ARE ALL BIBLE TRANSLATIONS TRUSTWORTHY?

[Doug]

[1John 5:7 KJV] 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now compare this verse in other translations.

[1Jo 5:7 NIV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 ESV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 RSV] 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The declaration that the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost are one has been eliminated.

Can you still say that all the translations reflect the word of God accurately?

 

[IndianaRob]

[1Jo 5:7 KJV] 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now compare this verse in other translations.

[1Jo 5:7 NIV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 ESV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 RSV] 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The declaration that the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost are one has been eliminated.

Can you still say that all the translations reflect the word of God accurately?

The Bible is the spirit of Christ and there is only one.

 

[JohnDB]

[1John 5:7 KJV] 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now compare this verse in other translations.

[1Jo 5:7 NIV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 ESV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 RSV] 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The declaration that the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost are one has been eliminated.

Can you still say that all the translations reflect the word of God accurately?

It's the "comma yohanim"
Only listed in the KJV due to an insertion into the copy of the Latin Vulgate Cambridge University used when making this particular translation. There was a huge debate over including it when they did it too.

Today no modern translation has it because it's not in any other manuscript either.....including most copies of the Latin Vulgate.

Any serious student of scripture is unconcerned with which translation is used. Flat reading, while the first thing done, is only the very start of hermeneutics. The process of applying hermeneutics is long and involved and this section stands out as an obvious insertion that does not belong.

It's outside the theme of the letter. It flat out is a red herring which takes away from the importance of this letter.

YMMV.

 

[IndianaRob]

It's the "comma yohanim"
Only listed in the KJV due to an insertion into the copy of the Latin Vulgate Cambridge University used when making this particular translation. There was a huge debate over including it when they did it too.

Today no modern translation has it because it's not in any other manuscript either.....including most copies of the Latin Vulgate.

Any serious student of scripture is unconcerned with which translation is used. Flat reading, while the first thing done, is only the very start of hermeneutics. The process of applying hermeneutics is long and involved and this section stands out as an obvious insertion that does not belong.

It's outside the theme of the letter. It flat out is a red herring which takes away from the importance of this letter.

YMMV.

You seem like an intelligent person, so I’d like to ask: how do you keep your beliefs consistent?

There are so many places where newer translations drift far from the KJV. In some cases, it looks like translators chose words based on what they thought the passage meant—yet their choices miss what the passage is really about.

So my question is: how do you know what the truth is?

 

[JohnDB]

You seem like an intelligent person, so I’d like to ask: how do you keep your beliefs consistent?

There are so many places where newer translations drift far from the KJV. In some cases, it looks like translators chose words based on what they thought the passage meant—yet their choices miss what the passage is really about.

So my question is: how do you know what the truth is?

Ok...
When translating you have a donor language
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Early Latin.

Then you have a receptor language
English

Hebrew is verb based and English is noun based.

now what most people miss is that English tends to be hyper-specific....but languages arent when it comes to Hebrew, Aramaic Which are metaphoric or idiomatic when it's Greek and Latin. Three completely different foundations with how these languages are constructed.

So....
We still have thoughts conveyed in the original language in the original culture it was transmitted to. And trying to bring those thoughts to a modern world in a vastly different culture is going to have some hiccups.

now i understand your dilemma....and the whole "Object of the exercise" is to be sure that you are living a life that is pleasing to God without being taken advantage of in the process. (It's impossible....kinda)

What you ultimately want is to do the research for yourself....well to the limit that you are capable of. Because studying scripture and utilizing all the resources available to you is a bit like balancing spinning plates on sticks. How many plates you can keep spinning successfully entirely individual.

However, what you might start with is what is called an expositional commentary. These are not cheap. A true expositional commentary is one that will discuss the language used in scripture by ancient language experts. (All is written in ancient languages)
A real expositional commentary is gonna set you back a pretty penny.
BUT
you wont end up like most people on the internet arguing in favor of a wrong opinion against someone else who holds a different wrong opinion.

NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NLT and others are fairly standard for common use and easy to read.
I currently use TS2009 often which is a Messianic Jewish Bible translated in South Africa. It's a bit different from most Westernized Bibles in how it's translated. I used to use ISR 98....but the 2009 is the updated version. But I have used all of them at some point. I just have a flavor for the month. It depends largely on what I do the most. The Messianic Jews have left South Africa for the political unrest....dunno if they are going to make anymore.

 

[ScottA]

[1John 5:7 KJV] 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now compare this verse in other translations.

[1Jo 5:7 NIV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 ESV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 RSV] 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The declaration that the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost are one has been eliminated.

Can you still say that all the translations reflect the word of God accurately?

No, it cannot accurately be said that all translations or versions of the Bible are accurate. On the other hand though, God is indeed trustworthy, and also stands over His word in every quarter--even every translation.

