Errors in Bible translations...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Go back to the evidence and have it set the date.

No evidence. No date. Just your pathetic, sophomoric evasions.

 

[Ronald]

Well! Thank You, I love yours also.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The original question was about the accuracy of the translation and not the accuracy of the scriptures. Please start another thread or find one that addresses those issues.

If you believe in the Holy Spirit, then you also believe that God works everything for the good for those that love the Lord. Everything.

So it really doesn't matter if a word has been mis-translated or translitterated. My God is able to work through ALL things. What we see as "faulty", God simply sees as an opportunity to display his divine power.

In that vein, I believe the NIV is an acceptable version. It is written in today's language so I can understand it, and there are no critical errors such as "God is of the devil". I don't rely on my intellect to understand the scriptures. In all humility, I let the Spirit guide me to and through the truth. In meekness, I let God be God and reveal all of his wonder and delights. The more you humble yourself to the "obvious" truths therein, the more the Spirit reveals to you.

Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

 

[anami]

So it really doesn't matter if a word has been mis-translated or translitterated. My God is able to work through ALL things. What we see as "faulty", God simply sees as an opportunity to display his divine power.

i don't personally assign "God" emotions or a face or hands or ears, but i do think there is one thing i can personify..."God" has a wierd sense of humor. :biglaugh:

 

[Ronald]

Iris89, in your research have you studied Dr. Karl Coke, for me he is impressive. How about you?

I checked out your site and enjoyed it very much.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Did you know that the New World Translation is Ridden with mistakes as well?

Did you know that the Watchtower refuses to even state who made the translation for them?

Odd huh?

There aren't enough frubals for this statement.

Translation is an ongoing excersize - English continually changes and other manuscripts are continually being studied for date and content.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The original question was about the accuracy of the translation and not the accuracy of the scriptures. Please start another thread or find one that addresses those issues.

If you believe in the Holy Spirit, then you also believe that God works everything for the good for those that love the Lord. Everything.

So it really doesn't matter if a word has been mis-translated or translitterated. My God is able to work through ALL things. What we see as "faulty", God simply sees as an opportunity to display his divine power.

In that vein, I believe the NIV is an acceptable version. It is written in today's language so I can understand it, and there are no critical errors such as "God is of the devil". I don't rely on my intellect to understand the scriptures. In all humility, I let the Spirit guide me to and through the truth. In meekness, I let God be God and reveal all of his wonder and delights. The more you humble yourself to the "obvious" truths therein, the more the Spirit reveals to you.

Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

The NIV is not a reliable translation, NetDoc. It is an elastic interpretation of the text that continually is inconsistent with the literal meaning of the text. I can't understand why evangelical conservatives (who try to live according to the Bible) have promoted such a lacking interpretation... perhaps too many of them slept through Greek and Hebrew in seminary. The English Standard Verison or NKJV are much better.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

English continually changes and other manuscripts are continually being studied for date and content.

Can you give me a specific example of where this has come into play?

 

[Faust]

Is the lineage of Jesus in both Mathew and Luke an obvious mistake in translation, or is it simply a blatant contradiction of O.T. prophesy? Is Jesus the messiah prophesied in the O.T. or is he something entirely different?
If this is a problem with translation I would greatly appreciate some supportable information because this issue goes straight to the heart of the Christian religion.
Faust.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you give me a specific example of where this has come into play?

That language continually changes should be self-evident, as the language is evolving even now. Word use and grammar evolve- that's why we have Old English, Middle English, etc.

Dissertations are continually being written that shed light on how words in the Greek and Hebrew language were used in the Bible as well as in other ancient texts, which will continue to color our understanding of how the words should be defined as well as syntactical relationships, and it is possible that discoveries of new manucripts - both biblical and non-biblical will enhance our understanding as to the nature of the text and syntactical relationships.

The most significant recent discovery is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shed light on everything from word use to canonization. The DSS have not been fully digested by scholars.

The most significant collection of dissertations with regards to the NT that I know of is found in the Theological Dictionary of the NT, which includes everything from textual criticism, syntax, and definitions.

