Bible Translation Discussion Place

[Dino246]

Even Iraneus had said this corruption is common during his time.

I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html

Irenaus is writing about the '666' found in Revelation 13:18. Whether it is supposed to be 666 or 616 is rather a minor issue and doesn't affect anyone's salvation. He says nothing about corruption being "common"; you have added that in an attempt to support Nehemiah's spurious comment.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Dont think what King James directed was 'foisted' upon the translators they were already translating the Bible way before King James officially authorised it. If you read the preface that was the version king james endorsed, it wass offered to King James and he chose that one James didnt actually didnt have much to do with the translators themselves.

Sorry your premise is wrong.

King James defined fifteen rules that the translators needed to observe. They were delivered through his Archbishop but are widely thought to have came from him.

They were to use the Bishop's Bible as the default and preferred text.

The Bishop's Bible was more oriented around a monarchy, and the Geneva Bible was more oriented toward a democracy. King James actually had the goal of taking away the Geneva Bible and its notes from the Puritans.

It was very obvious that King James had political agendas.

Here are the rules:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the "Bishops Bible," to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word "Church" not to be translated "Congregation" &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessary so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be consider'd of serious and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many as being skilled in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors of each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. The translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (Great Bible), Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor, upon the Conference with the rest of the Heads to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew and Greek, for the better Observation of the fourth Rule above specified.

King James supposedly had the goal of unifying the country through this Bible version, but it is obvious he marginalized the Puritan input, and ELIMINATED the Roman Catholic input. Since I am not sympathetic to Roman Catholicism, their exclusion is no biggie to me. But, he was being disingenuous in pretending to make this an ecumenical endeavor because he intentionally designed the process to minimize Puritan and Roman Catholic concerns.

By the way I don't view the Anglican Church to be much better than Roman Catholicism, especially at that time. It's well known that Henry VIII broke off from Roman Catholicism only because the Pope wouldn't grant his annulment, because his wife was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope couldn't grant the annulment without offending the Emperor. Henry VIII broke away from Rome to form the Church of England, but it's well known that he was basically a Roman Catholic at heart.

So, the Anglican Church wasn't far removed from Roman Catholicism. And, the KJV reflected the traditions and language of the Anglican Church, too. The Anglicans did not like the Reformed notes associated with the Geneva Bible, and that is why the Bishop's Bible translation was used as the default text for comparison.

By the way, the exact details behind the translation process are hard to find, because many records concerning it were destroyed in fires after the translation was issued.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

By the way, Puritans are not the self-righteous lot that they have been portrayed by their enemies. If you read the works of older Puritans, you would find very deep and spiritual works that reflect individuals who spent a lot of time in meditation about God. They were very concerned about humility and avoiding pride. I think the shallow Christian scholarship of recent times has attempted to vilify them in an effort to distract attention from their own shallow levels of conversion and Christian meditation.

That is part of why I would associate with Reformed believers. The works of the non-Reformed camp are largely shallow and empty. They seem to be focused on bare-bones Christianity and as a result, don't think deep thoughts about God. They are mostly man-centered and infantile in their meditation. When your theology is anthropocentric, that's what you end up with.

 

[Pisteuo]

Has anyone brought up the mistranslation of pisteuo into the English language?

 

[Melach]

By the way, Puritans are not the self-righteous lot that they have been portrayed by their enemies. If you read the works of older Puritans, you would find very deep and spiritual works that reflect individuals who spent a lot of time in meditation about God. They were very concerned about humility and avoiding pride. I think the shallow Christian scholarship of recent times has attempted to vilify them in an effort to distract attention from their own shallow levels of conversion and Christian meditation.

i know puritans were calvinist but i have no problem with them because they live great life no doubt. inspiring people.

The works of the non-Reformed camp are largely shallow and empty.

so works of most christians in history are largely shallow and empty? you know reformed is the only group that belief as they do? comments like this is why people think calvinist are arrogant, thats why i talk of calvinism so lowly too because i see this arrogance and i hate it. you can even hear it in their pastor voice that "im better than you" attitude

 

[fredoheaven]

Irenaus is writing about the '666' found in Revelation 13:18. Whether it is supposed to be 666 or 616 is rather a minor issue and doesn't affect anyone's salvation. He says nothing about corruption being "common"; you have added that in an attempt to support Nehemiah's spurious comment.

Not that so fast, according to Textual critic Bruce M. Metzger in his New Testament Tools and Studies pp. 146 or as googled books online had to say of the characteristics involving P66 to note corruption.

“P66 has 440 alterations and corrections entered the lines and in the margins. About two-thirds of these (approximately 260 instances) involve corrections by the scribe of his own careless blunders…”

https://books.google.com.ph/books?i...q=nature of textual corruption of P66&f=false

 

[fredoheaven]

Irenaus is writing about the '666' found in Revelation 13:18. Whether it is supposed to be 666 or 616 is rather a minor issue and doesn't affect anyone's salvation. He says nothing about corruption being "common"; you have added that in an attempt to support Nehemiah's spurious comment.

