The NIV Exposed

[Daniel_]

The NIV Exposed

by Dr. Ken Matto

Many churches and Christians are now using the New International Version (NIV) and many believe it will replace the King James Version. We are seeing this come to pass at an alarming rate but the purpose of this study is to let the NIV be its own spokesman in the area of accuracy. We will compare only fifty verses from the following versions:

KJV - King James Version
NIV - New International Version
NAB - New American Bible (Roman Catholic Church)
NWT - New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses)
The King James Version will be first and the omitted or changed part of the verse will be underlined to indicate the corruption in the NIV. You will also see the NIV's absolute agreement with the NAB and the NWT. Personally, I would be very suspicious of a translation that has so much in common with the Roman Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Another reason I would totally discount this book is because 2 homosexuals were involved in the translation of it. Dr. Virginia Mollenkott and Dr. Marten Woudstra, who was Chairman of the Old Testament Committee.

Dear Pastor, if your church uses the NIV, do you ever wonder why your people are biblically illiterate, spiritually weak, and confused about the Bible or why your sermons are watered down mush? Well, now you know why! You have been using a JW and RC Bible. The evidence is below! You can reject it but you can't refute it!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scripture verses marked (NWT) are from the New World Translation. Copyright 1961 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

Scripture verses marked (NAB) are from the New American Bible, copyright 1970 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. (St. Joseph's Edition)

No permission needed to quote NIV, it is under 1,000 verses.

With The King James Version, you don't need anyone's permission to quote because it is God's Word not man's.

After reading the comparisons, there are only two summaries which can be arrived at:

1) The NIV is as corrupt as the NWT, or
2) The NWT is as accurate as the NIV

I would just like to point out a few things:
1. A translation isn't just about translating words but also the meaning of a clause or sentence and putting it into a clause or sentence in English, which does mean you cannot always translate literally word for word because sometimes it wouldn't make any sense in English, the Hebrew and Greek grammar is vastly different to English.
2. The NIV tries to translate more on a thought for thought basis, i.e. what the clause or sentence means is put into good and more readable English. Sometimes it is word for word but it doesn't always have to be to be translated accurately. Also the NIV as well as most other modern translations is set out better than the KJV into proper paragraphs, which makes it much easier for the reader to follow the flow of thought.
3. The KJV and NKJV both use the Byzantine manuscripts for translating the Greek NT, but these are later than the vast amount of manuscripts which we have now, which is to say we have more reliable manuscripts for the NT than in 1611 when the KJV was introduced. When you talk about verses we must remember the original manuscripts (of which we only have a multitude of copies) didn't use verse numbers, they were introduced into the text later. So when it says there are verses missing the reason is because with more manuscripts it became evident that some things were later added into the text (most likely by scribes who felt it necessary to try and explain or elaborate on the prior sentence). It should be noted that the NIV always includes footnotes of these verses. As an example in 1 John 5:6-7 there is a whole section missed out about the Trinity. This isn't in any manuscripts before the 14th century, and from the context of what John wrote it is talking about 3 things that testify about Jesus. The NIV clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity in many other places, the NWT corrupts all such doctrine.
4. No translation is perfect for there are differences between every language and sometimes it is impossible to get an exact English equivalent for a Greek or Hebrew word. But the point is that God is not limited to speak to people by the exact words they were originally written, most of the Bible was written consciously by human beings with their own unique styles and emphases. God inspired them through illuminating their understanding so as to record the things God desired, only in giving the Law or speaking directly through prophets did God usually command what exactly should be written. But even behind the Law it's the principles that are what's important as we see when Jesus often confronted the Pharisees about seeking to keep the latter of the Law.
5. We should not get divided on which translation is the best, the primary and undisputable issues have to do with the Triune God as revealed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ and the way back to God through the saving work of Christ. Every other issue in the Church is secondary and should not cause division for that's what the enemy wants to do to weaken the Church. It's only heresy if it goes against the primary and closed-handed issues.

God bless you.

 

[benelchi]

Specifically @ 48:30

The King James Bible, like the new Mass translation, would have been condemned as ‘inaccessible’ | CatholicHerald.co.uk

WHAT IS TRUTH: King James Version: Elizabethan English?

Your video states that:

"Even though by 1611 English had undergone further revolution, The King James translators would still use 'Ye' sometimes for 'you' as in 'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon' even though nobody said 'Ye' in common speech any more."​

However, the following quote from Shakespeare's sonnet shows that 'Ye' was still used when the KJV translators produced their translation. A search through Shakespear's works shows that he used 'Ye' 289 times! The narrator doesn't seem to understand that English in the 17th century maintained a subject/object distinction and a singular/plural distinction, these different forms of 'you' actually served a grammatical purpose in the 17th century; THEY WERE NOT LEFTOVER FORMS as the narrator suggests. Below is a quote from Shakespeare (a contemporary of the KJV translators).

"Loving offenders thus I will excuse ye, Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her, And for my sake even so doth she abuse me, Suff'ring my friend for my sake to approve her."

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Sonnet 42
​

BTW - I noticed you didn't answer my other question.

 

[pescador]

OLDEST does not mean BEST or more ACCURATE

But it is the closest to the source. We don't have the originals, so it is assumed that the older a text is the more reliable it is. Common sense.

 

[benelchi]

Wrong. often it does not.

Funny how the majority of these manuscripts support the KJV and NOT the modern perversions

Daniel Wallace would disagree with you. He is is an American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, the purpose of which is digitizing all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament via digital photographs.

Here is a video where he discusses the transmission of the Scriptures.

 

[Anguspure]

Your video states that:

"Even though by 1611 English had undergone further revolution, The King James translators would still use 'Ye' sometimes for 'you' as in 'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon' even though nobody said 'Ye' in common speech any more."​

However, the following quote from Shakespeare's sonnet shows that 'Ye' was still used when the KJV translators produced their translation. A search through Shakespear's works shows that he used 'Ye' 289 times! The narrator doesn't seem to understand that English in the 17th century maintained a subject/object distinction and a singular/plural distinction, these different forms of 'you' actually served a grammatical purpose in the 17th century; THEY WERE NOT LEFTOVER FORMS as the narrator suggests. Below is a quote from Shakespeare (a contemporary of the KJV translators).

"Loving offenders thus I will excuse ye, Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her, And for my sake even so doth she abuse me, Suff'ring my friend for my sake to approve her."

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Sonnet 42
​

BTW - I noticed you didn't answer my other question.

Nevertheless, clearly the KJV is archaic, subversive to the idea of translating into the vernacular and loved for this fact by those who enjoy it.

The Aramaic or perhaps old Hebrew I think? I was unable to recognise the text, what is it?

 

[Kiwi Christian]

Daniel Wallace would disagree with you. He is is an American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, the purpose of which is digitizing all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament via digital photographs.

Here is a video where he discusses the transmission of the Scriptures.

i dont care what he says.

"Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts"

WHICH manuscripts?

 

[benelchi]

Nevertheless, clearly the KJV is archaic, subversive to the idea of translating into the vernacular and loved for this fact by those who enjoy it.

It is archaic today, and poorly understood by most who use it today, but it wasn't archaic in the 17th century and represented the vernacular of the 17th century when it was produced. Overall, it was [and is] a relatively good translation. Many of the supposed differences are simply a result of modern speakers misunderstanding the 17th century English. I would recommend that anyone who is not a very serious student of 17th century English avoid using it today because of the potential for misunderstanding the KJV text.

The Aramaic or perhaps old Hebrew I think? I was unable to recognize the text, what is it?

It was neither Aramaic or old Hebrew. It was modern Hebrew and almost identical to how this would be phrased in biblical Hebrew. Maybe it was the font that confused you, here it is in a square font.

 

[benelchi]

i dont care what he says.

Sad, but not surprising.

"Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts"

WHICH manuscripts?

There goal is to photograph and catalog every know NT manuscript. They have nearly completed their goal.

 

[JackRT]

There goal is to photograph and catalog every know NT manuscript. They have nearly completed their goal.

A massive job indeed as there are over 10,000 known manuscripts. My late sister would understand this better than I. She was in charge of digitalizing the entire Bodelian Library in Oxford England.

 

[benelchi]

A massive job indeed as there are over 10,000 known manuscripts. My late sister would understand this better than I. She was in charge of digitalizing the entire Bodelian Library in Oxford England.

