Discuss Bible changes...

wil

UNeyeR1
Veteran Member
Messages
24,537
Reaction score
3,921
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
We know we have tons of differing versions...

 
I don't have time right now to address in detail. What exactly is the issue here? Translation of any text from one language into another has always been an inexact science.
 
We know we have tons of differing versions...

Nope, there are only 2 versions of the Bible.
The KJV and the rest.
The reason is that there are 2 main manuscripts of the New Testament.
Without going into much detail, the Byzantium and Alexandrian texts.

All bibles before 1860 used the Texus Receptus, or the Byzantium text.
The reason is that throughout the ages since the first century, the Christians copied the manuscripts by hand which they had used to the end of its life.
These copies in transmission ended up as the Texus Receptus, or the "texts we received".
This was the manuscripts Erasmus used.
This was what Tyndale, and the first bible translators used.
This is where the King James came from.

Then there were other manuscripts discovered by Tishendorff in the 1860's such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
They are the Alexandrian family.
they are very bad manuscripts and tainted with Areanism denying the divinity of God.
Tishendorff managed to propagate these manuscripts as the discovery of the century, and declared it the oldest and most correct manuscripts of the Bible. Excellent, and Oldest, and Best and all the other lies....
However, careful textual investigation shows it to be very poor copies, with lots of verses and chapters missing and changed.
However, The moneymakers of the world could not wait to publish their Bible versions. The published manuscripts of Wescot and Hort, as well as Nestle Alland, was used to create the New International version, ESV, New KJV, and all the other bibles which contains copyrights to make money.
The only Bible without copyrights is the KJV. You might see the commentaries under copyright.

Therefore, if you want to talk about Bible versions, know there are only 2 versions from its manuscripts.

The KJV and the other false versions.

To say there are many versions of the Bible is not true at all. Just these 2.
There are many translations which thesemoneymakers like to call versions.
 
Nope, there are only 2 versions of the Bible.
The KJV and the rest.
Oooh ... a KJV-onlyist, then?

The reason is that there are 2 main manuscripts of the New Testament.
Without going into much detail, the Byzantium and Alexandrian texts.
But the detail is what it's all about ... it's more complex than that, and without going into detail leads to p[otentially erroneous generalisations.

... throughout the ages since the first century, the Christians copied the manuscripts by hand which they had used to the end of its life.
These copies in transmission ended up as the Texus Receptus, or the "texts we received".
Not quite ... Erasmus compiled his text in the 16th century, using Byzantine materials, but he did not have access to all the Byzantine manuscripts, in fact the Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of them, all dating to around the 12th century. As a result, by any measure, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to be the most accurate.

... they are very bad manuscripts and tainted with Areanism denying the divinity of God.
Really? Evidence of that?

... and declared it the oldest and most correct manuscripts of the Bible.
But therein lies the flaw in the logic:
the 'oldest' does not necessarily mean the 'most correct',
nor, by the same token, does the 'most copied' (Majority Text) mean the most accurate.

Even assuming there was a text guaranteed accurate and without error or omission by God, that does not stop us misunderstanding its meaning, and to assume that everyone understands absolutely everything they read in the Bible, without error, is clearly insupportable ...
 
Nope, there are only 2 versions of the Bible.
The KJV and the rest.
Lol....that would be King James Version.

Funny thar a gay guy creates something that hundreds of years later is used against homosexuals...and that homophobes (not saying anyone here) prefer the gay guy's version!
 
Lol....that would be King James Version.

Funny thar a gay guy creates something that hundreds of years later is used against homosexuals...and that homophobes (not saying anyone here) prefer the gay guy's version!
What did the Royal commissioning of one of the earliest Bible translations into English have to do with the King's sexual preferences?

The King James Version, also the King James Bible and the Authorized Version, is an Early Modern English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, which was commissioned in 1604 and published in 1611, by sponsorship of King James VI and I. The 80 books of the King James Version include 39 books of the Old Testament, 14 books of Apocrypha, and the 27 books of the New Testament.

