Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The fact that we have literal translations such as the NKJV, which is a word for word translation is very close to what you would see in an interlinear greek to english translation. However with the NIV you don't have that closeness. I for one, don't think the NIV or any dynamic equivalent should be considered a translation, I think they should all be classified paraphrases, and the phrase "Holy Bible" should be removed from that.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The fact that we have literal translations such as the NKJV, which is a word for word translation is very close to what you would see in an interlinear greek to english translation.

Well, no.

However with the NIV you don't have that closeness.

I disagree. And I read Greek. Do you?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It was just too ridiculous for words.
sir I debate athiests every day, and normally I expect ridicule from non believers, I have come to really expect that from them. But this is unusual for christians to engage in. Maybe in your circles this is common but definitely not in mine. If this does not shame you enough to stop engaging in logical error. Maybe this will: ad hominems are what is called an informal fallacy, this is used when someone cannot reply using logic to a premise. Normally ridicule is used to strengthen an argument when there is no logical premises to back it up. This is why you used it. You assume that in using it, that I will be ashamed of speaking of the matter. But I have been around long enough to know when I have won debates, and you have not even tried to refute my premises. Ridicule is not winning, btw. It's a confession that there is no logic left in your argument.

I'm lost for words. You're talking about the Codex Sinaiticus here. Every single page is online. None of the New Testament pages are missing.
why is the sinaiticus manuscript missing half of the old testament?

"“This manuscript is now known as the famous Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). It contains over half the Old Testament (LXX), and all of the New, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. All of the Old Testament Apocrypha,3 with the addition of the “Epistle of Barnabus”, and a large portion of the “Shepherd of Hermas” are also included...."

geisler and nix, general introduction to the Bible.

why do most accounts of when tishendorf found the manuscripts, recall that they were being burned, and that he found those that were in a waste basket?

“On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus [after his patron, Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony]."

Ibid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
why is the sinaiticus manuscript missing half of the old testament?

We were talking about the New Testament. Modern translations of the Old Testament are generally not translated from the LXX, so the Old Testament portion of the Codex Sinaiticus is irrelevant.

And Tischendorf's account is debated. The monks at St Catherine's say that he stole a precious manuscript that they had carefully preserved for 1500 years.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We were talking about the New Testament. Modern translations of the Old Testament are generally not translated from the LXX, so the Old Testament portion of the Codex Sinaiticus is irrelevant.

And Tischendorf's account is debated. The monks at St Catherine's say that he stole a precious manuscript that they had carefully preserved for 1500 years.


I provided my sources for the information, this also confirms that two baskets of manuscripts were already burned from what tischendorf found:

"Taking 43 pages out of the basket, Tischendorf asked the librarian about them. To his horror he learned the pages had been placed in the trash basket for fuel, and two basket loads of such papers had already been burned! '

Tischendorf Found Treasure in Trash
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We were talking about the New Testament. Modern translations of the Old Testament are generally not translated from the LXX, so the Old Testament portion of the Codex Sinaiticus is irrelevant.

And Tischendorf's account is debated. The monks at St Catherine's say that he stole a precious manuscript that they had carefully preserved for 1500 years.


also I wanted your view on this quotation:

"Now there are those who would argue that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in some of the earliest manuscripts. It is true that these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, which are both a part of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. However, it is interesting to note that the early church fathers, Iranius, who lived from AD 140 to 202, and Hippolatus, who lived from AD 170 to 235, both quote from these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. Now the argument that some of the scholars give is that because this portion of Mark's Gospel does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the oldest complete manuscripts that we possess (though it really is not complete), they say that this passage then was inserted later on by a copier. However, Codex Sinaiticus actually dates back to sometime into the AD 400s. They do not know the exact date, however 420 to 460 are the dates that are usually established for the Codex Sinaiticus. Here is Iranius, one of the church fathers, 200 years before the Codex Sinaiticus was ever copied and he is quoting, no doubt, from an earlier manuscript. And so, the overwhelming evidence is that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel actually were in the original manuscripts and somehow got deleted from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which comes, as I say, from the same Alexandrian family of manuscripts."- Chuck Smith (blue letter Bible)
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, no.