There are approx 5000 NT manuscripts, and some are unpublished. The science of dating the texts and arranging them into textual families is ongoing and some are in dispute. The most significant recent conclusions include the removal of the last chapters of Mark from most recent translations (or at least designating a 'shorter' version of Mark and a 'longer' version like the NRSV) - and many Christians notice that the end of the Lord's prayer is now missing from several modern translations ("for thine is the power and the kingdom...) due to textual discoveries.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is the lineage of Jesus in both Mathew and Luke an obvious mistake in translation, or is it simply a blatant contradiction of O.T. prophesy? Is Jesus the messiah prophesied in the O.T. or is he something entirely different?
If this is a problem with translation I would greatly appreciate some supportable information because this issue goes straight to the heart of the Christian religion.
Faust.

It is not a problem of translation. The names in the lists are different.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The most significant recent conclusions include the removal of the last chapters of Mark ...

Recent conclusion? The Marcan Appendix is absent from the earliest know codices, i.e., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bobiensis, and Syriacus, and this absence is hardly a recent conclusion.

 

[linwood]

Recent conclusion? The Marcan Appendix is absent from the earliest know codices, i.e., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bobiensis, and Syriacus, and this absence is hardly a recent conclusion.

I`m aware of the problems with the end of Mark.

I was however unaware it involved the entire final chapter.
I was under the impression it was no more than the last few verses missing from Sinaiticus, granted I haven`t seen it myself but not many have.

Why is the entire final chapter in question?

This has serious impact on the foundation of Christian resurrection doesn`t it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From bible.org

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (Í B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (Í B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Y 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Q Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

 

[Faust]

It is not a problem of translation. The names in the lists are different.

But they both conclude with Joseph.
If Joseph was the father of Jesus, then Mary did not conceive Jesus of the Holy Spirit.
If Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit then he was not descended from David.
I don't see how the names in the lists being different changes this.
Faust.

 

[linwood]

If Joseph was the father of Jesus, then Mary did not conceive Jesus of the Holy Spirit.
If Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit then he was not descended from David.

This is really one of my favorite Biblical conundrums.



Deut,
Thanks for that, there are a couple of possibilities in that post I hadn`t given much thought to and the subject of those last few verses has always intrigued me.

However unless I`m missing something I don`t see how those last 11 verses throw the prior 8 into trouble.
I believe the first 8 are acceptabe as authentic from what I`ve read.
granted those last eleven are the majority of the chapter and priceless to Christian dogma.

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

I read everyone's much ado over nothing. Joseph clearly is NOT the biological father of Jesus (Yeshua), but only the step-father from a biological point of view as made clear in Matthew 1:18-25, " Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." (Revised Standard Version; RSV). why? Clearly because as the scripture testifies, " but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." So if he did not have relations with her until after the birth of Jesus (Yeshua) he could in no way be his biological father; although, of course later on he had relations with her since the term knew used in this sense means sexual intercourse.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Recent conclusion? The Marcan Appendix is absent from the earliest know codices, i.e., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bobiensis, and Syriacus, and this absence is hardly a recent conclusion.

I was trying to appeal to common knowledge by referring to Mark. We've known about the editing of the Lord's prayer for quite a while too.

EDIT: What is significant and in flux is the scholarly value given to the various textual witnesses. The 5000 texts that comprise the NT don't match, and the balancing of the text is done with varying judgements based on either the majority text theory (KJV/NKJV) or the oldest text theory (I can't recall the technical name for this off the top of my head... NRSV, NIV, and many others). The majority text hypothesis theorizes that where most of the texts match, then the majority has the most authority. However, if one early text gets edited and is passed around and copied into many text families, then the majority text produces the error and it is thought to be authoritative.

There are scholars still reviewing, dating, and comparing texts to try and figure out which ones are the oldest and therefore (in my view) the most authoritative. All of the texts are early that make a significant impact on textual criticism, but the weight given to each text differs with scholarly opinion regarding textual theories.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I`m aware of the problems with the end of Mark.

I was however unaware it involved the entire final chapter.
I was under the impression it was no more than the last few verses missing from Sinaiticus, granted I haven`t seen it myself but not many have.

Why is the entire final chapter in question?

This has serious impact on the foundation of Christian resurrection doesn`t it?

I don't think it has serious implications for the foundation of the Christian teaching of the resurrection. We have three other Gospels that have the resurrection story, and the dating of the Markan edition is still pretty early.

 

[iris89]

Hi angellous_evangellous

You might be interested in my various research products, articles, on Bible Canon and an email sent to me by a member of a Bible translation committie. You can go to:

Details on Bible Canon:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108381517&lp=1108381780

And read them and learn.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89