Changes to the Word of God seen in other Bible Versions

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @Albion,

It was a generalization, one that is often by historians and others. But you can call it 40% if you prefer. Or 61.3% if you'd rather. (sigh)

Gosh, I think that the 'evidence' (remember that niggling little word?) said that it was 23%. You're still not willing to accept anything but 'your truth'. I get it. We've discussed a lot over the years.

The point remains that the Bible societies and evangelistic associations in the English speaking world were especially active throughout the globe in those days in spreading the Gospel, using the KJV as their version of Scripture.

I would agree with that statement. Just as I would agree that in the 1500's people around the world reading and being saved with the Tyndale translation of the Scriptures. It was the first translation that was put into print. In the 1500's Erasmus cobbled together a new translation of the Scriptures, from the available manuscript data that he had at hand, which is now called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). So yes, the KJ translation probably had the longest run as a translation of the Scriptures in English...so far. But that neither makes it perfect or the best. It is just the first of many more modern translations that are based on whatever material was available in that day. However today, we have more modern translations, of which many are based on newer archeological evidence of MSS, that just were not available to the translators of the KJ translation.

It was good for it's day and it certainly is correct enough to do the work for which God sent unto mankind His word. Any reliable translation of the best MSS concerning the work of Jesus and the apostles as they walked among us, is good for the open of heart to understand what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus. May God be forever and ever praised. Amen!

As to the old covenant writings, those have, long before the KJ translation, been approved and set in canon. The only issue of difference from the KJ translation and any of the more modern translations, is the accounting of the work of God since delivering His Son to us. The most important message of that group of writings being that God sent His Son to die in our place for the forgiveness of our sin. That anyone who would believe and trust God in this work, would gain eternal life with Him who lives forever. I have read many, many differing translations and have yet to find any of the reliable translations to fail at this purpose.

Please consider that God sent to us His words that we might be saved. Not that we could argue over who did the best job in translating His words into English. It is through the knowledge that one gains from reading the Scriptures with a soft and open heart, that salvation may come to that person. Whether he read those words as translated in the NIV, NASB, NKJ, KJ, ESV, etc. Let's be approving of people reading and understanding the Scriptures more than whether they are reading one's personal assessment of what the 'best' translation is. Believe it or not, there are people finding God's salvation through many of the reliable translations. It doesn't have to be the KJ.

God bless,
Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi @Albion,



Gosh, I think that the 'evidence' (remember that niggling little word?) said that it was 23%. You're still not willing to accept anything but 'your truth'. I get it. We've discussed a lot over the years.



I would agree with that statement. Just as I would agree that in the 1500's people around the world reading and being saved with the Tyndale translation of the Scriptures. It was the first translation that was put into print. In the 1500's Erasmus cobbled together a new translation of the Scriptures, from the available manuscript data that he had at hand, which is now called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). So yes, the KJ translation probably had the longest run as a translation of the Scriptures in English...so far. But that neither makes it perfect or the best. It is just the first of many more modern translations that are based on whatever material was available in that day. However today, we have more modern translations, of which many are based on newer archeological evidence of MSS, that just were not available to the translators of the KJ translation.

It was good for it's day and it certainly is correct enough to do the work for which God sent unto mankind His word. Any reliable translation of the best MSS concerning the work of Jesus and the apostles as they walked among us, is good for the open of heart to understand what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus. May God be forever and ever praised. Amen!

As to the old covenant writings, those have, long before the KJ translation, been approved and set in canon. The only issue of difference from the KJ translation and any of the more modern translations, is the accounting of the work of God since delivering His Son to us. The most important message of that group of writings being that God sent His Son to die in our place for the forgiveness of our sin. That anyone who would believe and trust God in this work, would gain eternal life with Him who lives forever. I have read many, many differing translations and have yet to find any of the reliable translations to fail at this purpose.

Please consider that God sent to us His words that we might be saved. Not that we could argue over who did the best job in translating His words into English. It is through the knowledge that one gains from reading the Scriptures with a soft and open heart, that salvation may come to that person. Whether he read those words as translated in the NIV, NASB, NKJ, KJ, ESV, etc. Let's be approving of people reading and understanding the Scriptures more than whether they are reading one's personal assessment of what the 'best' translation is. Believe it or not, there are people finding God's salvation through many of the reliable translations. It doesn't have to be the KJ.

God bless,
Ted

I agree that we should be approving of people reading and understanding the Scriptures, but that is a different subject from people claiming that the translation that they read is the Word of God (and that other translations are not). The worst offenders of this are the King James Version Only (KJVO) crowd, who insist that their choice is the only correct one.

