No English Version of the Bible Is Reliable

[abbayabba]

It is because of how Hebrew is translated into English. English has a different sentence structure and therefore, certain liberties are taken during translating to form complete sentences for grammar. But for the breakdown of the verse word by word, forming your own "English sentence", the KJV isn't far off.

◄ Isaiah 33:6 ►
Text Analysis
Str Translit Hebrew English Morph
1961 [e] wə-hā-yāh וְהָיָה֙ and shall be Verb
530 [e] ’ĕ-mū-naṯ אֱמוּנַ֣ת the stability Noun
6256 [e] ‘it-te-ḵā, עִתֶּ֔יךָ of your times Noun
2633 [e] ḥō-sen חֹ֥סֶן strength Noun
3444 [e] yə-šū-‘ōṯ יְשׁוּעֹ֖ת of salvation Noun
2451 [e] ḥā-ḵə-maṯ חָכְמַ֣ת wisdom Noun
1847 [e] wā-ḏā-‘aṯ; וָדָ֑עַת and knowledge Noun
3374 [e] yir-’aṯ יִרְאַ֥ת the fear Noun
3068 [e] Yah-weh יְהוָ֖ה of the LORD Noun
1931 [e] hî הִ֥יא he Pro
214 [e] ’ō-w-ṣā-rōw. אוֹצָרֽוֹ׃ [is] his treasure Noun
s ס -

Not sure which "Hebrew Bible" you read or if you are just trolling YouTube for Biblical stuff to argue about but above is the Hebrew and
it (actual resources) doesn't match what you initially posted. Do your homework.
I used Biblehub.com
It has 25 different translations of the Christian Bible. It has Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Greek, and Hebrew Lexicons, Interlinear for side by side reading of the actual text, commentaries from a plethora of scholars and theologians, devotionals, sermons, and other languages if need be.

And another thing you are not mentioning is in the King James Version LORD is substituted for instances of Adonai, Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah as these are his name. In Hebrew it is represented with no vowels. YHWH. JHVH. It is known as the tetragrammaton. In practice they used to not utter his name out loud. Hence the substitution so that you can read it. It also emphasizes the fact that though the Lord God has multiple characteristics, he is one and has always been one throughout the ages. We know him today as Jesus Christ.
KJV still the most reliable English version. Even more so than some modern Hebrew Bibles. Some early editions of the Hebrew Bible actually contained anti-Christian commentaries and other addendums. So there is definitely an animosity somewhere in the past that had appeared that will skew your perspective if you want to find it.

In regards to the verse above, recall Proverbs 1:9, Job 28:28, Psalms 111:10. They all say the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge of God, departing from evil, that's understanding. The wisdom and knowledge come from God!!! Not sure the fallacy.
The Pharisees in Jesus' day would do the same thing and argue a word or seek some error somehow so that they could bring an accusation against him. Jesus warns us, beware the leaven of the Pharisees. The essence still remains. The truth still speaks. The devil prowls about seeking those whom he will devour, or destroy.
Is your intent of the thread to further the kingdom of God or to cast doubt on the Word itself?

I understand how I could come off as a Pharisee.

In addressing the books portion of your reply, I have found a lot of times these "lost books" are incorporated into the books of the Bible.
For example in 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
it speaks of :
Nathan the prophet whose name appears 41 times in Scriptures, most instances belonging to this individual (2 Samuel particularly)
Ahijah the Shilonite whose name appears about 22 times most belonging to him, particularly in 1 Kings.
And of course Iddo the seer, whose name appears at least 11 times 2 chronicles specifically.

Keep in mind David as a King would have had scribes who wrote for him. People who chronicled the events of David, Solomon, Rehoboam, etc. just as is portrayed in the verses associated with these men and their "lost books" associated with them.
As I was getting at though, they are incorporated into other books. Thus Chronicles would technically have different "areas" of emphasis depending on who you were reading about. Likely a different author writing at the different times, but included in the same records nonetheless as it was the royal records.

Thank you for telling me this.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Hi Sister ..as paradox as it seems , one of the things which gives me assurance of the verity of the "over all " truths of the scriptures , is the confusion over them . I like KJV but am aware of some of it's translation errors ..for example I often point out Acts 7:45 which incorrectly substitutes the name Jesus for Joshua ..it is an error but a very enlightening one . I do not think it an accident that Moses could not lead the children of Israel into the promised land so that was left to Joshua. As you are aware , Jesus and Joshua are the same name in Hebrew. This should be interesting for any of your Jewish friends . (It is ironic that this error was not seen for 2 or 3 hundred years and has been corrected in most all versions. )
Seeing all of the confusion , it gives me assurance that we are indeed in the times recorded in 2nd Timothy :3 . It also leads me to be given to much prayer and seeking ( which is a fruit of belief ) ( Without faith , it is impossible to please God for you must believe that He is AND that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him . ) Compare to the parable of the widow and unrighteous judge ..when Jesus told this parable , he spoke in regard to incessant prayer and likened it to faith . ( Howbeit, I wonder when I return will I find faith on earth ? )
Lastly ..not to by any means exalt you but I appreciate the humility you have displayed when criticized . May our Lord lead you .

