Does 2 Timothy 3v13 mean that we cannot trust any Bible translators after 1611 (as revised and corrected in 1769)?
Thoughts appreciated.
Evil men, seducers, and Bible translation work
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 9, 2010.
?
-
Yes, evil men and seducers includes 21st century Bible translators
2 vote(s)9.1% -
No, it is describing the lost world
17 vote(s)77.3% -
Another view
3 vote(s)13.6%
Page 1 of 2
-
-
I don't think it matters if I use a NIV or a KJV or a NASB, ESV, etc. etc. The gospel is still the same to me. Likewise put any of those, including the KJV in the hands of a false teacher, and NONE of them correct their teaching.
-
So someone *wonder who that is* is suggesting that Ephesians 3:13 is speaking of modern translators?
Then they just accused John of Japan of being evil. Wow
Anyone who would accuse any of the modern people who have worked diligently on faithful translations of God's Word into modern language, knowing full well that they were working on the very Word of God and took that job with all seriousness - has a screw loose. -
"Evil men and seducers" would have no interest in Bible translations by default.
-
Sounds to me like someone needs some way to justify themselves in regards to a specific bible translation and are willing to resort to lies and slander to do so. Such antics are a complete affront to God and His word as they drag what is precious, the revealed word of God as given to the original penmen, and drags it down and tramples it underfoot in the muck and mire of man's own petty opinions and man-made doctrines.
God did not decree that any single translation, or series of "editions", should be the sole repository for His divine word. Praise the Lord for this! If He had, it would have been in Greek (the language of the New Testament and the Septuagint), or Latin (which was the dominant language translation for well over a millennium). It would not have been English as it is a rather new and unstable language in that words radically change their meanings in a rather short span of time. -
Many of the later translations use more and better manuscripts to translate from, so in my opinion they are closer to the original autographs than the 1611 KJV. There have been many archeological finds since then that have rendered much better manuscripts, so to believe that anything modern is evil is not warranted. :thumbsup:
-
-
:tonofbricks: -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Not here:
So I stand by my post. Don't make those statements like they are fact, because you cannot PROVE them. -
Could we stay on track please - the question involves the capacity of 21st century Bible scholars to render an accurate translation based on the 'evil men and seducers' passage.
-
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Just kiddin! -
-
First of all, nobody alive today has ever seen the original manuscripts. It drives me nuts when people talk about this being closer to the original manuscripts. That's a ridiculous statement and should be dropped post haste. I know some will pull out "the scholars" but guess what, they haven't seen the original manuscripts either.
Now, evil men and seducers refer to those who would attack Christianity through deceit and seduction with the aim of leading people away from the faith. These are people who come up with false religions, spread anti-biblical ideas, persecute the saints and the truth they believe in, etc. It describes a clear agenda on the part of the evil men and seducers to corrupt true religion. I can't apply this to people who are sincerely using a different translation than I am, or sincerely tries to translate the bible. I will only if that person knowingly and purposefully corrupts the word. -
We have faithful translations of God's Word in spite of the fact that all of us are inherently evil.
-
-
No, it doesn't include 21st Century Bible translators. We need modern translations.
-
Page 1 of 2