Errors in Modern Versions

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pioneer, Feb 10, 2003.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Modern version advocates love to point out the supposed "errors" of the King James Bible and they repeatedly state that there is no such thing as a perfect English translation. Well I have decided to call their bluff. Calling all modern version advocates!

    Here is your chance to prove to us King James Bible believers that you really don't believe that we have a perfect English Bible. I want each of you to list as many errors as you can think of that exists in the RV, ASV, NIV, NASB, or any other modern translation. Take your pick and start typing!

    [ February 10, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what will this accomplish?

    If we take you up on your challenge, you'll just turn around and say "See, you don't have a perfect Bible, unlike those of us who stand for God's perfect and preserved word for the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible."

    And if we don't take you up, you'll just say "You are all cowards and you are afraid to admit that you don't believe God has preserved a perfect Bible, unlike those of us who stand for God's perfect and preserved word for the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible."

    Either way, you prove nothing - except that the KJV-onlyists are capable of generating endless bogus arguments, not to mention generally weaselling around the fact that they have yet to establish by Scripture, history, or other fact that the King James Bible is perfect and without error. Even if you prove everyone else has a rotten banana in their hands, that doesn't prove you have a fresh one.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,178
    Likes Received:
    325
    OK, I'll bite (I may regret this). But to be fair I'll choose something that's improper in the KJV as well as some of the MVs.

    KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    NKJ Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

    ASV Hebrews 2:9 But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.

    NIV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    NIB Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    The following translations have the correct wording

    NAS (1977) Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

    NAS (1995) Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

    RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

    NRS Hebrews 2:9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.


    All Greek texts including Scrivener, Majority and Wescott/Hort
    have the phrase braxu ti in the text of Hebrews 2:9.

    [UBS] braxu ti for a little while, a small amount or briefly.


    HankD
     
  4. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I find it highly interesting that only one modern version advocate dare to answer my challenge in a civilized manner after so many have stated that there is no such thing as a perfect English Bible. Could it be that you believe in a perfect Bible after all but are too chicken to admit it?
     
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny, I was reading this and when I read all of the verses listed, I saw and heared the word might. What does that mean, he might? There is no might to it. He should, shall, and did suffer death.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    The Greek word in question here is brachus (in context, braxus ti) Which means "of uncertain affinity" or "short of time or place". So it's not that Jesus was made "a little lower" than the angels, it's that he was made lower than the angels for a short time.

    [ February 11, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is he making this up? I haven't heard anyone attack God's Word on here...except Pioneer and his ilk.
     
  8. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Proverbs 17:22 (nKJV):
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    A merry heart does good, like medicine,
    But a broken spirit dries the bones.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is that interesting?? We have demonstrated for you what we believe in other threads. We have shown our position ot be true and yours to be false. There is no perfect English translation. That is the bottom line. What else do you want?
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pioneer said:

    Could it be that you believe in a perfect Bible after all but are too chicken to admit it?

    See, I told y'all he would accuse us of being cowards. KJV-onlyists are so predictable. :cool:
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,178
    Likes Received:
    325
    Dear Homebound,

    You said...
    That's because "should taste death" although aorist tense (usually translated as simple past) is subjunctive in mood and not future tense. That means (in this context and IMO) that the tasting of death for everyone was a result of (or contingent upon) the suffering of death (a completed event in the past). "should' or "might" are both proper, in fact "might" could be better because "should" implies future tense which is not shown in the Greek text.

    Perhaps someone else could elaborate upon this.

    In any case I believe this proves Pastor Larry's statement that no English translation is perfect.
    The KJV misses the mark here (IMO) and it is a very significamt miss. That Jesus was made lower than the angels without the "for a little while" gives this verse an Arian flavor and diminishes His deity.
    However, I use the KJV almost exclusively and I love this Bible. The men who did the translation did the best they could with the tools they had in spite of being heretical Anglicans (for the most part). It is a Bible that has clearly been used by the Spirit of God to further the Kingdom of God. It has the seal of the blood of martyrs. But then again, so does the Old Itala and Waldensian translations as well as others.

    The AV is an English translation, subject to the
    dynamics of that language to change over time.

    Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    These words are Hebrew and Greek, Jesus confirmed this with another statement pointing to the Hebrew jots and tittles not English letters.

    Yes, these languages are frozen in time so to speak, but for a reason, to preserve His Word.

    We have gifted pastor/teachers and those with the gift of the discernment of languages as well as the Holy Spirit to guide us and to keep His preserved Word dynamic and fresh in our ears.
    The anchor (imo) is the Received Text of the Church not one of its translations (good or "bad").

    HankD
     
  13. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why use somthing you don't believe???
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tell me, JYD, are you capable of making a point without distorting someone else's words?
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,178
    Likes Received:
    325
    Dear JTD,


    Since you asked...

    The KJV translators were honest enough to admit to imperfections in their work.
    There are several places such as Hebrews 2:9 where the translation is lacking(IMO).
    I refer back to the "originals" as they claimed to do for my belief.

    They used the Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, I have taken the time to study these languages to help me in understanding His Word considering their admitted human attributes and weaknesses. Concerning these languages, they said...

    We have no certainty as to which edition or revision of the KJV is the "pure" Word of God seeing the several revisions made to the work AFTER they finished the original (which no longer exists) or which edition (Cambridge or Oxford) is the correct one.
    I have asked on several occasions which KJV of these candidates is the REAL KJV and no one has been able to say with authority which it is but rather to calumniate me and others as infidels (which I fully supect will happen now).
    Of these differences certain folks say that they are "minor" on Monday, but then when the smoke clears on Tuesday they say "things that are different are not equal.
    Or the differences are only "printer errors" (which somehow an Almighty God allowed the printers to make). I still don't know what the REAL difference is between a "printer error" and a "scribal gloss" since they are both human errors. Some however believe that the one is from God, the other from the devil.
    Personally, rather than hear the rhetoric, I believe it is just what it is, whether KJV or Alexandrian, human error (with certain exceptions such as the NWT).

    We all seem to have enough time, intelligence and resource to learn how to get and use our computers, yet some claim ignorance and lack of ability when it comes to the study of the original languages to clear up such blemishes as the KJV rendering of Hebrews 2:9.
    Or to bring the originals up to God's criteria when He first gave the Word in "koine" Greek, to present His Word in the language of the "common" man.

    To be honest, I don't believe we have such a translation in the 21st century, so, in my learning and teaching (for which I will make an account) I use the KJV as my basis, then look at the original language text, about 20 Englsh translations (electronically) and several grammars to discern the correct rendering (which is how the Hebrews 2:9 passage came to my attention), if I have a question concerning the AV English.
    Often times there is confusion simply because of the syntax, grammar and cultural differences between 17th and 21st century English.

    Example:
    2 Corinthians 6
    11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
    12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
    13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

    Change "O ye Corinthians" to
    "O ye KJVO" and this is my advise to you (for what it is worth).

    HankD

    [ February 12, 2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  16. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strawman argument. :rolleyes: No one is claiming perfection for any translation except for KJV Only's who have too much faith in the Church of England.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since no one I am aware of has ever claimed perfect wording for an MV and since KJVO's make a career of disparaging them, there has been little need to prove that I don't believe what I don't believe.
     

Share This Page

Loading...