Of course, we are not talking about salvation but about the corruption of the text. Btw, most of the corruption during the early times are mostly in reference to the Christological conflict and Gnosticism. They have Docetism(Illusionist), Sabellianism, Ebiosnism...etc.

 

[Pisteuo]

Of course, we are not talking about salvation but about the corruption of the text. Btw, most of the corruption during the early times are mostly in reference to the Christological conflict and Gnosticism. They have Docetism(Illusionist), Sabellianism, Ebiosnism...etc.

Hi Fred, you have time to compare notes on the Greek word pisteuo?

 

[Dino246]

Not that so fast, according to Textual critic Bruce M. Metzger in his New Testament Tools and Studies pp. 146 or as googled books online had to say of the characteristics involving P66 to note corruption.

“P66 has 440 alterations and corrections entered the lines and in the margins. About two-thirds of these (approximately 260 instances) involve corrections by the scribe of his own careless blunders…”

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=3pM3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=nature+of+textual+corruption+of+P66&source=bl&ots=a7j-_cw7Qb&sig=ACfU3U2C7PrwBw2naq0P2bOZ40RIa924GA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ6Izl-YnlAhUBZt4KHboPBHo4ChDoATAOegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=nature of textual corruption of P66&f=false

Again, you are not adequately supporting the charge of "common". I have no doubt that Dr. Metzger knows his stuff, and that his research is more likely to be sound than otherwise. However, his notes about one manuscript say essentially nothing about all manuscripts of the era.

Further, careless blunders constitute exactly that: carelessness. That is not the same as corruption, which usually implies intentional changes to support a specific agenda.

 

[fredoheaven]

Again, you are not adequately supporting the charge of "common". I have no doubt that Dr. Metzger knows his stuff, and that his research is more likely to be sound than otherwise. However, his notes about one manuscript say essentially nothing about all manuscripts of the era.

Further, careless blunders constitute exactly that: carelessness. That is not the same as corruption, which usually implies intentional changes to support a specific agenda.

Marcion the heretic (120-170AD) an influential leader of the Gnostic sect known as Docetist. Believing literal flesh to be sinful, he denied among other things the reality of incarnate Jesus and the reality of (flesh and bones) resurrection of Christ. Marcion accordingly did willful mutilations, tampering, cutting off, deleting altering simple and short “corrupting”. Ephipanius one of the early church fathers had this to say, here’s his testimonial evidence as translated:

Marcion’s assertions stand refuted at every point. And there are many arguments in rebuttal of his stage-machinery and melodrama, which, contrary to him, are drawn from pious reason and creditable exposition. 9,1 But I shall come to his writings, or rather, to his tamperings. This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of the Savior’s conception and his incarnation.32 (2) But this person who harmed himself < rather > than the Gospel did not cut just the beginning off. He also cut off many words of the truth both at the end and in the middle, and he has added other things besides, beyond what had been written. And he uses only this (Gospel) canon, the Gospel according to Luke. 9,3 He also possesses ten Epistles of the holy apostle, the only ones he uses, but not all that is written in them. He deletes some parts of them, and has altered certain sections. He uses these two volumes (of the Bible) but has composed other treatises himself for the persons he has deceived.

http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/2009_williams_the-panarion-of-epiphanius-of-salamis_01.pdf

 

[fredoheaven]

The examples above post would show that there's a real corruption of the word of God to suit one end. The demonstration of tampering, deleting, cutting off is just without a doubt for both opponents and pro KJV's. That is the fact.

 

[fredoheaven]

Hi Fred, you have time to compare notes on the Greek word pisteuo?

That would be my assignment. I would think best if you can give me reasons why pisteuo is in error in English language?

Thank you.

 

[Lightskin]

To accept all translations as being God's Word is futile since they don't read tje same and some read just the opposite.

Would you please give a few examples of certain verses from certain translations which state the opposite of the original text?

 

[Pisteuo]

That would be my assignment. I would think best if you can give me reasons why pisteuo is in error in English language?

Thank you.

I thought you might already have some experience with pisteuo. I'll post some reasons here in a few.

 

[Nehemiah6]

James, indeed, commissioned the KJV and defined some of the parameters of their work. It was largely due to his disagreement with the Geneva Bible, because the notes contained remarks that were antithetical to governmental stability.

So what? Focus on the merits of the translation itself, which became in effect the sole English language translation for over 300 years.

If -- as you imagine -- it was a worthless translation, it could not have reached this place of eminence. And even its enemies -- the revision committee that produced the RV -- had nothing but praise for it.

So what you are really doing is using ad hominem attacks to downgrade and disrespect the KJB. Your tactic has absolutely no merit.

As to the Geneva Bible, it is not half as good as the KJB, and it is full of Calvinistic nonsense.

