Thanks for the reply! It's best to use the same translation, or there will not be unison; but it must contain all of God's Word first!!
Bible Problem
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
It's not just modern translations that have the error. The ancient Hebrew manuscripts also say Elhanan slew Goliath.
You are 100% correct. Modern translators are only following actual words found in Hebrew text of 2 Samuel 21:19. The KJV added the words "the bother of" in italics. Those words do not appear in the Hebrew text of 2 Samuel 21:19. In fact the ancient translations of the Hebrew text (such as the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate) agree on this point.
Yes, and good point, but the truth is that it is probably due to scribal error. The whole point with 2Sam 21:19 is why the detractors left the reading as is, which makes no sense. Only the Kings James translators were laborious enough to use italicization, to show what was not found in any manuscript. This keeps anyone from accusing them of adding to Scripture.
You're right. It's obviously a scribal error. I don't understand why the translators don't correct such an obvious mistake.
It's my opinion that these translations are intended by the detractors to reduce the validity of the Word. Many do not know that the Vaticanus and Sinaitcus were produced by Gnostic scholars. Below is a sample of the translation problems.
I would rather trust a translation with many manuscript evidence (about 3,000 manuscripts, regardless the age) than only 2 or three. The antiquity of the copies are the reason why they are so venerated. They are only good as antiques for the archeologist; and the footnotes expressing the reason why they omit its not a good enough reason for taking away Scripture.
Act 8:37
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [entirely omitted].
1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.
Act 28:29 Entirely omitted.
Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.
I wanted to present 4 entirely omitted passages, and 3 partially omitted passages.
Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.
Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.
Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."
I use alot of translations. I recently downloaded the New American Standard Bible - NASB 2020 [Longman]. People have to understand not everyone can understand the KJV and NKJV. It's like saying everyone has to learn Hebrew and Greek inorder to fully in context understand scriptures [better yet the Torah]. I have been studying alot of Jewish roots of the Bible by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I am drawn back to Matthew 18:6. If someone causes someone to stumble over a translation - the Holy Spirit is evident and contiunes to be our teacher, helper and teaches us. John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. That's just me. God knows when we are seeking with all of our hearts
Hello brothers and sisters;
This has been a great "constructive" and fellowship discussion on Bible Problem. After reading each one of your posts and for future topics relating to the Bible translations, are we in agreement that there exists scribal errors and this is why revisions or new translations were required?
God bless you all and thank you again, netchaplain, for sharing this topic.
Just wanted to let you know Brother that most of the translations have these errors we are discussing. Basically only the NKJV helps with the problem that all the other modern translations have in their errors. It contains the entirety of the Word of God and most the modern translators have detracted hundreds of passages, and do not retain the entire Word.
one thing i do hear in kjv only is its the authorized hmmm
The reliability of the NKJV is an interesting topic that surfaces occasionally.
Just off the top is the fact that it is not a New King James Version, it has co-opted the venerable KJV name to try to fool people that it has a direct relationship, when it is a completely new translation.
There are a number of verses omitted, words and phrases reinterpreted and other deliberate changes to mislead. I could list some, or many, but this tactic never seems to please anyone and they are easily found if desired on google.
I have not seen one of these discussions over what translation ‘best represents’ the Word end in an actual conversion yet.
No single English translation will ever represent the original biblical languages perfectly. Not possible.
However for English speakers ( or perhaps readers
) seeking the closest relationship possible I recommend the New American Standard Bible, NASB, which is a literal translation from the original texts, it is an accurate rendering of the source texts and its very ‘readable’ by today’s readership.God bless us all and our favorite translations.
Isn't this because the word 'original' is misleading, since we do not possess the 'original' manuscripts.
I feel netchaplain stated correctly, "that most" of the translations have these errors we are discussing."
forgiven, I overlooked and remember the incredible support of the scholars, accessibility and at that time "new technology of printing capabilities" that aided the King James version in it's accuracy.
