcott-Hort / Nestle-Aland 26th edition .Many of the newer translations are based upon Alexandrian texts. The Blue Letter Bible also provides the Greek text based upon such Alexandrian texts, noting however that the King James Version is not based upon such texts. Westcott-Hort / Nestle-Aland 26th edition variants.
These are why some bibles have different verses, but not without the usual reasons. I really don't think it was malicious intent to provide the bible with the best speaking vocabulary to get a point across, but at the same time it seems alot was lost in translation. This is why I believe only the Spirit can discern what is Truth and what is false. Seek, and you will find.
By the way, for what it is worth, when I type a word into the lexicon in BBL, I also look at the Greek, and then compare ALL translations to see. If found contradictory, then I break the Greek down word for word, hoping the Spirit will speak to me. Revelations was fun to go through, as most people would be amazed at what they would find.
Most of the ones quoted (indeed, most of the ones that people claim were omitted) were late additions in only a handful of late manuscripts. Some of them were margin notes made by one scribe that were inserted into the text by another; we know when and where they were added, and that they were included in the TR.
So, the originals (which we don't have) were perfect, but copies are imperfect. When we have things that evidence strongly indicates don't belong, we should discard it. Such as, most manuscripts, older manuscripts, and/or manuscripts from more reliable sources don't have it, it doesn't belong.
And it is fallacious to use a text to prove that it's true. IOW, I can't say, "I'm the most handsome fellow on the forum", then use my own statement to prove it.
ETA: How about words that the KJV seems to have omitted?
[quote=HotinAZ;4949362]Furthermore, adding words or verses is just as bad as omitting them, don't you agree?
**Agree to a point. For translating from different languages there may have to be an added word, which the AV (Authorized version) clearly lets us know by using italics.**
(KJV)
Mat 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.(NIV) NON EXISTENT
This verse is in (parenthesis) in the NASB with a sub-note saying it wasn't in the early manuscripts. The NIV just left it out instead of putting in the parenthesis. But the verse is a mirror verse for Luke 19:10, which is why the NASB authors left it in, as it doesn't go against other scripture.
**Does it say what early manuscripts? I bet it is referring to the Alexandrian manuscripts. I am curious if you read the testimony I posted about the NASB? It was not made with good intentions.**
Furthermore, adding words or verses is just as bad as omitting them, don't you agree?
**Agree to a point. For translating from different languages there may have to be an added word, which the AV (Authorized version) clearly lets us know by using italics.**
(KJV)
Mat 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.(NIV) NON EXISTENT
This verse is in (parenthesis) in the NASB with a sub-note saying it wasn't in the early manuscripts. The NIV just left it out instead of putting in the parenthesis. But the verse is a mirror verse for Luke 19:10, which is why the NASB authors left it in, as it doesn't go against other scripture.
**Does it say what early manuscripts? I bet it is referring to the Alexandrian manuscripts. I am curious if you read the testimony I posted about the NASB? It was not made with good intentions.**
I didn't read anything in it that was bad. Seems he just was sorry there was confusion with translations, not malicious intent. And does it matter what manuscripts? Are we to trust the Latin Vulgate completely? I would think not.
Quote:
**Agree to a point. For translating from different languages there may have to be an added word, which the AV (Authorized version) clearly lets us know by using italics.**
So does my NASB. Really though, the Spirit will lead us if we earnestly seek His Face.
I have a Masons Bible that is old and it's a KJ. Pretty cool, as it explains the Masons in great detail, the symbols and such beginning with Solomon though out the ages including the presidents. I have a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible, which Matt 18:11 is in. I also have a NIV. My study bible is the NASB, and also my smaller bible is a NASB. Maybe I like it just because it left out the thees and thous. If I thought that was hard, the Geneva is extremely hard. It reads like this:
For the Sonne of man is come to faue that which was loft. Matt 18:11
The margins require a magnifying glass, lol. Tiny print, as it is crammed. But really, as long as the message gets out, let us let the Spirit do the rest.
I didn't read anything in it that was bad. Seems he just was sorry there was confusion with translations, not malicious intent. And does it matter what manuscripts? Are we to trust the Latin Vulgate completely? I would think not.
**The translator dropped dead just because of bad health? I think not. He admits it was all done for the love of money, how is that not malicious intent?