 

[Pisteuo]

That would be my assignment. I would think best if you can give me reasons why pisteuo is in error in English language?

Thank you.

I'll just start at the beginning and go from there. I may be wasting your time if you haven't looked at this already.

In the Greek we have "Pistis", used 245 times and were we get our English word"Faith",a noun.

Also in the Greek we have the corresponding verb to Pistis, "pisteuo" used 248 times.

When the translators needed a correct word to translate"Pistis"there was no problem. But when they needed a correct word to translate"pisteuo", there wasn't one. The English language doesn't have a corresponding verb to the noun Faith like the Greek does.

The words the English language should have had for the translators are faithe, faithing, and faither. Having to choose another word to translate pisteuo, they chose the words believe, believer, and believing.

Now true NT pisteuo is an act, based upon a Belief, sustained by confidence, a verb. So "belief" is apart of pisteuo, but taken on it's own is error.

Some other facts. The Greek doesn't have a word for the word "believe". They don't acknowledge that state of being. And the words believe, believer, and believing, are corresponding verbs to the noun Belief, not the noun Faith.
Your thoughts.

 

[KJV1611]

King James defined fifteen rules that the translators needed to observe. They were delivered through his Archbishop but are widely thought to have came from him.

They were to use the Bishop's Bible as the default and preferred text.

The Bishop's Bible was more oriented around a monarchy, and the Geneva Bible was more oriented toward a democracy. King James actually had the goal of taking away the Geneva Bible and its notes from the Puritans.

It was very obvious that King James had political agendas.

Here are the rules:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the "Bishops Bible," to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word "Church" not to be translated "Congregation" &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessary so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be consider'd of serious and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many as being skilled in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors of each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. The translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (Great Bible), Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor, upon the Conference with the rest of the Heads to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew and Greek, for the better Observation of the fourth Rule above specified.

King James supposedly had the goal of unifying the country through this Bible version, but it is obvious he marginalized the Puritan input, and ELIMINATED the Roman Catholic input. Since I am not sympathetic to Roman Catholicism, their exclusion is no biggie to me. But, he was being disingenuous in pretending to make this an ecumenical endeavor because he intentionally designed the process to minimize Puritan and Roman Catholic concerns.

By the way I don't view the Anglican Church to be much better than Roman Catholicism, especially at that time. It's well known that Henry VIII broke off from Roman Catholicism only because the Pope wouldn't grant his annulment, because his wife was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope couldn't grant the annulment without offending the Emperor. Henry VIII broke away from Rome to form the Church of England, but it's well known that he was basically a Roman Catholic at heart.

So, the Anglican Church wasn't far removed from Roman Catholicism. And, the KJV reflected the traditions and language of the Anglican Church, too. The Anglicans did not like the Reformed notes associated with the Geneva Bible, and that is why the Bishop's Bible translation was used as the default text for comparison.

By the way, the exact details behind the translation process are hard to find, because many records concerning it were destroyed in fires after the translation was issued.

I read all 15 rules, what's the problem with them?

 

[KJV1611]

I'll just start at the beginning and go from there. I may be wasting your time if you haven't looked at this already.

In the Greek we have "Pistis", used 245 times and were we get our English word"Faith",a noun.

Also in the Greek we have the corresponding verb to Pistis, "pisteuo" used 248 times.

When the translators needed a correct word to translate"Pistis"there was no problem. But when they needed a correct word to translate"pisteuo", there wasn't one. The English language doesn't have a corresponding verb to the noun Faith like the Greek does.

The words the English language should have had for the translators are faithe, faithing, and faither. Having to choose another word to translate pisteuo, they chose the words believe, believer, and believing.

Now true NT pisteuo is an act, based upon a Belief, sustained by confidence, a verb. So "belief" is apart of pisteuo, but taken on it's own is error.

Some other facts. The Greek doesn't have a word for the word "believe". They don't acknowledge that state of being. And the words believe, believer, and believing, are corresponding verbs to the noun Belief, not the noun Faith.
Your thoughts.

Do you believe you have to do things to maintain your salvation?

 

[Pisteuo]

Do you believe you have to do things to maintain your salvation?

Salvation is by Grace through Faith. Faith applied according to the Vines Greek dictionary , "pisteuo is a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender."

NT saving Faith, pisteuo is a verb an action word. Specifically a continually surrendered life. So yes, salvation or a relationship with Christ is maintained by an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly continually surrendered life. You don't?

 

[Dino246]

So what? Focus on the merits of the translation itself, which became in effect the sole English language translation for over 300 years.

The KJV was most common English translation for hundreds of years, but never was the sole English translation. Its commonality is no argument for its accuracy or reliability. It was greatly promoted by being "authorized to be read in churches" of the Anglican communion.

So what you are really doing is using ad hominem attacks to downgrade and disrespect the KJB. Your tactic has absolutely no merit.

As an ad hominem attack can only be made against a human being, your argument has absolutely no merit.