Changes to the Word of God seen in other Bible Versions

The British Stamp Act was imposed to tax every printed document late in the 16th century... including Bibles; the Apocrypha was removed to reduce the page count as these were rarely read in Church, and never by the Puritans. Excerpts of from the Apocrypha did however remain where they were, and still are, in the Liturgical Propers.

The "Stamp Act" was another contributing factor to the American Rebellion.

Since we Lutherans used the Luther Bible up until we transitioned to English, (my parish in the 1940's) we had the Apocrypha until that time (our Liturgical Propers, like those of the Anglican Tradition, retain texts from the Apocrypha). Since the only English Bibles readily available were the KJV W/O the Apocrypha, that is what we used. However, from that time forward, English translations of those books were provided by our Publishing Houses. Today there are lots of choices; My Pastor uses both the ESV Catholic Edition, and also the very recent annotated RSV with Apocrypha which is a "protestant" translation by Schuyler: Schuyler Quentel RSV with Apocrypha, Full Yapp Firebrick Red Goatskin Bible - evangelicalbible.com Great reviews by Evangelicals also BTW.

BTW, the conservative Mennonites and Amish here in Ontario still use the Luther Bible C/W Apocrypha.

Lots of theological reasons given to justify their removal after the fact, but truth be known, denial is not just a long river in Africa.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

The British Stamp Act was imposed to tax every printed document late in the 16th century... including Bibles; the Apocrypha was removed to reduce the page count as these were rarely read in Church, and never by the Puritans. Excerpts of from the Apocrypha did however remain where they were, and still are, in the Liturgical Propers.

The "Stamp Act" was another contributing factor to the American Rebellion.

Since we Lutherans used the Luther Bible up until we transitioned to English, (my parish in the 1940's) we had the Apocrypha until that time (our Liturgical Propers, like those of the Anglican Tradition, retain texts from the Apocrypha). Since the only English Bibles readily available were the KJV W/O the Apocrypha, that is what we used. However, from that time forward, English translations of those books were provided by our Publishing Houses. Today there are lots of choices; My Pastor uses both the ESV Catholic Edition, and also the very recent annotated RSV with Apocrypha which is a "protestant" translation by Schuyler: Schuyler Quentel RSV with Apocrypha, Full Yapp Firebrick Red Goatskin Bible - evangelicalbible.com Great reviews by Evangelicals also BTW.

BTW, the conservative Mennonites and Amish here in Ontario still use the Luther Bible C/W Apocrypha.

Lots of theological reasons given to justify their removal after the fact, but truth be known, denial is not just a long river in Africa.

Click to expand...

It does not seem to be helping Evangelical Lutherans in the USA. According to their own leaders, the denomination is dying. If they have better access to truth than miserable protestants who don't bother with the apocrypha (me) surely they should be thriving? It also does not make them more doctrinally sound. The Lutheran church allows same sex marriage. This abomination goes directly against God's word. Or maybe it's permitted in the apocrypha?

Aussie Pete said:

It does not seem to be helping Evangelical Lutherans in the USA. According to their own leaders, the denomination is dying. If they have better access to truth than miserable protestants who don't bother with the apocrypha (me) surely they should be thriving? It also does not make them more doctrinally sound. The Lutheran church allows same sex marriage. This abomination goes directly against God's word. Or maybe it's permitted in the apocrypha?

Click to expand...

There are several Lutheran bodies here in the states that do not permit SSM including the Lutheran church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical synod (WELS) just to name a few. These Lutheran church bodies are as orthodox christian as you could imagine.

Aussie Pete said:

Mock all you like, I'll laugh with you. However, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead and to guide me. If I needed to read the apocrypha, He would tell me.

Click to expand...

Would you accept "I have the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead and guide me. If I needed to read the Gospels, He would tell me." as a valid for someone denying that the Gospels are Scripture?

The idea that the Holy Spirit is a voice inside my head or heart or spirit or soul or whatever that prompts me to do this, or think that, or feel that way is such an incredibly diabolical idea.

Forget just the issue of the Deuterocanonicals, this way of thinking about the Holy Spirit is spiritually and theologically dangerous.