Oh, indeed it does matter what manuscripts. If you study the differences and the men behind them you will see. I trust God that He has preserved His word and I believe that satan loves to attack it.**
I have a Masons Bible that is old and it's a KJ. Pretty cool, as it explains the Masons in great detail, the symbols and such beginning with Solomon though out the ages including the presidents. I have a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible, which Matt 18:11 is in. I also have a NIV. My study bible is the NASB, and also my smaller bible is a NASB. Maybe I like it just because it left out the thees and thous. If I thought that was hard, the Geneva is extremely hard. It reads like this:
For the Sonne of man is come to faue that which was loft. Matt 18:11
The margins require a magnifying glass, lol. Tiny print, as it is crammed.
**Masons? oh dear!
I had thought about getting a Geneva, but I will pass after reading that lol**
I had thought about getting a Geneva, but I will pass after reading that lol**
:P I had bought it at an estate sale, even though these bibles are not meant for the general public, but it is a fascinating reading none the less. Besides, what does that have to do with the tea in china? My library is growing all the time, so excluding works based upon a biased preconceived notion is somewhat disheartening. To know the enemy is to stay ahead of the enemy.
:P I had bought it at an estate sale, even though these bibles are not meant for the general public, but it is a fascinating reading none the less. Besides, what does that have to do with the tea in china? My library is growing all the time, so excluding works based upon a biased preconceived notion is somewhat disheartening. To know the enemy is to stay ahead of the enemy.
It's interesting when you study and research the History of the "Authorized King James Version" you find there was huge opposition to it's creation and use. The Geneva bible was considered the "People's Bible". There were actually several english versions around before the (AKJV). I think some have already mentioned here by you AZ , the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Cloverdale. There were also the "Matthew's Bible" of 1537, the "Great Bible" of 1539, the "Geneva Bible" of 1560, and the "Bishop's Bible" of 1568.
The first among the so-called "Authorized Versions" (that is those translations authorized by religious monarchs or religious groups for use in their various religious congregations or churches) was the "Great Bible". The second of the "Authorized Versions" was the "Bishops Bible". The problem with this translation was that it was not very progressive in it's improvements, in fact it even ignored improvements made by some of the earlier translations. The phrazeology was also was not as simple and direct as others, so the "Geneva" continued to be the people's favourite.
King James himself gave strict instructions for following the "Bishops Bible" in these instructions to the translators, " 'The Bishops' bible to be followed, and altered as little as the Original will permit. And these translations to be used when they agree better with the text, than the 'Bishops' bible - namely, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Cloverdales, Whitchurches, Geneva". This agrees with what you (HotinAZ) brought out earlier.
The whole idea was to make a more understandable translation for the english speaking people of the time. Unfortunately most people back then did'nt accept this. Why ???? The people had grown comfortable and familiar with the Versions they had, hence they opted to keep what was familiar to them. Ever here of the expression, "If it's not broken, why fix it" ???? Well, that was their traditional feelings for the "Geneva Bible" and their negativity towards the "Authorized King James Version". Even Hebrew Scholar, Hugh Broughton wrote to King James and said that he, "should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church". The biggest problem was that most people were so bent on sticking to their tradition back then, that they forgot that actual purpose of the scriptures themselves.
2 Timothy 3:16,17 - (AKJV) [16] "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [17] "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works".
An interesting fact is that the actual translators themselves knew of the opposition ahead of time. They wrote a "Preface of the Translators" to explain why the King James Version was made. Sadly most of the "Authorized King James Version" bibles have that Preface omitted from their copies. If anyone on this board has a copy, then maybe you can share it. Basically the translators said that the purpose of a newer translation was not to make a better bible, but a better understood bible. Had the Preface been allowed, it might have cleared up any misunderstandings. However today history has repeated itself. Most "Die-Hard" readers who prefer the (AKJV) have the exact same passionate feelings for the very same reasons as those who adamantly demanded that there only be a Geneva Bible. They even oppose revisions of modern King James Versions. They stick to this (AKJV) 1611 translation because they are familiar with it and unfamiliar with the modern translations. They prefer the beautiful Shakespearean language, and do not want it changed. Though unknowingly, the may read the more for it's literary effect than for understanding, which takes us back to 1 Timothy 3:16,17. They may passionately feel that a bible must be authorized only by a religious organization or a religious monarch, to be authoritive.
Since the bible was originally written, not in english, but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, translation is necessary in today's numerous languages as it was back in 1611. For the people of that time of about 400 years ago, the (AKJV) was modern and up to date for that time period. But nobody can argue the fact that languages have changed. The result is that most modern readers of the old King James Version often fail to understand the true meaning of many scriptures. Here's an excellent example.