I disagree. And I read Greek. Do you?

I found my statement very accurate, all you gave was an appeal to authority saying that you read greek. Well my natural observation would be if you did read greek you would know what I was talking about.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A look at "Lucifer"
The word “lucifer” comes from Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the late fourth century AD Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Latin, the word “lucifer” means the “bringer of light,” and in English, the word “luciferous” is used as an adjective to describe something that emits light.

In the Latin Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12 reads:

Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

The word “lucifer” in the Vulgate is not a proper name. It is simply a translation from the Hebrew word “heylel” (or “halal” or “helel”), found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Below is the translation of the Hebrew words in Isaiah 14:12 (remember that the Hebrew language is written from right to left):


12.jpg


The Hebrew Word “Helel”

“Helel“ (halal) is defined by Strong’s Dictionary as:

H1966. heylel, hay-lale’ (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:—lucifer.

The word derives from another Hebrew word, “halal,” defined as:

H1984. halal, haw-lal’; to be clear (orig. of sound, but usually of color); to shine;hence to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish…

Jewish sources record that the word literally means “shining one.” The word can also mean “bearer of light,” which gives understanding to Paul’s proclamation that Satan is able to transform into an “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).

The Jewish Publication Society translated “helel” into English in this way:

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star [helel], son of the morning [ben-sahar]! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

While the Latin Vulgate translated the Hebrew word “helel” as the Latin word “lucifer,” and then early English translations capitalized the “L,” it is not a proper name for the cherub. The Jewish Publication Society translates “helel” as “day star.” That is also not a proper name.

While lucifer and day-star are not proper names for the anointed cherub who fell from Heaven, both, when coupled with “ben-sahar” (“son of the morning”), provide a good description of this cherub BEFORE he rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven. Both translations give a good description of the honor and light that the cherub once had and lost, and that should be a reminder of the devasting consequences of sin against God.

The Fallen Cherub

Since the time this cherub fell from heaven, he no longer deserves such an honorable description/name. He no longer is the bearer of light and he no longer shines as a day-star or as the son of the morning. Even though this fallen cherub is able to transform himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), in reality, he is the bearer of darkness and the son of the night. He opposes God and he desires to devour those who love God (1 Pet 5:8).

With Identity Change Came Name Change

The Hebrew word for that which opposes, or that which goes against, is “satan.” Strong’s dictionary defines the word as:

H7854. satan, saw-tawn’; from H7853; an opponent: espec. (with the art. pref.) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:–adversary, Satan, withstand.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the fallen cherub is called “ha satan” –the adversary and the arch-enemy of God and all that is of God (creation). Satan is now the name of the fallen cherub. The name describes him well as the evil one who opposes God and the one who seeks to accuse, devour, and destroy.

The first use of “Satan” (as a name for the evil one) is found in the book of 1st Chronicles, where his opposition to God’s will and His people is recorded, as well as his attempt to cause trouble.

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

The Adversary of God and Man

Since the time when he fell from Heaven (Isaiah 14:12), it has been his mission to thwart God’s purpose and plan. His desire has been to subvert God’s will, to interfere with God’s works, and to tempt and seduce God’s people. Such is Satan’s purpose and plan, his “game.” He is an adversary, a liar, an oppressor, and a thief. He is a threat to anyone who belongs to the true God of all creation, and we know both his name and his game.

“Satan” is the appropriate and accurate name for this fallen angel. It serves as a reminder that he opposes both God and us. The name “Satan” should create in us a motivation to stand strong against him. We know that he rebelled against God and lost all that he had—his communion with God and his special and significant role in serving God. So also did Adam lose his relationship with God when he sinned. Adam lost all that God had given him and he plunged the world and all mankind into a fallen state— a state of rebellion against God.

“But God….”

Those are two of the most hopeful words.

Man sinned…but God, in His mercy, promised to send a rescuer (Gen 3:15).

Man was without hope…but God, in His grace, sent His Son (1 John 4:10).

Sin still abounds…but God, in His justice, will one day vanquish all sin and the adversary, Satan.

Jesus died for the sins of mankind, but not for the sins of angels (Satan took a third of Heaven’s angels with him when he rebelled. Revelation 12:3-9). Only man was created in God’s image, and only man can be redeemed by the Saviour’s substitutionary atonement.

No Sympathy for the Devil

Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste.

I’ve been around for a long, long year, Stole many a man’s soul to waste…

Pleased to meet you, Hope you guess my name.”

We don’t need to guess his name. He is Satan, our adversary. And he gets no sympathy from us because we know his name and his game of evil intent. When we think of Satan, we should be quick to remember the power that God has given us:

1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them [all those who oppose God]: because greater is he that is in you [the Holy Spirit], than he that is in the world [Satan and his minions].

The apostle John’s words remind us that while Satan might think he has the power to deceive and destroy us, God has given us the greater power and, therefore, we can withstand his attacks. Yes, Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), but he is a “god” with a small “g.” Satan’s control only reaches to the extent that God allows and to the extent that we neglect to call upon the power of the Holy Spirit.

There are many that present the idea that the Scriptures must be preserved in the original languages. I believe God has for the most part; but, is it proper to limit God to only those languages? If God chose to use the Latin to convey the meaning of "light bearer" in the Latin name Lucifer, who are we to judge Him?

The modern Greek text lists every major variation in the footnotes, and then gives (using a somewhat cryptic code) the manuscripts and papyri which support each variation. This is a typical page. It starts off giving the inscription as "According to John," but noting in the footnote that Papyrus p66, Papyrus p75, and some other manuscripts have "Gospel according to John":
apparatus.jpg

I have only seen one reputable debate online or anywhere regarding this topic, there were several bullet points offered to refute the claim that the sinaiticus was a forgery: I have for the most part refutted much of it here:



1) Constantine Simonides claimed that he wrote the document based on collating pre-existing manuscripts, and that his uncle corrected the document.

Both sides agree that he so claimed. Dr. White demonstrated that these claims are essentially impossible, as explained below.

we will see if that is a false statement as we read on
2) The most sympathetic source for Simonides says that Simonides was not a truthful person.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto did not dispute it except to say that this source was not the only supportive source and that the source himself says Simonides did not always lie.
there is an eye witness that actually saw simonides forging the sinaiticus. In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that


...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself.Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice, but why was it cleaned when the rest was not? Because of some forgery perhaps?
3) There are no known examplars that could have been the source for Codex Sinaiticus.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto’s response was to point out that the source(s) could be as-yet-unknown manuscripts on Mt. Athos.

what about the majority text, or the textus receptus? They existed at the time.

4) Codex Sinaiticus was written by several different, distinguishable scribes (as evidenced by different handwriting, different style of abbreviations, and different accuracy of work).

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it.

again the textus receptus probably retained those distinguishable scribal differentiations, and they were probably just copied over to the sinaiticus.
5) Codex Sinaiticus has corrections by multiple different correctors.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it except to say that two other men (a monk and a scribe) may have been involved in the corrections.
I would have to see the evidence for this. I can see saying there was different scribes, but proving that there were also additional correctors is very hard to do. I would love to see a scholarly essay on this, and none have been provided by white or anyone else that I know of at least.

6) The amount of time necessary for collating multiple manuscripts of the entire Bible (plus some apocrypha) would have been prohibitive in the timeline proposed by Simonides.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto responded that possibly his uncle started on the project years before Simonides began.

not if you are copying it, as I suggested.

Additional notes:

1. Regarding the Mt. Athos manuscripts, there is an on-going digitization project (link). At one point, Mr. Pinto alleges that the one way to resolve the mystery was to explore the Mt. Athos library for manuscripts corresponding to Simonides’ claims. He won’t be able to stand behind that argument from ignorance forever.
that is not an argument of ignorance. An argument from ignorance is saying this "because you can't prove me wrong, I am right." And that is a fallacy because just because you don't have the resources to prove it wrong at that point, does not mean the resources don't exist.