-CryptoLutheran

Athanasius377 said:

There are several Lutheran bodies here in the states that do not permit SSM including the Lutheran church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical synod (WELS) just to name a few. These Lutheran church bodies are as orthodox christian as you could imagine.

Click to expand...

Thanks Athanasius; So true, pretty much any of the Churches that are in fellowship with Wisconsin, Missouri, Lutheran Church Canada, and the ILC.

ViaCrucis said:

Would you accept "I have the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead and guide me. If I needed to read the Gospels, He would tell me." as a valid for someone denying that the Gospels are Scripture?

The idea that the Holy Spirit is a voice inside my head or heart or spirit or soul or whatever that prompts me to do this, or think that, or feel that way is such an incredibly diabolical idea.

Forget just the issue of the Deuterocanonicals, this way of thinking about the Holy Spirit is spiritually and theologically dangerous.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Indeed, and it has lead to all sorts of heterodox criticism being applied to Scripture; including many of the aberrations that our friend just painted the whole of Lutheranism with.

Does anyone remember when the premise of the OP was being discussed? FYI, here it is...

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

It's time to get back on topic or start another thread. This one is not about Lutheranism.

pescador said:

Have you ever wondered if those who made the changes that we see in various versions of the new bibles that came after the King James version are guilty of changing God's word?

Click to expand...

Not at all. And any study of how the Bible came to be what it is makes the question almost superstitious. Anyone really concerned about Bible translations can at least turn to a Greek interlinear and explore word for word translation choices..

Akita Suggagaki said:

Not at all. And any study of how the Bible came to be what it is makes the question almost superstitious. Anyone really concerned about Bible translations can at least turn to a Greek interlinear and explore word for word translation choices..

Click to expand...

As I have said many times, there is a lot more to translation than the so-called word-for-word approach. While it may be of some help there are way too many differences in word meaning, grammar, idioms, etc. to make that a reliable translation method.

For example, how would you translate the 21st Century English phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" into another language if you used a word-for-word method? (And you had better have a very strong umbrella!)

pescador said:

As I have said many times, there is a lot more to translation than the so-called word-for-word approach. While it may be of some help there are way too many differences in word meaning, grammar, idioms, etc. to make that a reliable translation method.

For example, how would you translate the 21st Century English phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" into another language if you used a word-for-word method? (And you had better have a very strong umbrella!)

Click to expand...

I am not promoting a "word for word" method or formal correspondence. I am promoting a deeper awareness of possible meanings and uses rather than simply relying on something like the King James Version.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I am not promoting a "word for word" method or formal correspondence. I am promoting a deeper awareness of possible meanings and uses rather than simply relying on something like the King James Version.

Click to expand...

Nobody should rely on a translation made over 400 years ago, created in a language that nobody uses for a society that no longer exists.

Users of the KJV may feel that they're somehow holy or special, as though God speaks (or spoke) in 1611 Englyshe, but it's an outdated translation that is very often misinterpreted (intentionally or not) to justify their doctrine.

Numbers 23:22 is just one of many, many examples of falsehood in the KJV, "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

and Isaiah 34:7, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

biblelesson said:

Just because you don't understand the verses does not mean the bible is wrong. It's your fault, meaning it's all of our faults if we don't understand. We don't want to be among he spiritual blind, John 12:40. Pray for understanding. I do understand the verses and many other people also. So you have to be the one to change to be able to understand; the bible should not change to accommodate you or any of us!

Click to expand...

No, it was a bad translation then too; but a very beautiful translation... most of the time... then there is this:

• 1 Samuel 25:22: “So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall.”
• 1 Samuel 25:34: “For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall.”
• 1 Kings 14:10: “Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.”
• 1 Kings 16:11: “And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.”
• 1 Kings 21:21: “Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,….”
• 2 Kings 9:8: “For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:….”

I think the translators were likely drinking too much English Ale, and were always preoccupied with urination due to full bladders... or do you have a different take on it?