Today the word "conversation" means an exachange of thoughts by talking. So modern readers may think they understand the Apostle Paul's council to Christian wives as the King James renders, 1 Peter 3:1,2 [1] "Likewise, Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that, if any obey not the word, they also without the word be won by the conversation of their wives; [2] while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear". BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Peter 3:1,2;
So now the questions begged to be asked: "Exactly what does this mean? Does it mean that conversation, as we know it, is the principal means by which a Christian wive can win over an unbelieving husband ? Is she really going to win him over by constantly preaching at him ???? And must a Christian wife fear her husband ?
So where can you go for enlightenment ? Well if indeed you think you know what the word "conversation" and the word "fear" mean, then you may well have the wrong understanding. Why ????? Because this word "conversation" had an entirely different meaning to people back 400 years ago. However, if we go to a modern translation of the bible, in fact if we quote what the "21st Century King James Version" says, we actually get the correct understanding of what Paul was saying, 1 Peter 3:1,2 - 21st Century King James Version [1] "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may be won without the word by the conduct of their wivies [2], while they behold your chaste manner of living coupled with fear". (other modern translations use deep respect or reverence in place of the word fear) BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Peter 3:1,2;
Can you see the major difference in the words used ???? Paul was actually saying that if a Christian wife had an unblieving husband because he may be of a Pagan religion or perhaps even an athiest, which would'nt be uncommon especially among the Gentiles, then it was the Christian belief at work in the conduct of her daily life that could win him over. She could do all the conversation and preaching at her husband she wanted, but when it was all said and done, it was Christ's teachings at work in her life that would recommend Christianity as something of value to be followed. Ever here of the saying, "Actions speak louder than words" ????
To further illustrate: There are two notorious examples of televangelists who talked or conversed about the Bible, Peace, love, christianity ,etc and yet by their actions , they did more to turn people off, than to recommend Christianity as something to live by. Jimmy Swaggart & Jim Bakker of PTL. I don't think I need to explain more here. Conduct means everything.
Two more examples are to be found at 1 Peter 1:15,18 where the word "conversation" is again used, but it is talking actually about Christian conduct or a Christian's manner of living. BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Peter 1:15,18;
The point here is, I'll defend anybody's right to read the "Authorized King James Version" of 1611 if you truly indeed understand the old english better. However, I don't for various reasons, not just the older english. But you cannot make rules that others are wrong because they don't use it. With such a extreme ridgid outlook and philosophy, you exclude millions of others who would otherwise be interested in what the bible has to say.
Original what? Vulgate? Manuscripts? King James Version?
One thing everyone seems to be missing is when there is some text "missing" from the NIV that was in the KJV, the NIV puts in a footnote that shows what was missing and why. They let you make the call.
I assume you all are reading the REAL King James verion and not the watered down one right?
The 1611 King James is the original. The one with the Apocrypha and many many differences from the current KJV? After all it's the authorized version by the king. Nevermind John Wycliffe, William Tyndale,the Genevan translators, the Elizabethan bishops etc and their work.
Personally I think bickering over one translation being the "only true" one is silly. They are all translations of original manuscripts.
If you think someone can't be saved by reading an NIV you're crazy. Myself and my mother are two examples. Of course 20 something years later, I study them all and the original text as much as I can but the NIV still makes for an easy read.
P.S. I'm a hardcore reformationist too for the record. Hmm, maybe I should be reading the Bible in German then...
It's interesting when you study and research the History of the "Authorized King James Version" you find there was huge opposition to it's creation and use. The Geneva bible was considered the "People's Bible". There were actually several english versions around before the (AKJV). I think some have already mentioned here by you AZ , the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Cloverdale. There were also the "Matthew's Bible" of 1537, the "Great Bible" of 1539, the "Geneva Bible" of 1560, and the "Bishop's Bible" of 1568.
The first among the so-called "Authorized Versions" (that is those translations authorized by religious monarchs or religious groups for use in their various religious congregations or churches) was the "Great Bible". The second of the "Authorized Versions" was the "Bishops Bible". The problem with this translation was that it was not very progressive in it's improvements, in fact it even ignored improvements made by some of the earlier translations. The phrazeology was also was not as simple and direct as others, so the "Geneva" continued to be the people's favourite.
King James himself gave strict instructions for following the "Bishops Bible" in these instructions to the translators, " 'The Bishops' bible to be followed, and altered as little as the Original will permit. And these translations to be used when they agree better with the text, than the 'Bishops' bible - namely, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Cloverdales, Whitchurches, Geneva". This agrees with what you (HotinAZ) brought out earlier.
