ARE ALL BIBLE TRANSLATIONS TRUSTWORTHY?

[MonoBiblical]

Well learning the original languages are best and using series like Keil and Delitzsch 10 volume OT and Littles 10 volume NT in the original languages are about the best.

I use the KJV and have done so for over 40 years. It is a matter of being comfortable with it. there are many excellent translations out there that do not promote any false teachings. But we all need to remember that when we translate from one language to another, things lose theier impact.

It is my opinion that false teaching has been taught in English since Tyndale. I respect Tyndale, but not his theology.

 

[IndianaRob]

The KJV is not the source to which we should compare new translations. Greek editions are the source.

All translations should be compared to the character of God, including the KJV.

 

[Rockerduck]

The KJV is not the source to which we should compare new translations. Greek editions are the source.

Which Greek, Critical text or Textus Receptus?

 

[IndianaRob]

Translations should mostly look at the original text, but also at the early translations, patristic citations and other external sources.

And of course, the translation should make sense in the context.

The problem is there is no such thing as the original text that we can compare to. And not only that our “original” word definitions are only some scholars idea of what he thought a word meant. There’s nothing concrete about the copies of the originals. People can’t even agree on which manuscript line is the right one.

What do you do when translations contradict each other?

 

[NayborBear]

I study it all the time, and I don't think there is one translation that is trustworthy.

Yep?! I'd have to agree with ya!
There's only ONE way to get "a/the" proper translation isn't there?
Go right to the source!
And NO!
Don't go to the source to ask the horse!
Cuz he'll (only) give you the answer that YOU endorse!

 

[NayborBear]

The problem is there is no such thing as the original text that we can compare to. And not only that our “original” word definitions are only some scholars idea of what he thought a word meant. There’s nothing concrete about the copies of the originals. People can’t even agree on which manuscript line is the right one.

What do you do when translations contradict each other?

The best way is to ask God to give you understanding when reading whatever translation you want to read.
And don't be scared "if/when/should" He!
And test Him!

 

[MonoBiblical]

Yep?! I'd have to agree with ya!
There's only ONE way to get "a/the" proper translation isn't there?
Go right to the source!
And NO!
Don't go to the source to ask the horse!
Cuz he'll (only) give you the answer that YOU endorse!

I discovered a post-trib rapture concurrent with the fall of the temple. I don't like the answer, but I endorse it.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The problem is there is no such thing as the original text that we can compare to. And not only that our “original” word definitions are only some scholars idea of what he thought a word meant. There’s nothing concrete about the copies of the originals. People can’t even agree on which manuscript line is the right one.

What do you do when translations contradict each other?

Latin and English was used to reconstruct the Greek. It isn't perfect, but I have a hard time believing mistakes in manuscripts were tolerated before the age of typos and printing.

 

[IndianaRob]

The best way is to ask God to give you understanding when reading whatever translation you want to read.
And don't be scared "if/when/should" He!
And test Him!

If that were true then every one of us would believe the same thing.

 

[Rockerduck]

The KJV bible has been used in every major rival and every great preacher in the more than 400yrs of use. The only bible that hearing word, brought Saving Faith to Millions. Why anyone trust a modern translation?

 

[IndianaRob]

Latin and English was used to reconstruct the Greek. It isn't perfect, but I have a hard time believing mistakes in manuscripts were tolerated before the age of typos and printing.

Any idea why these two translations say something completely different?

KJV – Micah 5:2​

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

NIV – Micah 5:2​

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

 

[MonoBiblical]

Any idea why these two translations say something completely different?

KJV – Micah 5:2​

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

NIV – Micah 5:2​

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Manuscripts or different rendering of OLAM...? I am checking. Lexical discrepancies. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος from the start of the permanenting days. OLAM is not eternal but rather permanent or make something permanent. Permanent punishment or chastisement would be a behavior correction that cannot be undone.

 

[IndianaRob]

Manuscripts or different rendering of OLAM...? I am checking. Lexical discrepancies. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος from the start of the permanenting days. OLAM is not eternal but rather permanent or make something permanent. Permanent punishment or chastisement would be a behavior correction that cannot be undone.

I got this from Chatgpt, do you agree with it’s assessment?

ChatGPT said:

1. Hebrew (עֹולָם / olam): It can mean “a very long duration,” but when applied to God, His throne, or Messiah’s existence, the context always pushes it beyond “temporary” into eternal.
2. Micah 5:2 (KJV): “Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (mi-olam).” The construction doesn’t mean “permanent until undone,” but “without beginning, eternal.”
3. Greek rendering: ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος — literally “from the beginning, from days of eternity.” Aion here parallels olam, but in this prophetic and Christological context it’s not limited duration; it points to eternity past.
4. Problem with his claim: If olam only meant “permanent for a while,” then verses about God’s eternal reign (Psalm 90:2, Psalm 93:2) would collapse into finite time. The Bible consistently uses olam to affirm God’s unending nature.

In short, olam can mean long duration in some contexts, but when applied to God or the Messiah’s “goings forth,” it always means eternal. The NIV mistranslates it as “origins,” implying a starting point, while the Hebrew text affirms eternality

 

[IndianaRob]

Chatgpt Question: Isn’t strange that Jesus the ascended master does have a beginning?

ChatGPT said:​

Answer:
Yes—it is strange. The way the NIV words Micah 5:2 (“origins…from ancient times”) lines up much more with New Age / Ascended Master teaching than with biblical Christology.

1. Bible truth: Jesus is eternal (John 1:1, Col. 1:17, Heb. 7:3). He did not begin—He simply is.
2. Ascended Master teaching: They say Jesus (or “the Christ spirit”) is a created being who began as a man and advanced to a higher spiritual state.
3. NIV problem: By translating olam as “origins” instead of “everlasting,” it unintentionally echoes the language of “beginnings” that cults and esoteric groups use to deny Christ’s eternal pre-existence.