The KJV was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities: The first had been the Great Bible (1535), and the second had been the Bishops' Bible (1568). In Switzerland the first generation of Protestant Reformers had produced the Geneva Bible which was published in 1560 having referred to the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, which was influential in the writing of the Authorized King James Version.

The English Church initially used the officially sanctioned "Bishops' Bible", which was hardly used by the population. More popular was the named "Geneva Bible", which was created on the basis of the Tyndale translation in Geneva under the direct successor of the reformer John Calvin for his English followers. However, their footnotes represented a Calvinistic Puritanism that was too radical for James.

James convened the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans, a faction of the Church of England.

In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible for Epistle and Gospel readings, and as such was authorized by an Act of Parliament.

The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved. All were members of the Church of England and all except Sir Henry Savile were clergy. The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as high churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.

Read full Wiki article

See also: Bible translations into English
 
Last edited:
Oooh ... a KJV-onlyist, then?


But the detail is what it's all about ... it's more complex than that, and without going into detail leads to p[otentially erroneous generalisations.


Not quite ... Erasmus compiled his text in the 16th century, using Byzantine materials, but he did not have access to all the Byzantine manuscripts, in fact the Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of them, all dating to around the 12th century. As a result, by any measure, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to be the most accurate.


Really? Evidence of that?


But therein lies the flaw in the logic:
the 'oldest' does not necessarily mean the 'most correct',
nor, by the same token, does the 'most copied' (Majority Text) mean the most accurate.

Even assuming there was a text guaranteed accurate and without error or omission by God, that does not stop us misunderstanding its meaning, and to assume that everyone understands absolutely everything they read in the Bible, without error, is clearly insupportable ...
You might not understand why will say this now, but "Thank you for your replies."
I deliberately did not venture into the finer details of the scriptural and manuscript criticism.

My idea was not to give an expert in depth study, but a superficial overview of the 2 greater branches of the 4 main transmissions of the NT Manuscripts.
As for the "Oooh ... a KJV-onlyist, then?,"

Do you see this as a problem?

I did not just accept the propaganda of the different translations.
I read both and firsthand saw the poor quality translations and deliberate changing of words and sentences to allow for copyright.
Yes, the KJV is not so perfect, but at least there are no deliberate changes to the meaning of its contents and context.

Let me give you just one example to prove that the translators of the NIV deliberately tried to make the Bible look like a piece of rubbish.
Deut 22: 28 (KJV) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Versus the NIV that says she was Raped.

Now, this being the OT and nothing to do with the TR or other NT manuscripts, why the hell did they translate it that this man raped the girl, iso the true meaning that they were so to say Boy and Girl friend?

Therefore, to place me in a category of KJV only is a huge mistake from your part.
Greetings.
 
What did the Royal commissioning of one of the earliest Bible translations into English have to do with the King's sexual preferences?



See also: Bible translations into English

True indeed RJM.And if I may add, The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin.
It is also clear that I broke the majority of God's 10 commandments.
But the most clear sin that I refuse to commit, is to Judge other people.
I know Homosexuals and Lesbians that are definitely with much lesser sin that I can ever hope to be.

So, why do you (Wil) attempt to place a connotation on the KJV of some sinning King?
Do you (WIL) think it evaluates the KJV at all?
I mean, look at yourself pal.

For what it is worth, I have the idea that you find yourself sooo high and intelligent, that you feel nothing to be on the vanguard against simple folk such as the Bible believing people.
They call this IDOLATRY!
I am sometimes also guilty of self worship, and must admit, this is a grave sin indeed.
Feeling and acting stronger than God deliberately will have its consequences.
Greetings.
 
Last edited:
, why do you (Wil) attempt to place a connotation on the KJV of some sinning King?
In fact @wil is a strong supporter of LBGTQ rights. It's why I found his comment strange?
 
You might not understand why will say this now, but "Thank you for your replies."
I deliberately did not venture into the finer details of the scriptural and manuscript criticism.
Fair enough, it is a huge topic.

I did not just accept the propaganda of the different translations.
Without reasoned argument, I do not accept the term 'propaganda' – the KJV translation was itself directed by King James to reinforce Church of England beliefs in the face of anti-monarchist and anti-ecclesial translations, such as put forward by Tyndale and Calvin's Puritanism.