Remember that the OP subject is "changes to the word of god [sic] seen in other bible versions", not whether we should be approving of people reading and understanding the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

1watchman

Overseer
Supporter
Oct 9, 2010
6,039
1,226
Washington State
✟358,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, apart from the fact that the Authorized KJV of that earlier time has been widely read and accepted over 300 to 400 years now, it STILL is supported and used by many 'Bible-Only' Christian Assemblies worldwide, I know about.
Of course many denominated sects like something modern which appeals to them; often disregarding "all the counsel of God" and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as God enjoins us. I personally support the KJV, though use the 'Scofield KJV Study Bible', which does not change the wording, but in the margins and footnotes explains meanings for some earlier wordings and sentences which are no longer used, to be more clear today. The KJV I have is VERY sound, I am sure. As the saying goes: 'to each his own' ideas. Keep looking up, brethren! -1watchman
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand your comment since the King James version was the first translation taken from Tyndale's original work and the Geneva Bible, among other versions combined that made it possible for the work done to produce the King James Bible in the 1600s.

If other translations should not be compared to the King James version, then where are these other translations coming from?
More manuscripts have been discovered since KJ...some say these are more ancient and were rated as to usage and for accuracy...NIV84 uses these...it is eclectic in that it compares the sets of manuscripts in arriving at its translation.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, apart from the fact that the Authorized KJV of that earlier time has been widely read and accepted over 300 to 400 years now, it STILL is supported and used by many 'Bible-Only' Christian Assemblies worldwide, I know about.
Of course many denominated sects like something modern which appeals to them; often disregarding "all the counsel of God" and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as God enjoins us. I personally support the KJV, though use the 'Scofield KJV Study Bible', which does not change the wording, but in the margins and footnotes explains meanings for some earlier wordings and sentences which are no longer used, to be more clear today. The KJV I have is VERY sound, I am sure. As the saying goes: 'to each his own' ideas. Keep looking up, brethren! -1watchman
Doesn't change the wording...that is an impossibility in the process of translation is it not. Some translators prefer one English word for a Hebrew word another translator uses or prefers a different word...still others will prefer still another word. That's what translating is.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Doesn't change the wording...that is an impossibility in the process of translation is it not. Some translators prefer one English word for a Hebrew word another translator uses or prefers a different word...still others will prefer still another word. That's what translating is.

The "books" of the Bible were written to be understood. Successful translating takes the collection of the earliest and best manuscripts, plus many other documents of the period (for greater understanding and clarity), and communicates them as accurately as possible to the readers/hearers. Of course, that is the ideal.

Because there is no word-for-word translation possible between the ancient languages and the language that we use every day in our reading, writing, and speaking, not to mention the sometimes nuances of words and phrases, idioms, etc., the translators must make many decisions about how to render, not just the words but also the concepts and ideas, into the receptor language.

Every translation has a purpose and goal, so it is important to read the preface to each Bible to understand the translators' philosophies.

There is no perfect translation. My personal preference is the NET (New English Translation), version 2.1 There are over 60,000(!) translators notes that explain the sometimes obscure meaning of the text, as well as background, cross-references, and comments about the meaning of confusing passages.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Doesn't change the wording...that is an impossibility in the process of translation is it not. Some translators prefer one English word for a Hebrew word another translator uses or prefers a different word...still others will prefer still another word. That's what translating is.

Translating is more than word-for-word (which is impossible). Words, phrases, etc. must be understood in context, and there are many idioms as well that simply don't translate. (Think about "it's raining cats and dogs" in English). Finally, most of us are very, very far removed from the cultures of the Bible. An important part of translating is communicating understanding.

Also, don't forget about Aramaic and Koine Greek, the two other source languages. There is a lot more to the sources than Hebrew.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Translating is more than word-for-word (which is impossible). Words, phrases, etc. must be understood in context, and there are many idioms as well that simply don't translate. (Think about "it's raining cats and dogs" in English). Finally, most of us are very, very far removed from the cultures of the Bible. An important part of translating is communicating understanding.

Also, don't forget about Aramaic and Koine Greek, the two other source languages. There is a lot more to the sources than Hebrew.
Yes, been aware of the original languages of the Bible from a child...just saying! :)
If I could, I would love to read the manuscripts in the original languages...some of the meaning of the original Hebrew is lost however.
I don't like additions and subtractions to the Word. The fewer the better, but we have to trust a translation in the end...decisions, decisions.
DO NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT From the WORD (PASSAGES):
Deuteronomy 4:2
Deuteronomy 12:32
Proverbs 30:6
Ecclesiastes 3:14
1 Corinthians 4:6
2 John 1:9
Revelation 22:18-19
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Translating is more than word-for-word (which is impossible). Words, phrases, etc. must be understood in context, and there are many idioms as well that simply don't translate. (Think about "it's raining cats and dogs" in English). Finally, most of us are very, very far removed from the cultures of the Bible. An important part of translating is communicating understanding.