What has made the undertaking even more massive is the location. Wallace has prioritized manuscripts in some of the most unstable countries because those are the ones most likely to be destroyed. He has some very high end photographic equipment and is taking pictures in multiple light spectrums. One of the things that surprised me when I saw some of the photographs was how brilliant the colors were on some of the manuscripts. The older pictures I had seen were all black and white and I never considered that many were highly colorful.

 

[Anguspure]

It is archaic today, and poorly understood by most who use it today, but it wasn't archaic in the 17th century and represented the vernacular of the 17th century when it was produced. Overall, it was [and is] a relatively good translation. Many of the supposed differences are simply a result of modern speakers misunderstanding the 17th century English. I would recommend that anyone who is not a very serious student of 17th century English avoid using it today because of the potential for misunderstanding the KJV text.

I won't argue with you on this, I am not a scholar, however I am aware that a number of scholars disagree with your position, and when I compare the readability of Wycliffe and Tyndale with the KJV I tend to see their point.

It was neither Aramaic or old Hebrew. It was modern Hebrew and almost identical to how this would be phrased in biblical Hebrew. Maybe it was the font that confused you, here it is in a square font.

View attachment 199084

I didn't recognise the cursive and the hand writing is of course a little different as well if one is not familiar so no I couldn't read it but the with the square font and a couple of online helps such as: Hebrew language, alphabet and pronunciation, and: doitinHebrew.com - The Talking Online Hebrew Dictionary and Translation Engine. Learn how to say just about anything in Hebrew.,
I think I cracked it and yes with a little practice I would be able to read this. I understand Hebrew is a difficult language. I took it up for a while a few years ago, was doing well, and may take it up again soon, very good for the mind if for no other reason, but there a number of other reasons, the depth of biblical understanding being one.
Shalom shabat brother.

 

[benelchi]

I won't argue with you on this, I am not a scholar, however I am aware that a number of scholars disagree with your position, and when I compare the readability of Wycliffe and Tyndale with the KJV I tend to see their point.


I didn't recognise the cursive and the hand writing is of course a little different as well if one is not familiar so no I couldn't read it but the with the square font and a couple of online helps such as: Hebrew language, alphabet and pronunciation, and: doitinHebrew.com - The Talking Online Hebrew Dictionary and Translation Engine. Learn how to say just about anything in Hebrew.,
I think I cracked it and yes with a little practice I would be able to read this. I understand Hebrew is a difficult language. I took it up for a while a few years ago, was doing well, and may take it up again soon, very good for the mind if for no other reason, but there a number of other reasons, the depth of biblical understanding being one.
Shalom shabat brother.

I hope you do get the opportunity to study the Hebrew language. Until then I would recommend strongly against taking "all translations with a grain of salt and consult with the Greek or Hebrew if its an issue." I typically recommend that students look at several good English translations, and consult commentaries written by those who can read the biblical languages when the come across a passages where the translations do not agree. Note: not all commentaries are written by those who can read the biblical languages.

Using lexical data to "back translate" is an incredibly error prone method of biblical study. Some of the very worst sermons I have ever heard have been produced by those who did not understand the biblical languages but decided to use lexicons to try and understand that biblical texts. For example if I were to say: אעשה הזה עומד על רגל אחת, it would be very unlikely that anyone who did not understand the language would produce an accurate translation.

Most would not be able to translate phrases like: ‎ ולא־נשׂא אתם הארץ לשׁבת יחדו without the aid of an English translation.

 

[Anguspure]

I hope you do get the opportunity to study the Hebrew language. Until then I would recommend strongly against taking "all translations with a grain of salt and consult with the Greek or Hebrew if its an issue." I typically recommend that students look at several good English translations, and consult commentaries written by those who can read the biblical languages when the come across a passages where the translations do not agree. Note: not all commentaries are written by those who can read the biblical languages.

Using lexical data to "back translate" is an incredibly error prone method of biblical study. Some of the very worst sermons I have ever heard have been produced by those who did not understand the biblical languages but decided to use lexicons to try and understand that biblical texts. For example if I were to say: אעשה הזה עומד על רגל אחת, it would be very unlikely that anyone who did not understand the language would produce an accurate translation.

Most would not be able to translate phrases like: ‎ ולא־נשׂא אתם הארץ לשׁבת יחדו without the aid of an English translation.

I have tried the approach you suggest and what I find is a group of translations that are heavily coloured by the contemporary culture and religion, and who have very little if any understanding of the cultures from which the Bible sprung. We seem to be reading from the understanding of some guys who think that Christianity originated "upon Englands mountains green."

If, on the other hand, I consult with sources that understand the language in its Greek or Jewish cultural contexts, insights are revealed that point to Christ Jesus in some startling ways.

For example I would have never seen the Gospel written in Genesis if I had continued to read the genealogy of Genesis 5 in the transliteration of English, and the beauty of the Priestly Blessing is not revealed in English nor is the ingenuity and poetry of the Psalms.

So given this inability of translators (perhaps because of the limitations of the language) to reflect the scripture as it was written, and the ability of those who have the languages to easily do so, I will continue to take translations with a grain of salt and take a keen interest in how the original authors wrote the inspiration of the Spirit.

 

[pescador]

I have tried the approach you suggest and what I find is a group of translations that are heavily coloured by the contemporary culture and religion, and who have very little if any understanding of the cultures from which the Bible sprung. We seem to be reading from the understanding of some guys who think that Christianity originated "upon Englands mountains green."

If, on the other hand, I consult with sources that understand the language in its Greek or Jewish cultural contexts, insights are revealed that point to Christ Jesus in some startling ways.

For example I would have never seen the Gospel written in Genesis if I had continued to read the genealogy of Genesis 5 in the transliteration of English, and the beauty of the Priestly Blessing is not revealed in English nor is the ingenuity and poetry of the Psalms.

So given this inability of translators (perhaps because of the limitations of the language) to reflect the scripture as it was written, and the ability of those who have the languages to easily do so, I will continue to take translations with a grain of salt and take a keen interest in how the original authors wrote the inspiration of the Spirit.

So you're saying that the most highly respected translators, having the best sources available to them (biblical and not), with a great understanding not only of the source languages but also the cultures in which the original texts were written, who have devoted their lives to their work, are incompetent? And you take the results of their work "with a grain of salt" preferring a "keen interest" of your own?

I will take the work of respected scholars over your personal interpretation with no hesitation whatsoever.

 

[Anguspure]

So you're saying that the most highly respected translators, having the best sources available to them (biblical and not), with a great understanding not only of the source languages but also the cultures in which the original texts were written, who have devoted their lives to their work, are incompetent? And you take the results of their work "with a grain of salt" preferring a "keen interest" of your own?

I will take the work of respected scholars over your personal interpretation with no hesitation whatsoever.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17)

Incompetence is not what I would level at these guys, rather, if anything cultural and religious bias would be the charge, which is a common fault with many academics in any field.

But as I wrote previously, perhaps it is the limitations of the language that create the situation that obscures the text. For example the word "Love" is used indiscriminately as a translation for at least 5 different words in Greek and Hebrew. So, for example, what Jesus is saying in the following passage is lost:

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” (John 21)

On the other hand a word like "Nephesh" (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎) is translated variously in different places as any, anyone, appetite, being, beings, body, breath, corpse, creature, creatures, dead, dead person, deadly, death, defenseless, desire, discontented, endure, feelings, fierce, greedy, heart, heart's, herself, Himself, himself , human, human being, hunger, life, lifeblood, lives, living creature, longing, man, man's, men, mind, Myself, myself, number, ones, others, ourselves, own, passion, people, perfume, person, persons, slave, some, soul, soul's, souls, strength, themselves, thirst, throat, will, wish, wishes, yourself, yourselves,
for no apparent reason.

By doing so the translators just so happen to support a Greek dualistic spiritual view in common with the European Christian Church, whereas keeping the translation as close to the original meaning found in the Genesis 2 (KJV only) which is "Soul", would support a Jewish understanding of death and resurrection.

Also I can't figure out for the life of me why the translators insist on translating the name of YHWH into English religious speak that serves to obscure the identity of our God in a pluralistic relativistic world and then insist on a transliteration of every other name which on the other hand obscures deeper meaning in the text. On this one I have been challenged by the JWs and tend to agree with their position on the topic.