In Greek it still reads Iesous here. The overwhelming fact that speaks volumes about the validity and not the mistranslating is that either way could be considered correct. Joshua in English is fine, as is Jesus. As Joshua was the son of Nun, the one who stopped the sun and moon, the one who led the Israelites into the promised land, the one who did miracles, and spiritually was a type of Christ that appeared in the OT. Thus the "mistake" was easy to overlook however maybe God intended it to be that way. God's ways are higher than ours. And is kind of cool if you think about it.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I understand how I could come off as a Pharisee.


Thank you for telling me this.

Though there are different people with similar names, this may help get you started if you want to get into researching it a bit. They may all be different people, or the same guy, but given the context, it makes sense that most are the one spoken of in 9:29.

Strong's 5714 Iddo
1 Kings 4:14
1 Chronicles 6:21
2 Chronicles 12:15
2 Chronicles 13:22
Ezra 5:1
Ezra 6:14
Nehemiah 12:4
Nehemiah 12:16
Zechariah 1:1
Zechariah 1:7

Strong's 3260 Iddo
2 Chronicles 9:29

Strong's 3035 Iddo
1 Chronicles 27:21
Ezra 10:43

You may be reading some of Iddo's writings and never know it. But if you look you may find it.

 

[JackRT]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved. At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Even since Ancient Times evil people have tried to corrupt The Scriptures by removing Entire Books, Changing The Text, Expunging The Text Etc.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Also, The Correct translation of "hê·lêl" in Isaiah 14:12 is "shining one".

Strong's Hebrew: 1966. הֵילֵל (helel) -- a shining one

So, it should read : How you are fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
• Isaiah 14:12


Not "Morning Star"

Not "Day Star"


And let's be real here, Everyone knows it's obviously talking about Satan. I mean why else would Steven King name his novel "The Shining" ?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Okay. I'll read the ESV.

The ESV is also corrupt.

 

[Radagast]

The canon is decent enough for learning about where to start receiving the Word of God. However, it is not the Word of God.

No, the Scriptures are the word of God (small "w"). God gave them to us.

Christ is God the Word (big "W").

 

[Radagast]

Have you ever heard God speak? Have you watched any testimonies online by Christians who have? Do you believe your own Bible when God is recorded speaking to prophets? He didn't just stop talking. He still speaks, and it's not a mental condition, especially when you're taught new information your brain could not produce.

All I'm suggesting (respectfully) is that discernment from outside experts might be helpful here. They might provide good advice.

 

[Radagast]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively.

That's because of what Jesus said.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee

Not true; not all rabbis at the time were Pharisees.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus.

Well, if you don't believe Scripture...

 

[Radagast]

The ESV is also corrupt.

No, it isn't.

Also, The Correct translation of "hê·lêl" in Isaiah 14:12 is "shining one".

Strong's Hebrew: 1966. ?????? (helel) -- a shining one

So, it should read : How you are fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
• Isaiah 14:12

Not "Morning Star"

Not "Day Star"

You are an expert on Hebrew? I think I trust the translators here.

Standard Hebrew lexicons give "bright star" or "morning star" as the meaning. The ancient Greek Old Testament (the LXX) translates ἑωσφόρος, which is Greek for "morning star." Even Strong's, when I check it, says "morning star." A good translation would be "morning star" or "day star."

 

[Radagast]

The parent company of the NIV, the 2nd most popular Bible after the KJV, published the Satanic Bible

The NIV is published by Zondervan, a Christian publisher from way back. Zondervan is currently owned by the mega-publisher HarperCollins, but I don't think that's a problem.

If it worries you, read the ESV or the CSB instead.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

No, it isn't.

You are an expert on Hebrew? I think I trust the translators here.

Standard Hebrew lexicons give "bright star" or "morning star" as the meaning. The ancient Greek Old Testament (the LXX) translates ἑωσφόρος, which is Greek for "morning star." Even Strong's, when I check it, says "morning star." A good translation would be "morning star" or "day star."

Yes it is. You're wrong. Period.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

You are an expert on Hebrew? I think I trust the translators here.

Standard Hebrew lexicons give "bright star" or "morning star" as the meaning. The ancient Greek Old Testament (the LXX) translates ἑωσφόρος, which is Greek for "morning star." Even Strong's, when I check it, says "morning star." A good translation would be "morning star" or "day star."