The whole idea was to make a more understandable translation for the english speaking people of the time. Unfortunately most people back then did'nt accept this. Why ???? The people had grown comfortable and familiar with the Versions they had, hence they opted to keep what was familiar to them. Ever here of the expression, "If it's not broken, why fix it" ???? Well, that was their traditional feelings for the "Geneva Bible" and their negativity towards the "Authorized King James Version". Even Hebrew Scholar, Hugh Broughton wrote to King James and said that he, "should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church". The biggest problem was that most people were so bent on sticking to their tradition back then, that they forgot that actual purpose of the scriptures themselves. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 - (AKJV) [16] "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [17] "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works".
An interesting fact is that the actual translators themselves knew of the opposition ahead of time. They wrote a "Preface of the Translators" to explain why the King James Version was made. Sadly most of the "Authorized King James Version" bibles have that Preface omitted from their copies. If anyone on this board has a copy, then maybe you can share it. Basically the translators said that the purpose of a newer translation was not to make a better bible, but a better understood bible. Had the Preface been allowed, it might have cleared up any misunderstandings. However today history has repeated itself. Most "Die-Hard" readers who prefer the (AKJV) have the exact same passionate feelings for the very same reasons as those who adamantly demanded that there only be a Geneva Bible. They even oppose revisions of modern King James Versions. They stick to this (AKJV) 1611 translation because they are familiar with it and unfamiliar with the modern translations. They prefer the beautiful Shakespearean language, and do not want it changed. Though unknowingly, the may read the more for it's literary effect than for understanding, which takes us back to 1 Timothy 3:16,17. They may passionately feel that a bible must be authorized only by a religious organization or a religious monarch, to be authoritive.
Since the bible was originally written, not in english, but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, translation is necessary in today's numerous languages as it was back in 1611. For the people of that time of about 400 years ago, the (AKJV) was modern and up to date for that time period. But nobody can argue the fact that languages have changed. The result is that most modern readers of the old King James Version often fail to understand the true meaning of many scriptures. Here's an excellent example.
Today the word "conversation" means an exachange of thoughts by talking. So modern readers may think they understand the Apostle Paul's council to Christian wives as the King James renders, 1 Peter 3:1,2 [1] "Likewise, Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that, if any obey not the word, they also without the word be won by the conversation of their wives; [2] while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear". BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Peter 3:1,2;
So now the questions begged to be asked: "Exactly what does this mean? Does it mean that conversation, as we know it, is the principal means by which a Christian wive can win over an unbelieving husband ? Is she really going to win him over by constantly preaching at him ???? And must a Christian wife fear her husband ?
So where can you go for enlightenment ? Well if indeed you think you know what the word "conversation" and the word "fear" mean, then you may well have the wrong understanding. Why ????? Because this word "conversation" had an entirely different meaning to people back 400 years ago. However, if we go to a modern translation of the bible, in fact if we quote what the "21st Century King James Version" says, we actually get the correct understanding of what Paul was saying, 1 Peter 3:1,2 - 21st Century King James Version [1] "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may be won without the word by the conduct of their wivies [2], while they behold your chaste manner of living coupled with fear". (other modern translations use deep respect or reverence in place of the word fear) BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Peter 3:1,2;
Can you see the major difference in the words used ???? Paul was actually saying that if a Christian wife had an unblieving husband because he may be of a Pagan religion or perhaps even an athiest, which would'nt be uncommon especially among the Gentiles, then it was the Christian belief at work in the conduct of her daily life that could win him over. She could do all the conversation and preaching at her husband she wanted, but when it was all said and done, it was Christ's teachings at work in her life that would recommend Christianity as something of value to be followed. Ever here of the saying, "Actions speak louder than words" ????
To further illustrate: There are two notorious examples of televangelists who talked or conversed about the Bible, Peace, love, christianity ,etc and yet by their actions , they did more to turn people off, than to recommend Christianity as something to live by. Jimmy Swaggart & Jim Bakker of PTL. I don't think I need to explain more here. Conduct means everything.
Two more examples are to be found at 1 Peter 1:15,18 where the word "conversation" is again used, but it is talking actually about Christian conduct or a Christian's manner of living. BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Peter 1:15,18;
The point here is, I'll defend anybody's right to read the "Authorized King James Version" of 1611 if you truly indeed understand the old english better. However, I don't for various reasons, not just the older english. But you cannot make rules that others are wrong because they don't use it. With such a extreme ridgid outlook and philosophy, you exclude millions of others who would otherwise be interested in what the bible has to say.
Cheers,
You make a lot of assumptions my friend.
Myself nor any woman I know that reverences her husband believe the word conversation there means to preach at him. I agree it means by the wifes conduct. So I don't know what you are getting at.
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.