... why the hell did they translate it that this man raped the girl, iso the true meaning that they were so to say Boy and Girl friend?
Context:
22:13-19 – If a man (for example) falls out of love, as it were, and accuses his wife of not being a virgin when they married, to get the marriage annulled, and is proven to be lying, then the man shall be chastised.

22:20-21 – If, however, it is proved that she was in fact not a virgin, then she shall be stoned to death.

22:22 – Both parties in adultery shall be stoned to death.

22:23-24 – If a woman is unmarried but betrothed and is found with a man, then the same rule applies.

22:25-27 – But if a man 'forces' (ie rapes) a betrothed woman, then she is innocent, and he will be stoned.

22:28 – If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (emphasis mine)

So verse v28 is the same as v25-27, except that in this case there is no marriage contract, then the man is obliged to marry his victim and pay the father a fee.

So not boyfriend and girlfriend, that's your reading, that's not what the text is saying.
 
In fact @wil is a strong supporter of LBGTQ rights. It's why I found his comment strange?
Does he also support my rights to be a White Christian Male, who is a descendant of the people who created the Western civilization to allow him to be a QWERTY+ person?

Lets see what substance his character contains.
 
Fair enough, it is a huge topic.


Without reasoned argument, I do not accept the term 'propaganda' – the KJV translation was itself directed by King James to reinforce Church of England beliefs in the face of anti-monarchist and anti-ecclesial translations, such as put forward by Tyndale and Calvin's Puritanism.


Context:
22:13-19 – If a man (for example) falls out of love, as it were, and accuses his wife of not being a virgin when they married, to get the marriage annulled, and is proven to be lying, then the man shall be chastised.

22:20-21 – If, however, it is proved that she was in fact not a virgin, then she shall be stoned to death.

22:22 – Both parties in adultery shall be stoned to death.

22:23-24 – If a woman is unmarried but betrothed and is found with a man, then the same rule applies.

22:25-27 – But if a man 'forces' (ie rapes) a betrothed woman, then she is innocent, and he will be stoned.

22:28 – If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (emphasis mine)

So verse v28 is the same as v25-27, except that in this case there is no marriage contract, then the man is obliged to marry his victim and pay the father a fee.

So not boyfriend and girlfriend, that's your reading, that's not what the text is saying.
1. In the case where the women were taken by a man, and she did not scream, it is not rape, but consensual adultery because she was engaged or married. The penalty is death to both. He knew she was married, and she carried on anyhow.
2. If he took the woman, and she screams, it proves she did not give her consent. He is guilty and the penalty is death.
3. If this woman is not married, and he takes her, AND SHE DOES NOT SCREAM, it is not rape, she gave her consent. This means she liked the guy. I rest my case. Boyfriend and Girlfriend.

Therefore, they were not engaged, or married, but had consensual sex.
The word rape does not occur in these verses at all, and the context should be understood.

But to go and translate it as rape is a big fat lie!
Why did the translators of the NIV do that?
 
Therefore, they were not engaged, or married, but had consensual sex.
The word rape does not occur in these verses at all, and the context should be understood.
OK, I can see how one can argue that ...

Then perhaps the translators were perhaps trying to protect the virtue of the woman ... ?

+++

My principle argument, however, is there are older versions of the Bible than the KJV, and the 12th century source of the KJV had clearly been edited/expanded over time ... and thus later scholarly translations seek something closer to the original text.
 
Without reasoned argument, I do not accept the term 'propaganda' – the KJV translation was itself directed by King James to reinforce Church of England beliefs in the face of anti-monarchist and anti-ecclesial translations, such as put forward by Tyndale and Calvin's Puritanism.
True.
But I dont think you have read the claims by Tishendorf when he discovered the Sinaiticus and lateron the Faticanus.
If he were to live today, with all the discoveries of many papyri, he might have spoken otherwise.
Be as it may, the Church of England started with Henry 8th when he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon.

