Missing verses, Added words, and missing words from Modern Translations

PloverWing said:

@createdtoworship :

You've spoken to two different issues here: 1) the difficulty of translation, and 2) the difficulty of selecting manuscripts.

On 1: As solid_core has pointed out, translating one language into another is not a trivial task. Languages don't map to each other word-for-word. Many individual words do translate directly across languages, but there can be big differences in word order within sentences, how articles are used, whether nouns have endings that indicate their role in the sentence, and so on. For example, a number of the places you've circled to indicate that the English has omitted a word from the Greek are places where English and Greek use articles differently. The Greek is saying "the Isaac", "the Jacob", etc., but English doesn't normally use articles in front of proper names, so the English translators have omitted the articles: "Isaac", "Jacob". If it were a different kind of text -- not merely a list of names -- we'd run into the word order issue. English mostly uses word order to indicate the subjects and objects of sentences, and English tends to use prepositions to indicate indirect objects. (Compare "Jane brought the dog to Bob" with "The dog brought Jane to Bob".) Greek mostly uses noun endings to indicate subjects, objects, and indirect objects, and thus does not need to use word order in the same way English does.

Think about your experiences learning foreign languages in high school, and your interactions with your friends who are non-native English speakers. When I was learning French, I was forever messing up the genders of nouns, because most English words aren't gendered, so genders in French aren't intuitive to me at all. My Ukrainian colleague at work is forever forgetting to put "the" in his sentences, because his native language doesn't use articles as often as English does, so I assume English "the" is weird to him the way French genders are to me.

All this to say: If exact understanding of the Greek and Hebrew texts is important, we need to learn Greek and Hebrew. There are textbooks, and there are college courses. English translations and interlinears, even the best ones, will only ever be an approximation of the original.

2) The difficulty of selecting manuscripts is a different question, and it is a field of study in itself. That's the issue with some of the "missing" verses you mention. Some manuscripts include the sentences/phrases, and other manuscripts omit them. Scholars differ on which manuscripts are the most trustworthy.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your oppinions but do you have sources? Thanks, otherwise no reply in necessary, as oppinions are not objective enough in debate to pass as evidence

1watchman said:

After all is considered here, people are going to continue with what they prefer to read (and thus hold as true) ---would you say? I value the KJV as having been studied over 300-400 years, and will continue to make that my general reading; however, I use sound comparative study editions of KJV ---such to see corrections in the margins and commentaries on words that have been introduced in verses noted. All writings have errors, for man makes mistakes and has preferences too.

There are several such Bible editions that show this which are obtainable at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL. if one is interested.

Click to expand...

NKJV corrects many of errors of KJV. Many majority text projects exist but to be honest, the quality of the work is lacking. You had a government sponsored translation (the KJV) with literally no limit on expenses, so of course 64 of the world's best are going to do better than 10 of the world's mediocre.

JackRT said:

Now, this brings up the question as to whether the 64 were the world's best when there were thousands of other Bible scholars equally or better qualified. Now, if we restrict to just English speaking scholars, the question still remains. There was an equally qualified group working in exile who produced a magnificent translation known as the Douay-Rheims. I daresay that most KJV readers would be hard put to identify which version they were reading. Moreover I suspect that the KJV may have been strongly influenced by the DR since the DR was published in three sections the first being several decades before 1611 and the last in 1609.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 10,000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Click to expand...

sounds legit, now we just need sources. I await your reply.

PloverWing said:

You've spoken to two different issues here: 1) the difficulty of translation, and 2) the difficulty of selecting manuscripts.

On 1: As solid_core has pointed out, translating one language into another is not a trivial task.

Click to expand...

solid core is has it's own issues, but lets have some sources from Biblical scholars.

Languages don't map to each other word-for-word.

Click to expand...

so when someone says "love in german, it's not one word? Or love in french, it's not one word, or love in spanish....amor....it's always one word, so evidence itself disproves what you say.

Many individual words do translate directly across languages, but there can be big differences in word order within sentences, how articles are used,

Click to expand...

if you read the thread word order is a problem with interlinears, most translations have the word order pretty much figured out, as english limits that to our grammar laws.

whether nouns have endings that indicate their role in the sentence, and so on. For example, a number of the places you've circled to indicate that the English has omitted a word from the Greek are places where English and Greek use articles differently.

Click to expand...

or if the original language had articles at all.