The thing that is commonly missed, is that God is working all things--including iffy translations of His word--together for good for those who love Him according to His purpose. And that it was He Himself who "confused all language" according to that purpose.

If we are able to reason...it is not difficult to consider that "all truth" would not be plainly given to any generation early on, but would be under "restraint" until the fulness of time comes to every generation. If it were given plainly early on, His purpose would have come to a close before every generation had the opportunity to be involved with His salvation plans. He said as much: “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed" (Isaiah 6:10). Which--thanks be to God--means equal opportunity for all generations...even if the truth only comes "here a little there a little" along the way down through the ages.

Which--and here is the hard part--leaves things unfinished until the end--which God has also foretold. But who will even hear of it?

 

[IndianaRob]

Ok...
When translating you have a donor language
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Early Latin.

Then you have a receptor language
English

Hebrew is verb based and English is noun based.

now what most people miss is that English tends to be hyper-specific....but languages arent when it comes to Hebrew, Aramaic Which are metaphoric or idiomatic when it's Greek and Latin. Three completely different foundations with how these languages are constructed.

So....
We still have thoughts conveyed in the original language in the original culture it was transmitted to. And trying to bring those thoughts to a modern world in a vastly different culture is going to have some hiccups.

now i understand your dilemma....and the whole "Object of the exercise" is to be sure that you are living a life that is pleasing to God without being taken advantage of in the process. (It's impossible....kinda)

What you ultimately want is to do the research for yourself....well to the limit that you are capable of. Because studying scripture and utilizing all the resources available to you is a bit like balancing spinning plates on sticks. How many plates you can keep spinning successfully entirely individual.

However, what you might start with is what is called an expositional commentary. These are not cheap. A true expositional commentary is one that will discuss the language used in scripture by ancient language experts. (All is written in ancient languages)
A real expositional commentary is gonna set you back a pretty penny.
BUT
you wont end up like most people on the internet arguing in favor of a wrong opinion against someone else who holds a different wrong opinion.

NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NLT and others are fairly standard for common use and easy to read.
I currently use TS2009 often which is a Messianic Jewish Bible translated in South Africa. It's a bit different from most Westernized Bibles in how it's translated. I used to use ISR 98....but the 2009 is the updated version. But I have used all of them at some point. I just have a flavor for the month. It depends largely on what I do the most. The Messianic Jews have left South Africa for the political unrest....dunno if they are going to make anymore.

Thank you for reply.

 

[Doug]

It's the "comma yohanim"
Only listed in the KJV due to an insertion into the copy of the Latin Vulgate Cambridge University used when making this particular translation. There was a huge debate over including it when they did it too.

Today no modern translation has it because it's not in any other manuscript either.....including most copies of the Latin Vulgate.

Any serious student of scripture is unconcerned with which translation is used. Flat reading, while the first thing done, is only the very start of hermeneutics. The process of applying hermeneutics is long and involved and this section stands out as an obvious insertion that does not belong.

It's outside the theme of the letter. It flat out is a red herring which takes away from the importance of this letter.

YMMV.

What manuscripts do the new translations use and also the vulgate

 

[JohnDB]

The

What manuscripts do the new translations use and also the vulgate

There is no single Latin "Vulgate" manuscript that matches another. Each one is unique and different. It is determined that there were 4 different original parent vulgate bibles that the others in existence were copied from. Each one adding more copyist errors with deletions/sumarizing and insertions.

The "New" use a huge number of manuscripts from all around the world...

The advent of the New Covenant opened up the transcription tasks to people who did not take the task as seriously as Levitical Jews. Especially since no one in the Gentile world really used the Bible for services or meetings and the whole concept of Synagogue was forgotten and abandoned.

The Masoretes remained faithful. But they still had issues as a few features were lost over the centuries. (Acrostics)

 

[Behold]

NIV,

THe NIV is one of the worst translations ever created.
Avoid it.

 

[Behold]

The advent of the New Covenant opened up the transcription tasks to people who did not take the task as seriously as Levitical Jews.

You can't know the heart and mind of Engish bible translators......so, your opinion can't be verified.

But with something like the KJV< you can do deep historical reseach into the lives and ministries and scholarship level of the 50 obo AV Translators.
These men were devoted to creating the most perfect translation.
They even went so far as to insert italics... so that you knew they had added a word or similar.

 

[Doug]

The


There is no single Latin "Vulgate" manuscript that matches another. Each one is unique and different. It is determined that there were 4 different original parent vulgate bibles that the others in existence were copied from. Each one adding more copyist errors with deletions/sumarizing and insertions.

The "New" use a huge number of manuscripts from all around the world...

The advent of the New Covenant opened up the transcription tasks to people who did not take the task as seriously as Levitical Jews. Especially since no one in the Gentile world really used the Bible for services or meetings and the whole concept of Synagogue was forgotten and abandoned.

The Masoretes remained faithful. But they still had issues as a few features were lost over the centuries. (Acrostics)

The vulgate translates 1 John 5:7 accurately........7And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

Were you saying it was ok?