MarkRohfrietsch said:

No, it was a bad translation then too; but a very beautiful translation... most of the time... then there is this:

• 1 Samuel 25:22: “So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall.”
• 1 Samuel 25:34: “For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall.”
• 1 Kings 14:10: “Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.”
• 1 Kings 16:11: “And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.”
• 1 Kings 21:21: “Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,….”
• 2 Kings 9:8: “For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:….”

I think the translators were likely drinking too much English Ale, and were always preoccupied with urination due to full bladders... or do you have a different take on it?

Click to expand...

Actually, מַשְׁתִּ֥ין does mean literally to we-we against the wall. Its a literal translation that would be translated as "Every male" in modern translations. The literal meaning is in the footnotes of the NASB.

Though I have to so the juxtaposition of your comments next to the pints of barley goodness in you signature is rather humorous.

Athanasius377 said:

Actually, מַשְׁתִּ֥ין does mean literally to we-we against the wall. Its a literal translation that would be translated as "Every male" in modern translations. The literal meaning is in the footnotes of the NASB.

Though I have to so the juxtaposition of your comments next to the pints of barley goodness in you signature is rather humorous.

Click to expand...

Liquid bread is a wonderous thing!

The KJV is one of the most beautiful literary works ever published, and did sustain the English speaking Churches, just as Luther's Bible sustained the Christians of the German speaking world. Both continue to do so, but for smaller groups. Interesting to note that CF actually automatically blocks the words being quoted, which tells me that generally, such things are no longer acceptable to many.

If the longevity and wide distribution are the determining factors for the quality and veracity of a translation, then St. Jerome's Vulgate would supercede both the KJV and Luther's Bible.

Better yet, all of the manuscripts that preceded all three of those translations in the ancient languages... Wait! That is exactly what "modern translations" do; consult all available sources, not just the few that Jerome, KJV, and Luther had available. These three early translations are as accurate as they could be, and as accurate as the language allowed. All three had a standardizing effect on their respective languages sociologically. Don't get me wrong, I love the archaic language of Divine Service III and in our latest edition of the Daily Office, but in light of the great Biblical scholarship and the broadening accessibility to more ancient manuscripts, and the evolution of both language and understanding, the "exclusive" use of archaic translations in any language puts limits on the understanding of God's word.

biblelesson said:

Just because you don't understand the verses does not mean the bible is wrong. It's your fault, meaning it's all of our faults if we don't understand. We don't want to be among he spiritual blind, John 12:40. Pray for understanding. I do understand the verses and many other people also. So you have to be the one to change to be able to understand; the bible should not change to accommodate you or any of us!

Click to expand...

So, should we limit the understanding of others who are less "linguistically savvy" than yourself? That may truly be the issue at hand.

biblelesson said:

Another point I would like to make. I think the original translators of the King James version should be honored for their work, and not thrown under the bus by some. Their work was honorable and painstaking, and they looked at every detail to get it right the firs time.

Here is a good video: Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | The King James Bible: "Masterpiece by Committee" | Season 14

Click to expand...

Like I have said before. Thr KJV is a monument to 17th century learning and scholarship. The KJV's longevity bear witness to this fact. However the translators did not always get it right no matter the effort. They did not have access to the materials that modern translation teams do nor the deeper understanding of the languages especially for Greek. Prior to the 19th century it was assumed that the Greek of the NT was a "Holy Ghost" Greek. What we know now is that it is a simplified Greek used by the Hellenized peoples of the Mediterranean world in order to easily communicate. Which makes sense if you want to spread the Gospel as far and wide as possible. So read the opening epistle the translators composed to introduce the KJV and you will find they fully expected revisions in order to correct their mistakes. The would not have viewed this as insulting or being thrown under the bus but as a necessary task so that the people of God would have the Word of God.

Athanasius377 said:

\ Prior to the 19th century it was assumed that the Greek of the NT was a "Holy Ghost" Greek. What we know now is that it is a simplified Greek used by the Hellenized peoples of the Mediterranean world in order to easily communicate. Which makes sense if you want to spread the Gospel as far and wide as possible.

Click to expand...

What I find funny is that people argue we don't know what the Greek / Hebrew "REALLY" mean. "If only someone spoke it today! We would know so much more!"

These aren't dead languages! Koine and Byzantine Greek are still used in the Greek Orthodox services as the normal language.