Only thing, we can't tell for sure what has been added, omitted, is scribal error etc., if we don't have the originals to compare. Or am I missing something?
Hey crossnote, you're onto something and this is a good question.
This is where the support of scholars of the KJV came in. They sifted through the manuscripts of good copies called "textus receptus" and corrupt copies (if I remember correctly,) the "Alexandrian texts."
Did some errors slip through the cracks? This would take more digging to explain and I'd like to answer more in detail. I'm happy to continue on Friday.
Unless you have a theory or some else can jump in?
God bless you, brother.
Hi Bob,
The way I understand it, (at least the NT manuscripts) is that there are two main bodies of found manuscripts; one claiming to have majority of found manuscripts (partial and complete), the other is the Critical Text comprising of two fairly whole, (Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus), which claim to be earlier (thus older) than the Majority Texts or Received Texts. But in either case, we don't have the original manuscripts only early copies and then, mainly fragments.
I'm sure there's a whole science behind evaluating the existing manuscripts but it seems to have brought the Church to an impasse (older but fewer..or later but more) on deciding which body of manuscripts (CT or MT) is truest to the originals.
Anyone else?
Last edited:
Shortly after, I found a decent article touching on the problem of not having the originals...
Although it is dealing with innerrancy, the principles are similar
This allegation is unfounded. First of all, it is not true that we do not possess the original text. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these manuscripts (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 11); the nearly 5,800 New Testament manuscripts we possess contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the original text with over 99 percent accuracy.
Also, there is a difference between the text and the truth of the text. While the exact text of the original can only be reconstructed with 99 percent or so accuracy, nevertheless, 100 percent of the truth comes through. For example, recall that if you received notification that “Y#U HAVE WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS,” you would have no problem understanding 100 percent of the message, even though the text is nearly 4 percent in error (1 letter out of 26).
To illustrate, were the original U.S. Constitution to be destroyed, we would not lose the constitutional authority for our country, even if all we had were copies with flaws in them. The original could be reconstructed with enough certainty to assure the continuance of our constitutional republic. The same is true of the Bible in our hands. Even though it is based on copies, they are accurate copies that convey to us 100 percent of all essential truths in the original.
In brief, the Bible in our hands is the infallible and inerrant Word of God insofar as it has been copied accurately. And it has been copied so accurately as to assure us that nothing in the essential message has been lost (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapters 22 and 26).
Although it is dealing with innerrancy, the principles are similar
Common Objections to Inerrancy
Many objections have been leveled against the doctrine of inerrancy; common objections to inerrancy are addressed here.
defendinginerrancy.com
The Objection That Inerrancy Is Based on Non-Existent Originals
Some object to inerrancy because it affirms that only the original text is inerrant (there being admitted errors in the copies), and the originals are not extant. Hence, all the doctrine of inerrancy provides is a non-existent authority; supposedly, this isn’t any different than having no Bible at all.This allegation is unfounded. First of all, it is not true that we do not possess the original text. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these manuscripts (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 11); the nearly 5,800 New Testament manuscripts we possess contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the original text with over 99 percent accuracy.
Also, there is a difference between the text and the truth of the text. While the exact text of the original can only be reconstructed with 99 percent or so accuracy, nevertheless, 100 percent of the truth comes through. For example, recall that if you received notification that “Y#U HAVE WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS,” you would have no problem understanding 100 percent of the message, even though the text is nearly 4 percent in error (1 letter out of 26).
To illustrate, were the original U.S. Constitution to be destroyed, we would not lose the constitutional authority for our country, even if all we had were copies with flaws in them. The original could be reconstructed with enough certainty to assure the continuance of our constitutional republic. The same is true of the Bible in our hands. Even though it is based on copies, they are accurate copies that convey to us 100 percent of all essential truths in the original.
In brief, the Bible in our hands is the infallible and inerrant Word of God insofar as it has been copied accurately. And it has been copied so accurately as to assure us that nothing in the essential message has been lost (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapters 22 and 26).