 

[JohnDB]

The vulgate translates 1 John 5:7 accurately........7And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

Were you saying it was ok?

Uhhhh.
re-read what I posted.

There's only ONE parent copy of the Latin Vulgate that says that. The other three do not.

Are the other three Latin Vulgate wrong?

Which one(s) are correct?
How about when the Syriac, Alexandrian, and Coptic agree perfectly with three of the four Latin Vulgate? Which one(s) would you think is correct then?

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Unfortunately the scriptures given by God no longer exist.

There are numerous English versions of the Bible in our day, too many to
count. Well; they can't possibly all be inspired. So when someone asks "Do
you believe the Bible is inerrant?" we should ask: Which version?

New Christians are often curious why there are so many English versions of
the Bible. Well, the thing is: the Bible was originally penned in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and koiné Greek. I seriously doubt that there is even one Bible
among the many English versions available in our day that can said to be
spot-on primarily because it is virtually impossible to move thoughts from
one language into another verbatim.

And then there is also the problem of ambiguity. Quite a few of the ancient
words have more than one meaning. Translators do their best to select an
appropriate thought, but must admit that sometimes they are taking an
educated guess.

Another problem faced by translators is the lack of sufficient text. It's
interesting to note in an interlinear how many and how often that words are
edited into English versions to fill them out. Now those fills of course can't be
assured inspired.

A lexicon of the words in the Bible giving their meanings in the original
languages is a big help sometimes although lexicons don't take into account
grammatical rules, viz: lexicons have their uses, but they aren't meant to be
substitutes for an education-- and I haven't even touched on punctuation;
which is a really big problem in itself because none that are placed in English
translations came from the manuscripts. Their selection, and their
placement, is entirely arbitrary; and possibly even biased.
_

 

[JohnDB]

.
● 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Unfortunately the scriptures given by God no longer exist.

There are numerous English versions of the Bible in our day, too many to
count. Well; they can't possibly all be inspired. So when someone asks "Do
you believe the Bible is inerrant?" we should ask: Which version?

New Christians are often curious why there are so many English versions of
the Bible. Well, the thing is: the Bible was originally penned in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and koiné Greek. I seriously doubt that there is even one Bible
among the many English versions available in our day that can said to be
spot-on primarily because it is virtually impossible to move thoughts from
one language into another verbatim.

And then there is also the problem of ambiguity. Quite a few of the ancient
words have more than one meaning. Translators do their best to select an
appropriate thought, but must admit that sometimes they are taking an
educated guess.

Another problem faced by translators is the lack of sufficient text. It's
interesting to note in an interlinear how many and how often that words are
edited into English versions to fill them out. Now those fills of course can't be
assured inspired.

A lexicon of the words in the Bible giving their meanings in the original
languages is a big help sometimes although lexicons don't take into account
grammatical rules, viz: lexicons have their uses, but they aren't meant to be
substitutes for an education-- and I haven't even touched on punctuation;
which is a really big problem in itself because none that are placed in English
translations came from the manuscripts. Their selection, and their
placement, is entirely arbitrary; and possibly even biased.
_

Especially when Hebrew is a verb-based metaphoric language.

There is no language that is going to equate.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

[1John 5:7 KJV] 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now compare this verse in other translations.

[1Jo 5:7 NIV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 ESV] 7 For there are three that testify:

[1Jo 5:7 RSV] 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The declaration that the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost are one has been eliminated.

Can you still say that all the translations reflect the word of God accurately?

No I can't but not because of that verse.

If you did even a minimum f study about that verse you would find that it does not appear in any translation until the 16 th century. That is 1500 years after the bible was written.

the passage is true but it never was written in and greek manuscript prior to the 16 th century.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Especially when Hebrew is a verb-based metaphoric language.

There is no language that is going to equate.

Don't tell that to biblical Hebrew speaking Jews who also speak English. and it is not a metaphoric language- where did you get that little piece of info?

 

[JohnDB]

Don't tell that to biblical Hebrew speaking Jews who also speak English. and it is not a metaphoric language- where did you get that little piece of info?

I don't need to tell them. They already know it if they really know Hebrew well. If they only know Yiddish....that's another story.

The crux is the VERB based language versus English which is noun based.

 

[Doug]

Uhhhh.
re-read what I posted.

There's only ONE parent copy of the Latin Vulgate that says that. The other three do not.

Are the other three Latin Vulgate wrong?

Which one(s) are correct?
How about when the Syriac, Alexandrian, and Coptic agree perfectly with three of the four Latin Vulgate? Which one(s) would you think is correct then?

I just wanted to see how the vulgate translated it
thanks

 

[JohnDB]

I just wanted to see how the vulgate translated it
thanks

Well that is the problem isn't it? Which Latin Vulgate? None have it before the 16th century....and only certain ones afterwards.