It's "shining one". End of discussion.

 

[Radagast]

Yes it is. You're wrong. Period.

I find your argument unconvincing.

It's "shining one". End of discussion.

Thank you, but I'll stick with the standard lexicons (including Strong's, which does not say what you say it does) and with translations made by people who really do know Hebrew.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

I find your argument unconvincing.

 

[Kaon]

No, the Scriptures are the word of God (small "w"). God gave them to us.

Christ is God the Word (big "W").

Then, the Word of God is supremely superior to the "word of God" (inspired, bible canon), and one should focus on the connection to the real Word of God (Christ,) since the inferior "word of God" is but a representation at best, and idol at worst.

In other words, it makes no difference. The New Covenant guarantees that God will pour out His spirit, and those who receive it will have the Word (capital W) of God written on their hearts so that no man would have to ask, "Do you know God?" Therefore, Christ should be everyone's focus first, not a canon.


The Word of God - the supremely superior Word of God - is living. It is asinine to think one needs a canonical text in which men chose textbooks for the rest of men, when the Living Word of God is knocking at the door.

 

[Radagast]

It is asinine to think one needs a canonical text in which men chose textbooks for the rest of men, when the Living Word of God is knocking at the door.

So you think Christianity is asinine? I don't think we have anything to discuss.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Maybe... your response to this thread is, "No, the King James Version is reliable." If so, can I entertain with you the idea, or rather the fact, that King James was a freemason who inverted scripture and made The Word contradict itself?

Isaiah 33:6 in the Hebrew Bible
And He (Yahweh, the LORD) will be the stability of your times, a wealth of salvation, wisdom and knowledge; The fear of Yahweh is his treasure.

KJV Isaiah 33:6
And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation: the fear of the LORD is his treasure.

Here's a video to shorten up what I would have typed.

I've searched up almost every translation that I've read of in blogs; these translations were documented as reliable. Every translation fails the test of that YT video above. For example, it will say something like "God tempted" instead of "God tested." Each (English) translation has one of these "errors". Prove me wrong?

I really think it's funny how the NIV will correct an "error" in the King James Version--error is quoted due to the writer's intention to place it-- while subsequently taking "Jesus" and "hell" out of a few dozen verses. It all kind of reminds me of a dystopia. When you're an English speaking Christian in these times; it's almost impossible to get the truth. The ENTIRE truth.

BTW, for all of my friends who think much older Bibles are 100% true (I was one of them), I checked the 1599 Geneva Bible and it has a mistake too.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room, that when he that bade thee, cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, sit up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at table with thee. (GNV)

Well, I explain a few supposed contradictions in the KJV in the following CF thread link that were at one time really tough for me to explain.

Simply click on this link here:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...t-supposed-contradictions-in-the-kjv.8035969/

I mean, no offense, but the supposed contradictions mentioned in your video are mere child's play for me.

#1. Matthew 4:10 and Luke 14:10 is clearly not a contradiction in the KJV.

The key to reconciling these two verses is understanding that the Bible has homonyms within it. What is a homonym? Homonyms are words that look and sound the same but they have two different meanings for them. The context determines how the word is defined. For example: I can say that,

"The dog's bark could be heard all the way down the street; He scratched his paws against the bark of tree at the squirrel up in the tree (hoping to get the little guy)."
​

As you can see there are two words spelled as "bark" but yet they have two different meanings based on the context. These are called homonyms and they do exist in the Bible.

So the word "worship" in Matthew 4:10 has a different meaning than the word "worship" in Luke 14:10.

Matthew 4:10 is talking about "worship" in giving exclusive divine reverence to a Creator God. It goes into the realm of complete and total adoration, etc.

Luke 14:10 is talking about "worship" in reference to giving honor to men and or God.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "worship" as:

1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness. --Elfin born of noble state, and muckle worship in his native land.

2. A title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and other of respectable character. My father desires your worships company.

4. Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, confession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like.

6. HONOR; RESPECT; civil deference. Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Luke 14:10 (Notice his use of this very verse in his dictionary).

Let's take a look now at how the Old Testament uses this word "worship"; it may surprise you. The same Hebrew word for "to worship" is used both in reference to God and man. The word is # 7812 shah-ghah, and is variously translated as "to worship, to do reverence, to do obeisance, and to bow down to."

We see it used in reference to men as well as to God. In Genesis 23:7 and 12 Abraham "bowed himself" to the people, and in Genesis 37:10 the brethren of Joseph "bow down to him". In 2 Samuel 9:6-8 Mephibosheth came to king David and "fell on his face and DID REVERENCE...and BOWED HIMSELF" See also 2 Samuel 1:2; 14:4, 22, 33 where Joab does the same thing to king David.