Another king who divorced, beheaded, cheated his wives and so on.
He started his own church.
Does that mean the KJV is wrong?
Why dont you look at the Bible translations since Tyndale, Luther and so on, and see what pains the reformers went through to render a true Bible, ISO the Vulgate?
Remember how the Kings of Europe used the Catholic Church to hate the Bible by the reformation, how millions were killed because they believed the pope had no authority over one's spirit?
Luckily we all know that those Kings participating in religious wars that time, had no clue what the Bible said!
They were fighting Christians, against Christian, for the sake of politics.

Today we can condemn Catholic and protestant equally.
But I still say:
I could not have found any Church that is correct,
Yet I still have to find one that is wrong.

NS, I read all the versions of the Bible, and am indebted to the translators which K James got together.
 
OK, I can see how one can argue that ...

Then perhaps the translators were perhaps trying to protect the virtue of the woman ... ?

+++

My principle argument, however, is there are older versions of the Bible than the KJV, and the 12th century source of the KJV had clearly been edited/expanded over time ... and thus later scholarly translations seek something closer to the original text.
Also True.
But there are ways to find wat the variants between the versions and translations say.
I know of good linear translations etc.

However, what does it help I learn all these things, and I can not have a kind heart towards my fellow person.
Then again, it does not benefit to just accept all the errors in the name of neighborly love.
Love towards your fellow humans demands that one teaches, and learns.
Fron their and your own errors.
 
Does he also support my rights to be a White Christian Male, who is a descendant of the people who created the Western civilization to allow him to be a QWERTY+ person?

Lets see what substance his character contains.
Whatever. We try to avoid personal attacks and ad hominem here
 
Does he also support my rights to be a White Christian Male, who is a descendant of the people who created the Western civilization to allow him to be a QWERTY+ person?

Lets see what substance his character contains.
Top row of the keyboard? Is that a queer plus reference... I also have the born white Christian sis gender hetero male privileges

But substance of character? Have you not defined it in your post.

And yeah... I got no problem with King James proclivities as far as I am concerned what he consensually did in private was up to him ... twas not I who spread such gossip centuries ago.

But I do find it interesting that the judgemental homophobes find his version their version.
 
NS, I read all the versions of the Bible, and am indebted to the translators which K James got together.
OK, it's your translation of choice, I get that – it is for many.

Re Deuteronomy 22:28:
KJV: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found"

The Hebrew 'lay hold of' is the verb tapas which Strong's Hebrew states to mean: 'take, handle, hold, catch, surprise' – and explains as 'to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield, grasp, arrest' and so on. Interestingly, it's a different verb in the case of a betrothed woman – in that case the verb is hazaq 'to force' – so the implication is, as you will argue, that in the case of the betrothed women she is forced (and cries out) and in the case of the unbetrothed woman she is not necessarily forced, and does not cry out ... ergo she consents.

However, the Greek Septuagint uses the verb biasamenos (βιασάμενος) and the Greeks translates as 'force' in both cases, so maybe a later generation of Jews, who had rubbed shoulders with the Hellenic world, took a different view than their Deuteronomic forebears?

So if she is consenting, it's a 'shotgun wedding', and if she's not, and it is rape, then the rapist pays off her dad, and she is obliged to marry her rapist, which means she loses out all the way round – but that's my contemporary sensibility talking – I can't just the Deuteronomist scribe by my 21st century values.

+++

The KJV, like all translations, is the product of a committee, and a comnmittee under direction.

The renown theologian David Bentley Hart has produced a translation of the NT and offers this:
"... almost all modern translations of the text have been produced not by single scholars with their own particular visions of the text but by committees. The inevitable consequence of this is that many of the most important decisions are negotiated accommodations, achieved by general agreement, and favoring only those solutions that prove the least offensive to everyone involved. This becomes, in effect, a process of natural selection, in which novel approaches to the text are generally the first to perish, and only the tried and trusted survive. And this can result in the exclusion not only of extravagantly conjectural readings, but often of the most straightforwardly literal as well. (A sort of 'acid test' for me is Judas [or Jude] 1:19, a verse whose meaning is startlingly clear in the Greek but which no collaborative translation I know of translates in any but the vaguest and most periphrastic manner.)" [DBH, Introduction, xiv]

And with regard to Jude 1:19:
Greek: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ψυχικοί πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες
KJV: "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
DBH: "These are those who cause divisions, psychical men, not possessing spirits."