The Greek is saying "the Isaac", "the Jacob", etc., but English doesn't normally use articles in front of proper names, so the English translators have omitted the articles:

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood the interlinear....' the' is not in greek. So that is the english. Easy mistake though.

"Isaac", "Jacob". If it were a different kind of text -- not merely a list of names -- we'd run into the word order issue. English mostly uses word order to indicate the subjects and objects of sentences, and English tends to use prepositions to indicate indirect objects. (Compare "Jane brought the dog to Bob" with "The dog brought Jane to Bob".) Greek mostly uses noun endings to indicate subjects, objects, and indirect objects, and thus does not need to use word order in the same way English does.

Click to expand...

again the interlinears do have the word order different but that is sort of off topic, I never said anything about word order so this is sort of a red herring. I am talking about the quality of the interpretation from the greek to english. four hundred years ago they were able to find one word was able to convey a meaning of greek, now we have two or three words. And it is simply because they sacrifice accuracy for readability. So so far you have talked about readability this whole time, so lets back track and get back on the topic of the OP which is accuracy. Thanks again.

Think about your experiences learning foreign languages in high school, and your interactions with your friends who are non-native English speakers. When I was learning French, I was forever messing up the genders of nouns, because most English words aren't gendered, so genders in French aren't intuitive to me at all. My Ukrainian colleague at work is forever forgetting to put "the" in his sentences, because his native language doesn't use articles as often as English does, so I assume English "the" is weird to him the way French genders are to me.

Click to expand...

arbitrary as translators are all fluent in all languages in the texts.

All this to say: If exact understanding of the Greek and Hebrew texts is important, we need to learn Greek and Hebrew.

Click to expand...

sure go ahead, but even if you were a PhD in biblical languages I would not say you were authoritative enough to be a translator, one needs experience in the field. This is where an unlimited pocket book of King James came into play. We simply cannot afford the best of the best, and the best of the best are not even christian or Jewish most likely. The translators even if they were not christian made sure not to input their skeptical bias for sake of losing their head. However westcott and hort did not have any trouble putting in their biases. Westcott and hort were part of pagan college societies and mystic new age societies in college. And that is the source for all modern translations.

There are textbooks, and there are college courses. English translations and interlinears, even the best ones, will only ever be an approximation of the original.

Click to expand...

So no you, who don't know greek or hebrew are sufficient enough to tell us that the interlinears I quoted are not authoritative. Well, that is fine. But it's an unqualified opinion at best. Find a quote from a scholar saying the same thing then we can talk.

2)

The difficulty of selecting manuscripts is a different question, and it is a field of study in itself.

Click to expand...

actually thats the easy part.

That's the issue with some of the "missing" verses you mention. Some manuscripts include the sentences/phrases, and other manuscripts omit them.

Click to expand...

Sir this is wrong. The majority of manuscripts contain over 200 more verses than the codex sinaiticus and vaticanus, the text behind the modern translations. That is a fact.

Scholars differ on which manuscripts are the most trustworthy.

Click to expand...

most scholars until recently typically supported the oldest manuscripts as authentic and more trustworthy. So this is why vaticanus and sinaiticus came to rise to power. However since the chester beaty collection, which is earlier than all of those, we don't really need the sinaiticus or vaticanus anymore. And we are finding older manuscripts every few years. My theory is to have all the verses there, and not miss crucial doctrines like the trinity, so I feel the majority of fragments collected and deemed authentic, should be collated and tallied as to which family they agree with, and as to date by and large the far majority of manuscripts align with what is called the majority text. And that is the text behind the textus receptus and the KJV, NKJV and all variant translations of the byzantine family of manuscripts.

PloverWing said:

Hmm.

I assume I don't need sources for my assertions about English grammar.

My stories about my difficulties with French and my Ukrainian friend's difficulties with English are my personal experiences; I am the source.

My assertion that French has gendered nouns is based on my high school French textbooks, whose titles I've long ago forgotten. I should be able to find an alternative reference to cite, if it's important.

The book I used to learn beginner-level Greek was Greek to Me, by J. Lyle Story and Cullen I.K. Story.

The Greek New Testament + Dictionary that I occasionally use is edited by Aland, et al, United Bible Societies, 3rd edition, 1975.

For the Greek text of Matthew 1, I used the document that you yourself provided in your article.

I do not claim any significant knowledge of Hebrew.

For the issues relating to textual criticism: Do you need a source to justify the claim that manuscripts with differences exist? The Greek New Testament that I cited above has an introduction that speaks about some of the manuscripts and how they are evaluated, and the Greek text has footnotes throughout indicating variant readings and the important manuscripts in which those variants occur.

Click to expand...

ok, now that I have been able to get on a computer I have been able to properly adress all of your original post and dissect it, let me know if I missed anything.

solid_core said:

There are people who believe that everything in the Bible is inspired so its needed to understand everything, not just few basic doctrines. In such case Bible could contain two pages.

Click to expand...

The OP is about accuracy of translations, someone rebutted with idioms and poetry, I replied....who cares about the idioms and poetry sections which are few and far between, I care about doctrines. Then you replied that every is inspired, and I agree. But my main point is that with modern translations like NIV etc one cannot prove the trinity even. Only with the presence of the passage indicating the "three are one"1 john 5:7, can trinity be proven. So in essence if a translation is leaving out major doctrines of christianity, it should be condemned as heretical.

PloverWing said:

Let me clarify a few of my points.

1) Greek articles:



I wasn't talking about the interlinear; I was talking about the Greek. I just wrote "the" because Latin characters are easier to type than Greek with a standard English keyboard. In more detail:

τὸν Ἰσαάκ: τὸν is the singular masculine accusative definite article. Ἰσαάκ is clearly the Greek rendering of "Isaac". Hence, "the Isaac" (acting as the direct object of a verb). Similarly, τὸν Ἰακώβ: τὸν is a definite article, and Ἰακώβ the Greek rendering of "Jacob".

2) Word order and counting words: The only reason I was talking about word order and cases was to illustrate that translation is not a simple one-to-one mapping of words. My main point is this:

I reject the claim that word count is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of a translation.

3) Manuscripts: Scholars have good reasons for selecting which manuscripts are most reliable, but that's always a judgment call. You can disagree with groups of scholars if you like, and you can read the KJV if you like. It's a beautiful translation. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Well thanks for the debate but you did say "the" in reference to greek, and "the" has no greek equivalent and that is why it's added to the English for clarity, NOT ACCURACY. So my point is that the KJV is clear AND ACCURATE. The NKJV is even clearer. But my point is that yes it is a one to one basis. Gods word should not be added to according to the command in revelation.

HARK! said:

Are you familiar with textual criticism?

Textual criticism - Wikipedia

Textual criticism of the New Testament - Wikipedia

Here is a list of major variants in the NT:

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

Matthew 17:21

MT: However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.
CT: Verse omitted

Click to expand...

Yes most textual critics don't adhere to basic doctrines of inspiration, so they are not by and large suitable sources. But to answer the issue of variants....the majority of manuscripts do NOT VARY regarding this manner in fact ONLY TWO OLDER MANUSCRIPTS omit said verses in question. Sinaiticus and vaticanus.

GreekOrthodox said:

Okay, so translate schadenfreude for me with a one word equivalent in English. FYI, not all languages are as dull as English. Just shouting "I love you" in German is enough to scare most everyone else. However, here is a list of Italian words for love that are nuanced
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/italian-word-for-love.html

Click to expand...

Sir it's not my words you are questioning, God's words literally says in revelation "if ANY MAN adds to the words of this prophecy, I will add to Him the curses of this book." These are my words not exact quote. But look it up. God does not want accuracy sacrificed for readability. If you do so, it's not a translation but a paraphrase

PloverWing said:

I don't understand what you mean by this. Please clarify.

Click to expand...

While yes there is articles in koine greek, they are not always used. In the passages in the OP I show 7 verses, and the english speaks as if the articles are there in greek and they are not. (most of the time). This is a correction from what I Said earlier, I thought greek did not have "the" or "of" and I did find evidence the greek has articles, still not sure about "of" however most of those english translations that include "the" and "of" in matthew 1:1-7 are not in the greek, so techncially they are added words.

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;" Revelation 22:18

the very next word speaks of removing words....and just to remind you modern translations (based of the two oldest manuscripts) leave over 200 verses that the majority of manuscipts contain:

God says about removing words:

"and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

I just checked with Wuest's greek studies four volume set and his translation is very similiar to the KJV version, no "the" or "of" or very few of them anyway.

:
MATTHEW

1 A book of the lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.

2–6 Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren, and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begat Esrom, and Esrom begat Aram, and Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson, and Naasson begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boes of Rachab, and Boes begat Obed of Ruth, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David the king.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

An Expanded Translation

by KENNETH S. WUEST

Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek

The Moody Bible Institute

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Grand Rapids, Michigan