Interesting Read on Bible Versions
- Thread starter CoreIssue
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
101G
Well-Known Member
addressing the OP only and his link.
while reading your link it said something that didn't mash to well,
(4)THE TRANSLATORS OF THE KJV 1611 WERE UNTRAINED IN KOINE GREEK.
"But yet it has helped countless thousands of people to find and know God?", well good for those untrained in Koine Greek. but I believe it brought millions to the Lord Jesus. but with that aside, in "my" opinion what gets me is this. in the thought of helping people, these newer translation hurt more than they help. example, Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living".
in newer or other translation, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living". or this one, "Then the man--Adam--named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live".
what these translation just did was to eliminate, and keep people in the dark, about Adam and Eve children they had in the Garden, before they had Cain and Abel outside the Garden and after the fall. that one word "WAS" in the KJV alert me to the fact that they had children in the garden and the chapter here proves this out. by changing a word it can "help" or "hinder". those translation stated that Eve will have children, or would become a mother, all future tense, but that one "past" tense word "was" open the door to understanding were Cain got his wife, and who was the sons of God in chapter 6. just one word change.
PICJAG.
while reading your link it said something that didn't mash to well,
(4)THE TRANSLATORS OF THE KJV 1611 WERE UNTRAINED IN KOINE GREEK.
"But yet it has helped countless thousands of people to find and know God?", well good for those untrained in Koine Greek. but I believe it brought millions to the Lord Jesus. but with that aside, in "my" opinion what gets me is this. in the thought of helping people, these newer translation hurt more than they help. example, Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living".
in newer or other translation, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living". or this one, "Then the man--Adam--named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live".
what these translation just did was to eliminate, and keep people in the dark, about Adam and Eve children they had in the Garden, before they had Cain and Abel outside the Garden and after the fall. that one word "WAS" in the KJV alert me to the fact that they had children in the garden and the chapter here proves this out. by changing a word it can "help" or "hinder". those translation stated that Eve will have children, or would become a mother, all future tense, but that one "past" tense word "was" open the door to understanding were Cain got his wife, and who was the sons of God in chapter 6. just one word change.
PICJAG.
Reality is she was not the mother of anyone until Adam got her pregnant. That did not happen until after they ate from the tree and was cast out of the garden.
Cain and Abel married their sisters. Incest did not become a sin until Moses was given Mosaic law.
Same reality after the Flood. There was no one else to marry but relatives.
It impacted genetics heavily so life Spans decreased.
101G
Well-Known Member
first thanks for the reply, second, this is just what we're talking about. Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
it's a sciencetific fact one cannot multiply or increase something that has not already happen. and clearly Eve had been pregnant before. because the Hebrew word for "conception" is
H2032 הֵרוֹן herown (hay-rone') n-m.
הֵרָיוֹן herayown (hay-raw-yone')
pregnancy.
[from H2029]
KJV: conception.
Root(s): H2029
and "sorrow" here is Labor pain.
H6089 עֶצֶב `etseb (eh'-tseɓ) n-m.
1. an earthen vessel.
2. (usually) (painful) toil.
3. (also) a pang (whether of body or mind).
[from H6087]
KJV: grievous, idol, labor, sorrow.
Root(s): H6087
as said one cannot increase what has not yet happen, so the key word in the KJV "WAS" proves valuable.
PICJAG.
Another KJV error and future tense.
16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
101G
Well-Known Member
nope your error, she "WAS" the mother of all living, but now all after sin are dead. that's why we must be "BORN Again".
PICJAC
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
I agree with this except for the part in bold above. The NIV (like many other Bibles) has inaccuracies in important passages.
For example, Phil. 2:6 - "Who, being in very nature [morphe] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage [harpagmos];"- 2011 NIV. Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2:6 - New International Version
Phil. 2:6 - "Who, being in very nature [morphe] God, did not consider equality with God something to be
grasped [harpagmos]." - 1984 NIV.
Morphe simply means 'form' as in the visible appearance of a thing. It does not mean 'very nature.'
Harpagmos means 'taken by force.' It does not mean 'grasped.' It does not mean 'used to his own advantage.'
Another KJVOnliest.
Form does demand physical shape or visibility.
New International Version
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
New Living Translation
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Berean Study Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Berean Literal Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
New American Standard Bible
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.
Contemporary English Version
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
Good News Translation
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.
International Standard Version
In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.
NET Bible
who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
New Heart English Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
He who, while he was in the form of God, did not esteem this as a prize, that he was the equal of God,
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
New American Standard 1977
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Jubilee Bible 2000
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
King James 2000 Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God:
American King James Version
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
American Standard Version
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Darby Bible Translation
who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
English Revised Version
who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
Webster's Bible Translation
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Weymouth New Testament
Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.
World English Bible
who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
I must be over tired or something.
I 'read' the subject heading as "interesting read on bible visions"
I thought...wow, that is a different kind of thread for CoreIssues
Now I will read the thread here.
Bless you...Helen
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
Totally agree, the slow 'gradualism' of dumbing down the youth of every generation since probably the 40's has been a great success.
Two of my grandchildren are teachers...both are only allowed now to 'teach', the rubbish that is now called "Education'!!!
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
I read that also...but I worked in London UK during the 50's and never once hard that word used. They were still know as 'queers' at dances and bars in London.
When in Scotland in the early seventies they were called fags, proofs and one other I can't remember.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
Ahahaha... kind of thought the same! Sry Enoch, just a bit long...but what I DID read was good
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
CoreIssue, I certainly don't disagree that most trinitarian-translated Bibles translate with a trinitarian bias. It would be unnatural to expect otherwise. However, when we look at the NT Greek words in question, even trinitarian scholars often disagree with such translations.
Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the interpretation that Jesus is God. But with the forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!
As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.
The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.
Also notice how the first Christian writers after the NT writers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:
“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.
“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.
“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.
We can see, then, that, with the intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).
Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the interpretation that Jesus is God. But with the forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!
As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.
The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.
Also notice how the first Christian writers after the NT writers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:
“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.
“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.
“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.
We can see, then, that, with the intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Very few trinitarian-translated Bibles render harpagmos correctly at Phil. 2:6
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).
3. - He existed in the form of God, yet he gave no thought to seizing equality with God as his supreme prize. - TPT.
Of course, again, we don't expect most trinitarian-translated Bibles to render traditional 'proofs' in a non-trinitarian way.
The New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!
We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and subjective translations, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).
3. - He existed in the form of God, yet he gave no thought to seizing equality with God as his supreme prize. - TPT.
Of course, again, we don't expect most trinitarian-translated Bibles to render traditional 'proofs' in a non-trinitarian way.
The New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!
We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and subjective translations, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Last edited:
It does not matter which English translation of the original source text that you read, it is still the best means for you to gain an understanding of God's love for you and what is required of you by God to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christians who repeatedly slander have no credibility. As I have told you a dozen times, if indeed the KJV was *loaded with errors* it would have been rejected by scholars and Christians the moment it was published. When in fact it has been the leading or sole English Bible for over 300 years, it means that you are a liar.
In order to put your vile accusations to rest, I will quote from an article which actually appeared in the very liberal New York Times some time back.
400 Years Old and Ageless
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN SEPT. 29, 2011
...Pay close attention to the major new exhibition at the Folger Shakespeare Library here, “Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible,” and you will see not only manuscripts going back to the year 1000, an early translation from the 14th century, Queen Elizabeth I’s copy of the Bible, and imposingly bound versions of the King James; you will also sense the gradual birth of the modern English language and the subtle framing of a culture’s patterns of thought...
...The consequences, the exhibition recalls, are all around us: “One can hear the language of the King James Bible echoing from English cathedrals to rural American churches, from traditional Anglican hymns to Jamaican reggae music, from the poems of John Milton to the novels of Toni Morrison.” Displays also allude to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, to R. Crumb’s recent graphic version of Genesis, and to the 2010 film “The Book of Eli,” in which Denzel Washington’s postapocalyptic character must protect the world’s last copy of the King James Bible...
...There is, though, something more profound in the translation’s influence. In many ways its impact resembles the effect of the First Folio of Shakespeare, published just a dozen years later, and the subject of a recent exhibition mounted by the Folger. Both volumes transformed the English language, but also shaped ideas about human nature, freedom and responsibility.
The translators were also aware of their project’s ramifications. “Manifold Greatness,” like some recent books, traces how the very act of translating the Bible was controversial. We see here a 14th-century English version of the Old Testament produced by followers of one of the first translators, John Wyclif; like Wyclif’s own work, it was considered heretical and copies were burned. An image here from a late-16th-century “Book of Martyrs” shows Wyclif’s bones disinterred in 1427 and then burned just to emphasize the point...
...The impact of the King James version was partly unintentional: its success helped strengthen a new culture of the book and weakened the power of the priesthood. But part of that impact may have also come from the nature of the translation. Despite its deliberate archaic sound and its attempt to echo the original text’s peculiarities, the King James version was accessible. It told stories; it enticed readers; its rhythms encouraged memory and repetition. (Consider the change from an earlier translation — “God is my shepherd, therefore I can lose nothing” — to the King James version: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.”) Narratives once heard formally declaimed from pulpits were turned into chronicles of individual lives facing moral decisions...
...Could this have laid the foundation for the triumphs of the English novel, from Daniel Defoe through George Eliot and Thomas Hardy? Not only did these writers often invoke the biblical text or find inspiration in it; they also embraced its perspective, judging the behavior of their characters and meting out their fates....
... During World War II Winston Churchill wrote about “English-speaking peoples,” and their distinctive perspective on the world. Could some of that be traced to the heritage of the King James Bible, including an emphasis on individual liberty and responsibility? Perhaps, but you cannot survey the riches at the Folger without realizing that you are being given a glimpse of a culture’s birth.
‘Manifold Greatness’ and King James Bible at Folger - Review
Similar threads