So clearly much is lost in translation and we should be of noble character like the Bereans and search for ourselves to see if these things are so and to uncover the treasures that the translators have hidden.

 

[pescador]

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17)

Incompetence is not what I would level at these guys, rather, if anything cultural and religious bias would be the charge, which is a common fault with many academics in any field.

But as I wrote previously, perhaps it is the limitations of the language that create the situation that obscures the text. For example the word "Love" is used indiscriminately as a translation for at least 5 different words in Greek and Hebrew. So, for example, what Jesus is saying in the following passage is lost:

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” (John 21)

On the other hand a word like "Nephesh" (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎) is translated variously in different places as any, anyone, appetite, being, beings, body, breath, corpse, creature, creatures, dead, dead person, deadly, death, defenseless, desire, discontented, endure, feelings, fierce, greedy, heart, heart's, herself, Himself, himself , human, human being, hunger, life, lifeblood, lives, living creature, longing, man, man's, men, mind, Myself, myself, number, ones, others, ourselves, own, passion, people, perfume, person, persons, slave, some, soul, soul's, souls, strength, themselves, thirst, throat, will, wish, wishes, yourself, yourselves,
for no apparent reason.

By doing so the translators just so happen to support a Greek dualistic spiritual view in common with the European Christian Church, whereas keeping the translation as close to the original meaning found in the Genesis 2 (KJV only) which is "Soul", would support a Jewish understanding of death and resurrection.

Also I can't figure out for the life of me why the translators insist on translating the name of YHWH into English religious speak that serves to obscure the identity of our God in a pluralistic relativistic world and then insist on a transliteration of every other name which on the other hand obscures deeper meaning in the text. On this one I have been challenged by the JWs and tend to agree with their position on the topic.

So clearly much is lost in translation and we should be of noble character like the Bereans and search for ourselves to see if these things are so and to uncover the treasures that the translators have hidden.

You end your post with "So clearly much is lost in translation and we should be of noble character like the Bereans and search for ourselves to see if these things are so and to uncover the treasures that the translators have hidden."

The translators haven't hidden anything. They have the very difficult task of conveying the thoughts and meanings of the words/phrases of the source language into the receptor language. It is both a skill and an art, and they have devoted their lives to it. What are your credentials? If you have even a passing knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic that is not enough for me. I prefer recognized scholars who have earned the respect of many by their decades of work.

When you gloat over them by saying, "a word like "Nephesh" (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎) [not the word itself??] is translated variously in different places as any, anyone, appetite, being, beings, body, breath, corpse, creature, creatures, dead, dead person, deadly, death, defenseless, desire, discontented, endure, feelings, fierce, greedy, heart, heart's, herself, Himself, himself , human, human being, hunger, life, lifeblood, lives, living creature, longing, man, man's, men, mind, Myself, myself, number, ones, others, ourselves, own, passion, people, perfume, person, persons, slave, some, soul, soul's, souls, strength, themselves, thirst, throat, will, wish, wishes, yourself, yourselves, [where did you get this bizarre list?]
for no apparent reason" that clearly shows me that you don't understand the principles of translation at all. Clearly נֶ֫פֶשׁ (or words like it?) is a word with a multitude of meanings in context and only a skilled translator can discern the appropriate English equivalent.

 

[Anguspure]

You end your post with "So clearly much is lost in translation and we should be of noble character like the Bereans and search for ourselves to see if these things are so and to uncover the treasures that the translators have hidden."

The translators haven't hidden anything. They have the very difficult task of conveying the thoughts and meanings of the words/phrases of the source language into the receptor language. It is both a skill and an art, and they have devoted their lives to it. What are your credentials? If you have even a passing knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic that is not enough for me. I prefer recognized scholars who have earned the respect of many by their decades of work.