Also, don't forget about Aramaic and Koine Greek, the two other source languages. There is a lot more to the sources than Hebrew.
The Words are what need to be translated in my view and that requires God-given knowledge and wisdom...the understanding is provided only by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:27
 
Upvote 0

Sunshinee777

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2020
1,803
2,003
Finland
✟168,856.00
Country
Finland
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
I just love kjv it speaks to me much more than other versions. And I have to admit that I don’t understand bible in my native language at all, it seems completely mispresented to me and I don’t understand half of the words which is funny because it’s my native language after all... so I tried to read bible in Finnish and no, I can’t. Impossible. So I have never read bible in my native language but I did try.
I like to search greek words occasionally when reading kjv using site which have greek version too. Beautiful language. As latin is.
 
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

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Words are what need to be translated in my view and that requires God-given knowledge and wisdom...the understanding is provided only by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:27

I don't know of a single serious, academic translator (and also the critical readers/critics) who doesn't operate without God-given knowledge and wisdom.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know of a single serious, academic translator (and also the critical readers/critics) who doesn't operate without God-given knowledge and wisdom.
Did you intend to say "without" God-given knowledge...??? or "with" you have 2 negatives there making a positive...your intention...a real question.
I suppose all translators have good intentions, some better than others in wisdom and skill...but all are men and seem to see their own "interpretation" in the Bible and Bible can become "interpretation" rather than translation.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Did you intend to say "without" God-given knowledge...??? or "with" you have 2 negatives there making a positive...your intention...a real question.
I suppose all translators have good intentions, some better than others in wisdom and skill...but all are men and seem to see their own "interpretation" in the Bible and Bible can become "interpretation" rather than translation.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I believe that academic translators (and also the critical readers/critics) operate with God-given knowledge and wisdom.

a) Not all translators are men.
b) Trained academics keep their own interpretation at a minimum. They rely on sound scientific and academic principles in their translation work.

There is nothing unique about translating the Biblical languages into other languages. Translation work is done all the time in many fields, not just Biblical translation, based on long-established sound principles.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Words are what need to be translated in my view and that requires God-given knowledge and wisdom...the understanding is provided only by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:27

I am confident that those people who work as Bible translators have God-given knowledge and wisdom.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Did you intend to say "without" God-given knowledge...??? or "with" you have 2 negatives there making a positive...your intention...a real question.
I suppose all translators have good intentions, some better than others in wisdom and skill...but all are men and seem to see their own "interpretation" in the Bible and Bible can become "interpretation" rather than translation.

Not if the translators are trained in their work. Of course they are human, but that doesn't negate their following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
 
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

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, that is what I meant to say. I believe that academic translators (and also the critical readers/critics) operate with God-given knowledge and wisdom.

a) Not all translators are men.
b) Trained academics keep their own interpretation at a minimum. They rely on sound scientific and academic principles in their translation work.

There is nothing unique about translating the Biblical languages into other languages. Translation work is done all the time in many fields, not just Biblical translation, based on long-established sound principles.
The Bible is not like any other book...the Holy Spirit works salvation through the message and the message is the Word of God. see Romans 10:17
Translators should be all men as that is their god given authority...not to woman...I can say this openly as I am a woman.
Academics and science...though some of their principles have some value...are not the spiritual way. see
1 Timothy 6:20.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am confident that those people who work as Bible translators have God-given knowledge and wisdom.
I don't know who you are (your occupation) that makes you so very defendant of translators...I already stated, one has to trust someone in the end when making a Bible selection. Manuscript studies have shown that even the Texus Receptus was altered...St. Jerome and others...comes to show you that all are fallible when trying to defend a doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know who you are (your occupation) that makes you so very defendant of translators...I already stated, one has to trust someone in the end when making a Bible selection. Manuscript studies have shown that even the Texus Receptus was altered...St. Jerome and others...comes to show you that all are fallible when trying to defend a doctrine.

So if I understand you correctly you can't rely on any translators? Why are you so opposed to translators? Are you saying that only the originals (which do not exist) are reliable?

And what does that have to do with defending a doctrine, which is an interpretation of the Bible?
 
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

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Training or not this is a human weakness...ignoring God's wisdom.

I wrote: Not if the translators are trained in their work. Of course they are human, but that doesn't negate their following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Your post makes no sense to me. How does following the guidance of the Holy Spirit ignore God's wisdom?
 
Upvote 0