A verse that shows worship being given to both God and a man is found in 1 Chronicles 29:20. There we read: "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and WORSHIPPED the LORD, and the king."

So there is no contradiction between Matthew 4:10 and Luke 14:10.

​

#2. Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13 is not a contradiction.

Again, as I said before. The Bible has homonyms within it. An English dictionary should clear this misunderstanding up quickly.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary says for the word:

Tempt:

1. To put to trial; to prove; to test; to try.
[imp. & p. p. Tempted; p. pr. & vb. n. Tempting.]
God did tempt Abraham.
- Gen. xxii. 1.
Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God.
- Deut. vi. 16.

2. To lead, or endeavor to lead, into evil; to entice to what is wrong; to seduce.
Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
- James i. 14.

Tempt | Definition of Tempt by Webster's Online Dictionary

So the problem is easily resolved.
​

#3. Numbers 23:19 and Jonah 3:10 is not a contradiction.

These are homonyms again. Just look at an English Dictionary and it explains this.

Repent:

2. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction.
Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.
- Ex. xiii. 17.
3 (Theol.) To be sorry for sin as morally evil, and to seek forgiveness; to cease to love and practice sin.
Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish.
- Luke xii. 3.

2. To feel regret or sorrow; - used reflexively.

Repent | Definition of Repent by Webster's Online Dictionary

The video is wrong on it's interpretation of Numbers 23:19. It is not talking about a change of mind. It is talking about "repent" in reference to God doing something that He would regret (i.e. a mistake) or going back on His Word. However, God cannot make mistakes or break His Word. Everything God does has a greater purpose and plan that we cannot see. His choices are always 100% perfect and in perfectly in line with His Word. But that does not mean God cannot change His mind based upon His own Word. If we repent of our sins, and accept Jesus, then the wrath or judgment of God no longer abides on us. This is what happened with the city of Nineveh. God's judgment was coming to the city of Nineveh. It was a real threat. God was going to punish them (bring destruction) if they did not repent. But the Ninevites repented and God changed His plan of bringing wrath or judgment upon them (based on His own Word). Also, Jonah 3:10 uses the word "repent" in reference to God changing his mind. So there is no contradiction here. One is talking about "repent" in reference to regret over making a mistake (or going back on His Word) and the other word "repent" is used in reference to changing one's mind within the frame work of God's own promises within His own Word.​

#4. Exodus 20:13 and Numbers 31:17 is not a contradiction.

I would expect better from a Christian to use this one. Clearly the word kill is in reference to taking life without God's approval in Exodus 20:13 and Numbers 31:17 is talking about taking life under God's direct orders. Murder is when we decide to take life. God is the giver and taker of life so it is not murder if God decides to end life because He created life and owns it. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. For did God the Father murder his own Son? Surely not. The Son of God fully cooperated in the giving up his own life willingly to save us all. See, when a father jumps in front of a vehicle and pushes his son out of the way, it is a great act of love. But if someone were to take their life for selfish reasons because they are depressed and or life is hard on them, etc. they are committing suicide. So there is a difference. But again. This is a homonym. The Bible has many homonyms.​

#5. Did God create man after the animals? Genesis 1:25-27 says "yes."; And Genesis 2:18-19 appears to say "no."

There are two possibilities here.

Possibility #1. Genesis 2:18-19 may not be speaking chronologically here but it could be recalling God's words right before He created the birds on Day 5 and the animals on Day 6.

Possibility #2. Genesis 2:18-19 is talking about God making a special small group of animals (kind of like a sample) for Adam in order for him to name them. Perhaps God did this to show Adam of His creative power and where he came from. For where did all the fish come from in the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000? Is it possible God created them in that moment? Why did Jesus need to put mud on the eyes of a blind man to heal his eyes? Was not Adam made out of the mud?

In other words, this is not a problem that cannot be logically explained. So it is not a contradiction, unless you want there to be a contradiction in God's Word. My suggestion is to let God's Word change you, and do not try to change God's Word; And ask God for the understanding the next time you do not understand what His Word says.


​

Source Used:
Luke 14:10 worship

 

[Swan7]

How about the Holy Spirit is more than sufficient. It's not about the book, it's about God and letting HIM speak to YOU. I just don't understand what the big issue is. God has preserved His Word for us - for our benefit. It's not about the book! It's about His Living Word, the One that resides IN you that teaches you.

I just can't understand all this arguing over what version, this or that. Let God be the One to tell you which one is good enough for you in His eyes.
I asked God which version I should read, He gave me the KJV and not as the ONLY one to read, but the one that He speaks most to me by. In other words I understand this one better.

So please, just ask Him. Ask Him many, many things and He will show you.