2. Simonides himself states that the collation began after Simonides himself joined the project, as demonstrated by Dr. White. So, although the uncle allegedly had corrected the other manuscripts in advance, the collation project had not been done in advance, according to the primary source for Mr. Pinto’s theory.

I would need to see the primary source that is being talked about here. I am not sure the primary souce they are saying is primary is in fact the number one source. My number one source is the eye witness. And other discrepancies such as: the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.

This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.

Steven Avery


and someone else pointed out:
I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.

that means that the part that is whiter, was the epistle to barnabas. So it was clearly added on to existing manuscripts, and then sold as an entirely new manuscript.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

That's a very serious misrepresentation of the truth. The ESV gives a completely literal translation in each of those passages. None of those passages contain the Greek word ἀνήρ (man).

And denying that women are justified by faith is just crazy.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's a very serious misrepresentation of the truth. The ESV gives a completely literal translation in each of those passages. None of those passages contain the Greek word ἀνήρ (man).

And denying that women are justified by faith is just crazy.
I double checked, it was a masculine noun used there in most of those verses, there was one or two that it could be neuter. But in most of those passages anthropos was used, which is a masculine noun. So to say people in that case would be wrong.

antrhopos.png
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But in most of those passages anthropos was used

The word ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) means "person" or "human being." And lexicon will tell you that. Even the image you posted says that that's the meaning.

The fact that it's grammatically masculine means nothing. The words ἰχθύς (ichthus) = fish, ἀγρός (agros) = field, λίθος (lithos) = stone, and λαός (laos) = people are all masculine too.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The word ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) means "person" or "human being." And lexicon will tell you that. Even the image you posted says that that's the meaning.

The fact that it's grammatically masculine means nothing. The words ἰχθύς (ichthus) = fish, ἀγρός (agros) = field, λίθος (lithos) = stone, and λαός (laos) = people are all masculine too.

I am not a greek scholar, but I assume masculine means the word is masculine. If it was not masculine it probably would use another tense. Is my guess. The fact that some neutral words use a masculine tense does not prove that every case, or even most cases of masculine nouns, are not in fact masculine.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am not a greek scholar, but I assume masculine means the word is masculine.

That assumption would be very, very wrong. Grammatical masculine and feminine have very little to do with whether things are really masculine or feminine.

And you are ignoring the fact that your own source says that the word anthrōpos means "a human being, whether male or female."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That assumption would be very, very wrong. Grammatical masculine and feminine have very little to do with whether things are really masculine or feminine.

And you are ignoring the fact that your own source says that the word anthrōpos means "a human being, whether male or female."

well if you can provide a source that says anthropos can be feminine, even though it's masculine, then I may believe you. But I doubt you can. Because my source definitely does not say what you quoted it to say.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You really don't understand grammatical gender at all.
ad hominems don't work well with me, and I presume fallacy does not go well with the typical reader of this thread either. So if you don't have the evidence requested, just say you don't have it. Don't mock the other debater.


Well, yes, it does. Everybody who follows the link can see that.
that was a quoted resource that was used by permission. The actual link does not say what you said it does, but an external resource that may or may not be accurate at all.

here is more info on the quoted resource:

The Outline of Biblical Usage was created by Larry Pierce, creator of the Online Bible, and is used with permission.

I looked online for qualifications of larry pierce and as far as I am concerned he was just a programmer that got a free online bible to work on a website.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The accurate translation of Proverbs 17:8 would be something like the ESV, or the NIV: A bribe is seen as a charm by the one who gives it; they think success will come at every turn.

The first highlighted word (H7810) means "bribe." It's also used in Exodus 23:8 ("And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right") and in Proverbs 17:23 ("The wicked accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the ways of justice").

The second highlighted phrase (H68) means "stone" (the word "precious" does not occur in the Hebrew). In context, a magic stone or charm seem to be implied (and the proverb is criticising, not endorsing this way of thinking).

Why does the KJVO brigade so often resort to falsehoods?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0