When you gloat over them by saying, "a word like "Nephesh" (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎) [not the word itself??] is translated variously in different places as any, anyone, appetite, being, beings, body, breath, corpse, creature, creatures, dead, dead person, deadly, death, defenseless, desire, discontented, endure, feelings, fierce, greedy, heart, heart's, herself, Himself, himself , human, human being, hunger, life, lifeblood, lives, living creature, longing, man, man's, men, mind, Myself, myself, number, ones, others, ourselves, own, passion, people, perfume, person, persons, slave, some, soul, soul's, souls, strength, themselves, thirst, throat, will, wish, wishes, yourself, yourselves, [where did you get this bizarre list?]
for no apparent reason" that clearly shows me that you don't understand the principles of translation at all. Clearly נֶ֫פֶשׁ (or words like it?) is a word with a multitude of meanings in context and only a skilled translator can discern the appropriate English equivalent.

For the 3rd time, I recognise this as perhaps a feature of the English language rather than as a deliberate hiding. Nevertheless and as a result the fact should motivate any genuine student of the Bible to investigate these things for themselves and so have the many gems that are hidden in translation revealed to them. Furthermore we should remember that the context of writings of the Bible is primarily Jewish, not Greek nor English nor any other language or culture.
As for nephesh it is a good example of the theological twisting on a key issue that has taken place in translation, whether deliberately or not.
http://www.robertwr.com/

 

[pescador]

For the 3rd time, I recognise this as perhaps a feature of the English language rather than as a deliberate hiding. Nevertheless and as a result the fact should motivate any genuine student of the Bible to investigate these things for themselves and so have the many gems that are hidden in translation revealed to them. Furthermore we should remember that the context of writings of the Bible is primarily Jewish, not Greek nor English nor any other language or culture.
As for nephesh it is a good example of the theological twisting on a key issue that has taken place in translation, whether deliberately or not.
http://www.robertwr.com/

Most people are not equipped to "investigate these things for themselves and so have the many gems that are hidden in translation revealed to them". That leads to all kinds of errors and can lead to misunderstandings and the formations of private doctrines. I much prefer scholarship of the highest order, not only the translation but the references, footnotes, commentaries, dictionaries, etc. that are available to everyone. Things "hidden in translation" are more often than not bogus and fallacious.

You should remember that the entire New Testament was written in a Greco-Roman world, and many Jews throughout the Mediterranean world were more Greek than Hebrew. Do you think that the Septuagint was their scripture by accident?

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the many commentaries and cultural studies that illuminate the world at the time of Christ and the decades following if you want to understand the New Testament as well as the Old.

2 Peter 1:20 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

 

[pescador]

see above... (duplicate post was deleted)

 

[Anguspure]

Most people are not equipped to "investigate these things for themselves and so have the many gems that are hidden in translation revealed to them". That leads to all kinds of errors and can lead to misunderstandings and the formations of private doctrines. I much prefer scholarship of the highest order, not only the translation but the references, footnotes, commentaries, dictionaries, etc. that are available to everyone.

I could understand this position even as little as 20 years ago when many did not have access to the information tools that are readily available to anyone who has a cellphone. But not now.
For those of us who are "more noble" and literate there is little excuse.

Things "hidden in translation" are more often than not bogus and fallacious.

So we need to search the scriptures to see if these things are true.

If Paul who was probably one of the most highly qualified, experienced and person of his day on the subject, admired the Bereans for their diligent and studious attitude that did not simply accept a story because a respected and qualified person said it, then we who do not have people of this stature in our lives should by all means question the validity of what we are told.

If I had simply accepted a story on the grounds of respect, experience and qualification during my life I would now be an atheist and and evolutionist.
As it is I did not and so I have retained my faith in Christ, who is the same Lord who says "Come now, let us reason together".

You should remember that the entire New Testament was written in a Greco-Roman world, and many Jews throughout the Mediterranean world were more Greek than Hebrew. Do you think that the Septuagint was their scripture by accident?

The current Jewish world is one of the Western European culture and yet the Orthodox position maintains itself holy and miraculously apart from the culture. There is no reason to suppose that this was not the position a couple of thousand years ago as well.

Furthermore the Septuagint has been around since the 3rd century BC, but the only authoritative version of the Torah is one that is hand written in the original Hebrew.

Nevertheless the Jewish position on immortality and afterlife was one of Resurrection of the dead, not a floaty ghosty disembodied spirit heaven.

This observation is largely lost in translation.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the many commentaries and cultural studies that illuminate the world at the time of Christ and the decades following if you want to understand the New Testament as well as the Old.

"Yes and" not "no but".