Hart's translation brings out a view that would be at home in its world, but reads strangely in ours – we are not used to the distinctions and discernments between mind and spirit, between natural and supernatural natures – any way one looks at it, to take a text which is an extended commentary on the spiritual origins and ends of the world, and translate 'psychikos' as 'sensual', is to do the words much injustice, as is translating the Greek logos by the Latin verbum and the English word.
 
Last edited:
OK, it's your translation of choice, I get that – it is for many.

Re Deuteronomy 22:28:
KJV: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found"

The Hebrew 'lay hold of' is the verb tapas which Strong's Hebrew states to mean: 'take, handle, hold, catch, surprise' – and explains as 'to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield, grasp, arrest' and so on. Interestingly, it's a different verb in the case of a betrothed woman – in that case the verb is hazaq 'to force' – so the implication is, as you will argue, that in the case of the betrothed women she is forced (and cries out) and in the case of the unbetrothed woman she is not necessarily forced, and does not cry out ... ergo she consents.

However, the Greek Septuagint uses the verb biasamenos (βιασάμενος) and the Greeks translates as 'force' in both cases, so maybe a later generation of Jews, who had rubbed shoulders with the Hellenic world, took a different view than their Deuteronomic forebears?

So if she is consenting, it's a 'shotgun wedding', and if she's not, and it is rape, then the rapist pays off her dad, and she is obliged to marry her rapist, which means she loses out all the way round – but that's my contemporary sensibility talking – I can't just the Deuteronomist scribe by my 21st century values.

+++

The KJV, like all translations, is the product of a committee, and a comnmittee under direction.

The renown theologian David Bentley Hart has produced a translation of the NT and offers this:
"... almost all modern translations of the text have been produced not by single scholars with their own particular visions of the text but by committees. The inevitable consequence of this is that many of the most important decisions are negotiated accommodations, achieved by general agreement, and favoring only those solutions that prove the least offensive to everyone involved. This becomes, in effect, a process of natural selection, in which novel approaches to the text are generally the first to perish, and only the tried and trusted survive. And this can result in the exclusion not only of extravagantly conjectural readings, but often of the most straightforwardly literal as well. (A sort of 'acid test' for me is Judas [or Jude] 1:19, a verse whose meaning is startlingly clear in the Greek but which no collaborative translation I know of translates in any but the vaguest and most periphrastic manner.)" [DBH, Introduction, xiv]

And with regard to Jude 1:19:
Greek: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ψυχικοί πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες
KJV: "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
DBH: "These are those who cause divisions, psychical men, not possessing spirits."

Hart's translation brings out a view that would be at home in its world, but reads strangely in ours – we are not used to the distinctions and discernments between mind and spirit, between natural and supernatural natures – any way one looks at it, to take a text which is an extended commentary on the spiritual origins and ends of the world, and translate 'psychikos' as 'sensual', is to do the words much injustice, as is translating the Greek logos by the Latin [i[verbum[/i] and the English word.
I have yet to find anyone so determined to prove me wrong in the use of the word Rape in the NIV concerning a man and woman having sex as a boyfriend and girlfriend to make it RAPE.

The fact is the KJV translated it correct, and the Not so Inspired Version did not.
 
I have yet to find anyone so determined to prove me wrong in the use of the word Rape in the NIV concerning a man and woman having sex as a boyfriend and girlfriend to make it RAPE.
Because both the Hebrew and the Greek imply force was used on his part?

And because of the context of the whole chapter?

(Where does it say 'boyfriend and girlfriend'? What if they're at home and not outside?)

The fact is the KJV translated it correct, and the Not so Inspired Version did not.
I think the KJV followed the other bible translations ... the translators used pre-translated versions (even Calvinist and Catholic) in making their decisions.
 
Back
Top