That’s why the KJV’s “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” is so important—it leaves no room for Jesus being just another created master.

Recommendation: Treat any translation that gives Jesus a “beginning” as theologically dangerous.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I got this from Chatgpt, do you agree with it’s assessment?

Probably not. It's Chatgpt.

ChatGPT said:

1. Hebrew (עֹולָם / olam): It can mean “a very long duration,” but when applied to God, His throne, or Messiah’s existence, the context always pushes it beyond “temporary” into eternal.

Today's Hebrew is so defective that it is likely the other form of OLAM got ignored.

1. Micah 5:2 (KJV): “Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (mi-olam).” The construction doesn’t mean “permanent until undone,” but “without beginning, eternal.”

I like the LXX rendering very much. Theology makes OLAM out to mean everlasting rather than permanent. Eternal Hell corresponds to Permanent Hell. This wouldn't "justify" God who needs no justification.

1. Greek rendering: ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος — literally “from the beginning, from days of eternity.” Aion here parallels olam, but in this prophetic and Christological context it’s not limited duration; it points to eternity past.

I would say "out of the beginning out of days permanent." Aion has limited duration too, since a permanent effect doesn't need everlasting action.

1. Problem with his claim: If olam only meant “permanent for a while,” then verses about God’s eternal reign (Psalm 90:2, Psalm 93:2) would collapse into finite time. The Bible consistently uses olam to affirm God’s unending nature.

In short, olam can mean long duration in some contexts, but when applied to God or the Messiah’s “goings forth,” it always means eternal. The NIV mistranslates it as “origins,” implying a starting point, while the Hebrew text affirms eternality

Permanent, but not eternal. If the permanent throne, for example, needs to be bigger, it was merely permanent and not eternal. I believe permanenting describes almost the same length, but permanent chastisement does not have to be eternal to permanent. Comprehendest thou?

God is interested in reforming and redeeming wrongdoers, not destroying. But sometimes that seems to be the case, since someone may need to become infantile after being a lifelong murderer. ew

 

[HealthyShape]

Which Greek, Critical text or Textus Receptus?

Textus Receptus was a critical text of the New Testament, but made by only one person and from only few and late manuscripts Erasmus had a physical access to in his time and place.

Today's critical editions are much more larger works, thanks to digitization of manuscripts. And plenty of new ones were discovered since Erasmus, also our knowledge of the history of textual families and how they relate to each other is better understood

 

[Rockerduck]

Textus Receptus was a critical text of the New Testament, but made by only one person and from only few and late manuscripts Erasmus had a physical access to in his time and place.

Today's critical editions are much more larger works, thanks to digitization of manuscripts. And plenty of new ones were discovered since Erasmus, also our knowledge of the history of textual families and how they relate to each other is better understood

I disagree. The Critical text by Wescott and Hort was flawed from the beginning because of their hatred against the KJV using the Received text. The Critical text is in its 28th revision now, so their "new Greek" is still flawed. The fact that you and they dismiss the Received text is also flawed in thinking. You and they rely on two manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus There are over 5000 Majority manuscripts, and over 10,000 Latin Manuscripts. The KJV is more accurate to the original.

 

[HealthyShape]

I disagree. The Critical text by Wescott and Hort was flawed from the beginning because of their hatred against the KJV using the Received text. The Critical text is in its 28th revision now, so their "new Greek" is still flawed. The fact that you and they dismiss the Received text is also flawed in thinking. You and they rely on two manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus There are over 5000 Majority manuscripts, and over 10,000 Latin Manuscripts. The KJV is more accurate to the original.

Critical text is not supposed to be perfect. Of course it is still "flawed", because we do not have the originals, only copies. It is a continuous work to study what is the most probable original reading.

NA28 includes references to thousands of manuscripts and other textual witnesses. And the new Editio Critica Maior that is planned to be finished in 2030 will be the most comprehensive work ever done in this area.


Why do you want the KJV to be more accurate? I sense some background agenda there. The vast majority of the manuscripts you mentioned were not even known to the KJV translators in the 17th century. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[IndianaRob]

Textus Receptus was a critical text of the New Testament, but made by only one person and from only few and late manuscripts Erasmus had a physical access to in his time and place.

Today's critical editions are much more larger works, thanks to digitization of manuscripts. And plenty of new ones were discovered since Erasmus, also our knowledge of the history of textual families and how they relate to each other is better understood

People were corrupting the gospel during Paul’s day, how do you know which is a fake and which was truly an original writing?

 

[Rockerduck]

Critical text is not supposed to be perfect. Of course it is still "flawed", because we do not have the originals, only copies. It is a continuous work to study what is the most probable original reading.

NA28 includes references to thousands of manuscripts and other textual witnesses. And the new Editio Critica Maior that is planned to be finished in 2030 will be the most comprehensive work ever done in this area.


Why do you want the KJV to be more accurate? I sense some background agenda there. The vast majority of the manuscripts you mentioned were not even known to the KJV translators in the 17th century. Your argument makes no sense.

I'm an evangelist that has seen the corruption of God's word that has brought salvation to millions as is, without removing verses. I'm not KJV only. but I do recognize agendas in modern translations to feminize the language which is not God's word and actually change verses to make sin not as bad as damnation of the soul. Find the word fornication in the NIV, it isn't there. It is a sin. The Apostle Paul didn't studder when he wrote it. The KJV is not a "feel good" book for unbelievers, so they find a translation that sounds better and a preacher to "tickle their ears". It is indeed the end times, and the devil is in the modern translations.