translation errors of modern bibles

[Daniel Marsh]

"
There are several factors that must be taken into consideration:

1) How accurate is the translation?

2) What text is the translation based upon?

3) What is the theological perspective that underlies the translation?

4) How well done and how liturgically useful is the translation?

5) More recently, you must also add to the above considerations, how politically correct is the translation?"

An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible

 

[OvercomeAndEndure]

I won't have the correct answer to your points, and I am not even sure if this is what you are looking for, but I have 2 specific examples of translation errors, regarding Yeshua casting out a demon which the disciples were unable to do on their own.
Yeshua states this type can only come out by prayer and FASTING.

The verses are Mark 9:29
The word "fasting" is left out of the following translations:
NIV, NLV, ESV, BSB, BLB, NASB, CSB, CEV, GNT, HCSB, NET, GWT, NAS1977, ASV, ERV, WNT.

Matthew 17:21
The NIV, ESV, and ERV completely skip over verse 21.
It is not there at all.
The passage reads from verse 20 to 22 and makes no apologies for skipping over verse 21.

1) According to Yeshua, in certain situations more than prayer is required to get rid of a demon and to not provide the needed information - fasting - is incorrect. People need to know and half an answer is of no use. The situation with Matthew 17:21 alarms me as it is an obvious omission.
2) See above comments.
3) I don't think in theology, theological terms, whatever..I'm that ignorant person, sorry.
4) I would not use these translations, would be my answer???
5) Is the salvation of souls motivated by politics?

I have approx 15 similar situations.
This is the first example that I encountered which caused me to realize there is a much bigger problem.
May The Most High bless you greatly.

 

[Radagast]

"
There are several factors that must be taken into consideration

What's your point?

 

[Radagast]

I won't have the correct answer to your points, and I am not even sure if this is what you are looking for, but I have 2 specific examples of translation errors, regarding Yeshua casting out a demon which the disciples were unable to do on their own.
Yeshua states this type can only come out by prayer and FASTING.

The verses are Mark 9:29
The word "fasting" is left out of the following translations:
NIV, NLV, ESV, BSB, BLB, NASB, CSB, CEV, GNT, HCSB, NET, GWT, NAS1977, ASV, ERV, WNT.

That's not a translation error. That's a textual difference in the Greek (the oldest manuscripts do not include "and fasting"). A translation error is when somebody translates the Greek or Hebrew into English incorrectly.

And the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NLT all have "and fasting" in a footnote, so you are not being entirely honest here.

The NIV, ESV, and ERV completely skip over verse 21.
It is not there at all.
The passage reads from verse 20 to 22 and makes no apologies for skipping over verse 21.

Again, this is quite simply false.

The NIV says "Matthew 17:21: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29." The ESV says: "Some manuscripts insert verse 21: But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting." The CSB says: "Some mss include v. 21: However, this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting."

 

[JackRT]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

 

[OvercomeAndEndure]

That's not a translation error. That's a textual difference in the Greek (the oldest manuscripts do not include "and fasting"). A translation error is when somebody translates the Greek or Hebrew into English incorrectly.

The words are in KJV and The Geneva 1560 edition but are not included in the newer translations, so apparently they actually were on older manuscripts..

It is entirely honest that the words are not within the text and placing them in footnotes instead does not change this fact.

false[/B].
The NIV says "Matthew 17:21: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29." The ESV says: "Some manuscripts insert verse 21: But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting." The CSB says: "Some mss include v. 21: However, this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting."

You have just admitted that it is not in the actual passage, as well.
Again, it is in the KJV, Geneva 1560 and other older translations, there still remains no excuse for this omission.
You can be as snarky as you wish with your footnotes, it still does not change the fact that the verses are completely missing within the actual text.

The fact that you insist on arguing the actual content of the missing words and verses is most revealing, but I know there is a reason you responded so I pray that He blesses you greatly.
I bid you well.
Shalom

 

[OvercomeAndEndure]

Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

I actually I prefer the Geneva 1560, so I must agree to disagree with this view.
I must apologize for what appears to be some unpleasant conversations on your thread.
I will refrain from commenting on them in the future.
May The Most High bless you greatly.

 

[Radagast]

The words in KJV and The Geneva 1560 edition but are not included in the newer translations

That's because the newer translations are based on older manuscripts.

It is entirely honest that the words are not within the text and placing them in footnotes instead does not change this fact.

For newer translations, footnotes are part of the text. They are used in response to textual variants as well as to situations where the Greek/Hebrew can have two meanings.

The NIV, ESV, and ERV completely skip over verse 21.
It is not there at all.
The passage reads from verse 20 to 22 and makes no apologies for skipping over verse 21.

And this statement remains totally false, given the existence of the footnotes in the NIV, ESV, CSB, etc.

 

[JackRT]

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

 

[Radagast]

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear.

Hardly "clear."

There is strong evidence that the story of the woman caught in adultery is missing from many manuscripts because people took it out. In fact, Augustine is on record saying that that's what happened.

 

[JackRT]

Hardly "clear."

There is strong evidence that the story of the woman caught in adultery is missing from many manuscripts because people took it out. In fact, Augustine is on record saying that that's what happened.

Can you give me a reference for Augustine? It is interesting that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar are in agreement that the story was not part of the original words or actions of Jesus but they were unanimous in saying that they wished it was.

 

[Radagast]

Can you give me a reference for Augustine?

"... certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin." -- Augustine, Treatises on Marriage: Adulterous Marriages II: Ch 7

It is interesting that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar

Those guys are hardly credible.

 

[TheDaniël]

I trust it not! But i do not distrust it enough to condemn it.

 

[Shempster]

Likely, one of the top mistranslations is substituting the old English word HELL (HELLE which meant the underworld) for SHEOL, TARTARUS, GEHENNA and HADES.
What originally meant something completely different suddenly became a torture chamber with no doors made by God who just can't wait to fill up with people which only served to change the image of God.

 

[JackRT]

Likely, one of the top mistranslations is substituting the old English word HELL (HELLE which meant the underworld) for SHEOL, TARTARUS, GEHENNA and HADES.
What originally meant something completely different suddenly became a torture chamber with no doors made by God who just can't wait to fill up with people which only served to change the image of God.

I fully agree, the modern conception of hell is quite unbiblical.

 

[Radagast]

What originally meant something completely different suddenly became a torture chamber with no doors

Jesus does speak repeatedly about weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Yekcidmij]

That's because the newer translations are based on older manuscripts.

And the availability of more manuscripts allows for a more accurate translation and a higher confidence in the text. It's just statistics.