Perhaps we put to much emphasis on the original copies. It’s only natural that the originals are no longer with us and would wear out. But there were numerous faithful copies within the early church that flourished flourished throughout the Roman Empire.Shortly after, I found a decent article touching on the problem of not having the originals...
Although it is dealing with innerrancy, the principles are similar
Common Objections to Inerrancy
Many objections have been leveled against the doctrine of inerrancy; common objections to inerrancy are addressed here.defendinginerrancy.com
The Objection That Inerrancy Is Based on Non-Existent Originals
Some object to inerrancy because it affirms that only the original text is inerrant (there being admitted errors in the copies), and the originals are not extant. Hence, all the doctrine of inerrancy provides is a non-existent authority; supposedly, this isn’t any different than having no Bible at all.
This allegation is unfounded. First of all, it is not true that we do not possess the original text. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these manuscripts (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 11); the nearly 5,800 New Testament manuscripts we possess contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the original text with over 99 percent accuracy.
Also, there is a difference between the text and the truth of the text. While the exact text of the original can only be reconstructed with 99 percent or so accuracy, nevertheless, 100 percent of the truth comes through. For example, recall that if you received notification that “Y#U HAVE WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS,” you would have no problem understanding 100 percent of the message, even though the text is nearly 4 percent in error (1 letter out of 26).
To illustrate, were the original U.S. Constitution to be destroyed, we would not lose the constitutional authority for our country, even if all we had were copies with flaws in them. The original could be reconstructed with enough certainty to assure the continuance of our constitutional republic. The same is true of the Bible in our hands. Even though it is based on copies, they are accurate copies that convey to us 100 percent of all essential truths in the original.
In brief, the Bible in our hands is the infallible and inerrant Word of God insofar as it has been copied accurately. And it has been copied so accurately as to assure us that nothing in the essential message has been lost (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapters 22 and 26).
So what are we to evaluate from those who say that we can never fully know the word of God because we not have the originals. How long before they are saying how can we believe the word of God at all. How long before they are saying anything goes ? The reality is this, that there has always been a faithful stream of scripture that has come down to us from generation to generation. We need only to look upon the church fathers many volumes of scripture quotations in those 30 or 40 volumes to account for 95 percent of the bible maybe more. . And that’s without the thousands of papyrus pieces, manuscripts and ancient bibles. So I guess we have a choice . Do we go with the ney sayers who demand the impossible with the original manuscripts and that we can never truly know the word of God without them ? . Or do we go in confidence and faith that the God is able to protect and faithfully preserve his word.
Last edited:
I took care of this for you. Anytime you need help please feel free to pm a moderator.
God bless.
That is because it was the only Bible translation that was commissioned to produce by a King. The best term is Traditional text because it is the one that has been most widely used for 500 years. Below is an example of all the modern translations (except NKJV retains the entire Word) that omit Scripture.
I would rather trust a translation with many manuscript evidence (about 3,000 manuscripts, regardless the age) than only 2 or three. The antiquity of the copies are the reason why they are so venerated. They are only good as antiques for the archeologist; and the footnotes expressing the reason why they omit its not a good enough reason for taking away Scripture.
Act 8:37
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [entirely omitted].
1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.
Act 28:29 Entirely omitted.
Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.
I wanted to present 4 entirely omitted passages, and 3 partially omitted passages.
Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.
Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.
Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."
There are two passage needed to check to determine if the translation is from the detracted text or the Traditional Text: 2Sam 21:19 omits the phrase "the brother of" rendering a reading that says "Elhanan slew Goliath." the other passage is 1JN 5:7 omits the primary Trinity passage. If these are the translation readings they are from the detracted text and contain hundreds of omitted Scriptures.
I do not see these problems in the NKJV. It would help if you could provide enough evidence of what you speak. Regardless of how the discussions goes about Bible translations, I think one can still learn much from those truly educated in the field of Textual Criticism. I have posted some omissions as an example of hundreds of omissions in all the modern translations in post #66.
Last edited: