The first part of this article is from sources that I researched
from. The second part is results of my study of the Bible with my comments.
The bulk of New Testament manuscripts were copied century after
century from earlier ones as they wore out. Older copies did not survive
because these texts were used until worn out. This text, the so‑called
"Received Text" or "Byzantine Text" (also termed
"Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text) was used in the King
James Version. Nearly 4,000 manuscripts of this Byzantine or Official Text
agree almost perfectly with each other, and are a far better standard to go by
than corrupt copies no matter how early they were made. Located primarily at
Mt. Athos in Greece, copies of the Official Greek Text give us a very reliable
record of the New Testament scriptures.
"What then is the evidence these Bible‑alterers offer to
persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their
versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also
admittedly carelessly executed. The Sinaiticus was so poorly executed that
seven different hands of 'textual critics' can be discerned as they tried to
impose their views on the Bible . . . it was discarded, found in a wastebasket
fourteen centuries after it was executed. The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a
shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt
that no one would use it . . . . they have systematically removed Luke's
witness to the ascension of Christ‑‑and of course they have done away entirely
with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses
do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus .
. . .
The King James translators did a marvelous job with the
materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV
errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the
RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!
************
In this example it showed me that the Translators were putting
words in the mouth of Jesus, adding a word to this passage that absolutely was
not necessary, then making it in red, in a red lettered bible as though Jesus
spoke it that way.
Both the 29th and 30th verses of this chapter in Romans is
speaking of Jesus Christ and should not be used to build a case for the
predestination of anyone else, which has been the case with some teachers.
Paul was commissioned by the Lord to be His Apostle to the
Gentiles, and so Paul calls himself the master builder, who has laid the
foundation. Paul goes on to say that any man or preacher) that attempts to
build upon the foundation that he has laid should be very careful because his
work will be tested by fire. Paul says that if another man's (or preacher’s)
work abides, that is if it endures the test by fire, the man (or preacher)
shall receive a reward. Then Paul says in the fifteenth verse, if any man's (or
preacher’s) work is burned, or does not survive the test by fire, the man (preacher) shall suffer a loss.
I would just like to insert an editorial comment here, to give
my understanding about what these scriptures are saying, and how I see them
applying to the teaching of God's Word from the time of Paul, unto this present
day.
So there were two translators, one working on Matthew and the
other working on John making the scripture say two different things.
I will not list all of the examples, just one to demonstrate. I
would caution the reader to make a careful study of this book before adopting
the translation as completely accurate.
Now many have explained the difference by saying that the Greek
word that was translated into "voice" also means "sound"
or "noise". Thus in chapter nine, it should have been
translated as "sound", meaning that the men did hear a sound
of some sort; and in verse twenty two the translation to "voice"
would have been correct, meaning they had heard a sound but did not recognize
it as the voice of the Lord.
The word “hate”
should not have been used here. The Greek word “miseo” should have been
translated “to love less”. Jesus was
telling them that they should love Him more than their father, mother etc. Or
to put it another way, they should love their father and mother less than they love Him.
************
About the AKJV of the
Bible
I use the King James Version as my main study Bible. Why the
King James? Because all the major Bible aides are based on the KJV. I have
documented KJV translation errors and have marked them in my Bible. Newer
versions are often not as faithful to the original text.
What's Wrong With Modern Translations?
The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by the Jews in
what is known as the Masoretic Text. Because of this, there are a very few
translation problems with the Old Testament.
However, most modern translations, from the Revised Standard
Version (RSV) to the New International Version (NIV), use as their source for
the New Testament a Greek Text based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus of the fourth century. This text, publicized by Westcott and Hort,
is also known as the Alexandrian Text. It originated in Egypt and has been
massaged by "higher critics" down through the ages. These
manuscripts, used in the RSV, represent less than 5% of known Greek Biblical
manuscripts, but are supposedly more authentic because they are
"old."
Proof the Received Text is Correct
Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the
Interlinear Greek‑English New Testament, states in his preface:
"The market‑place is being glutted with new books which are
being represented as versions of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word
of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them . . . .
they all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they
add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully
satisfying atonement. This is due to their decision to depend upon an
Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God's words which has
been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us
as the Received Text. These new
versions [such as the NIV, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked
by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words,
phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And
these are words attested to as God's words by overwhelming evidence contained
in all the Greek manuscripts . . . .
" . . . it has been written, 'For I say to you, Until the
heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass away one iota or one
point from the Law, until all things come to pass.'‑ ‑Matthew 5:18 [Green's
paraphrased] . . . .
" . . . Origen, an early textual critic . . . said, that
'the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are
written' . . . . given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter
the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean....Justin
Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of
others practiced their 'textual science' by operating on manuscripts, or by
writing their own 'versions' . . . .
" . . . Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and
lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them
witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green's Interlinear and the
King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing
the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts
were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit
the Received Text because they say it is not ancient. But now that manuscript
portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of
the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as 'late
readings' by nearly unanimous consent of the 'textual scientists' are appearing
in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and
spurious have been found in these early‑date manuscripts . . . . Yet strangely,
in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not
reported to the class."
I use the King James Version exclusively as my main study Bible,
only using other translations to aid study of certain passages, to get another
perspective. The fact that modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and
Vatican corruptions of the New Testament should make us avoid them as a
"main Bible."
Why Are There Errors in the King James Version?
You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant
fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for
the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the
KJV was published in 1611 A.D.
For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly
language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a
corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful
Roman Catholic Church.
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of
the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they
sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were
never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in
the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek.
Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence
this book has many errors in the KJV.
The following is a study and comments by Ron Cox
Is the Bible the
inerrant Word of God?
Did God oversee the
writing and subsequent translations of the Bible
To insure the
accurateness of the final published work?
For as long as I can remember there has been debate over is the
Bible the “Word of God” or does the Bible only contain the “Word of God”. Many
men have said: “if we come across something in the Bible that appears to be an
error or a contradiction, it is only because we fail to understand the meaning.
Well that is simply an excuse that man uses because he didn’t take the time to
study those scriptures in their original languages in order to understand the
meaning.
Let’s examine some
passages in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.
************
In Genesis chapter one, verse
sixteen; it speaks of God creating two great lights in the Heavens, one to rule
the Day, and the other to rule the Night. It also says that He created the
Stars.
Gen 1:16 “And God made two great
lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night: he made the stars also.”
Some have always interpreted
this to mean that God created the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, all during the
fourth day of creation. But, the Bible says that two great lights were created at this time and not three great lights. The Hebrew word, “maowr”,
which was translated to the word lights in English, also means a luminous
body, which is one that emits light. The
Moon does not emit light; it only reflects the light that is emitted by the
Sun. So the two great lights that the Bible says God created during the fourth
day of creation, had to be the Sun and the Stars, the Sun to rule the day, and
the Stars to rule the night.
On the surface, it appears that
three things were created here. They were, the "greater light"
which was the Sun, the "lesser light", which was the Moon, and
"the Stars". Even though it appears that is what this verse is
saying, I was always bothered by one thing. The Moon is not a light, but is
only an object that reflects the light being emitted from the Sun.
In the sixteenth verse of the
first chapter of the book of Genesis, three words were added that gave the
verse a meaning which the original scriptures did not intend to say. Those
three words were, "he", "made", & "also",
which appear in the last part of the verse. See the underlined words in the
verse below.
Gen 1:16 “And God made two great
lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night: he made the stars also.”
If you read this verse without
those three added words being present, there should be no doubt that only the
Sun and the Stars were created at this time, and not the Moon. It would read as
follows.
(Gen 1:16 “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, the stars.”)
So the original scriptures said
that God made two great lights on this day of creation. The greater light to
rule the day, which was the Sun; and a lesser light to rule the night, which as
it says, was the Stars. The Bible says absolutely nothing about the Moon being
created at this time.
This following example was the one that started me off on years
of intense Bible study to enable me to fully understand why some apparent
errors or apparent contradictions were in the scriptures.
In Luke chapter seventeen verse thirty four, it states that
during the rapture of believers, there will be two men in a bed, one will be
taken and one will be left.
Luke 17:34 "I tell you, in
that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one
shall be taken, and the other shall be left."
According to the original writings, the word “men” was not spoken by Jesus, but was
added by the Translators of the Bible. The addition of the word men
in this case tended to reflect that Jesus was condoning two men being in one
bed and could be taken by some people as homosexual behavior.
This verse of scripture should have been written as follows, without the added word and the Word of the Lord would have been more accurately quoted.
This verse of scripture should have been written as follows, without the added word and the Word of the Lord would have been more accurately quoted.
(Luke 17:34 "I
tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed; the one shall be taken,
and the other shall be left.")
************
In Mark chapter thirteen verse twenty two, the translators added
two words which were not a part of the original writings and could lead the
reader to take a position of faith that does not exist.
Mark 13:22 "For false Christs
and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it
were possible, even the elect."
The addition of the words “it
were” in this verse could give the indication to the reader that it is not
possible for “the elect” to be deceived. The only way for the elect to not be
deceived is if God has predestinated those elect persons to receive eternal
life. Nowhere in the scripture does it state that God predestinated any certain
person to receive eternal life. So even the “elect” need to always be on guard
and work out their faith with fear and trembling.
************
In Romans chapter eight verse thirty, it states that those who
God predestinated, He called, and whom He called, He justified and whom He
justified them He also glorified.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them
he also glorified.
When I read Romans 8:30 I get the impression that God has
glorified many persons because of the word “them” being used. The Bible only speaks of two being
glorified, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. John 7:39 speaks of the
Holy Spirit not being given as yet because Jesus had not been glorified. John
12:16 and Acts 3:13 states that Jesus was glorified after His death,
resurrection and ascension into Heaven. So according to the scriptures it
was Jesus Christ who was glorified, given honor to and exalted into Heaven.
Consequently this has to be Jesus spoken of in Romans 8:30.
With this understanding, the word "them" in the scripture must
be wrong, another word should have been used by the Translators when they
changed the Greek into English. When I looked up the word "them"
in the concordance, I found that the Greek word "autos" had
been translated into "them". The Greek word autos could
have just as well been translated into many other English words, including "he",
"him", or "this man". So I concluded that a more
accurate translation of the Greek word "autos" in this
scripture should have been to the English word "him". Then
this scripture would have referred to Jesus as it should have and read as
follows:
(Romans 8:30 "Moreover whom
he did predestinate, him he also called: and whom he called, him
he also justified: and whom he justified, him he also glorified.")
So then it was Jesus who was predestinated, who was called,
who was justified, who was glorified. In case you are not yet
convinced, let's look at the scripture right before this one, Romans 8:29.
Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren."
First notice that the words to be have been added to this
passage seeming that someone was predestinated to be conformed to the image of
God's Son, Jesus Christ. This is a little misleading. But if we look at the
last part of the verse where it says that "he might be the firstborn
among many brethren", we know that it is referring to Jesus Christ who
was the firstborn of God's Sons. For "He" whom he did foreknow, or
know beforehand, was Jesus who was with God in the beginning, before the
foundation of the Earth. Both of these verses are speaking of Jesus and no-one
else.
This 29th verse should
read as follows:
(Romans 8:29 "For
whom God did foreknow, he also did predestinate conformed to the image of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.")
************
In First Corinthians Chapter 3 verses ten thru fifteen, Paul
speaks of his laying the foundation of his ministry and other men building upon
it. Paul says:
1 Cor 10-15 According to the grace of God which is given
unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another
builds thereon. But let every man take heed how he builds thereupon. For no
other foundation can any man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now
if any man builds upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood,
hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall
declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every
man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abides which he has built
thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he
shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
This is where it looked a little strange to me, so I took a closer look at the
word selection of the Translators. To start with, I want to make a point that
the term "suffer a loss" also means to be cast away. This
would say to me that if the man’s (preacher’s) work did not survive the test,
the man would be cast away, or even suffer the loss of his reward, maybe even
his life. But then the fifteenth verse went on to say that the man himself
would be saved. Now this certainly didn't look right. If the mans work
did not survive, why should he?
First of all I found that the Translators added two words that were not in the
original scripture, the words "but he". Then they translated
the next Greek word to the English word "himself", when it
would have been more accurate to use the word "they" or "the
other persons".
This would make the
fifteenth verse read as follows:
(1 Cor 3:15 (Revised)
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, or be cast away: but
the other persons shall be saved; yet so as by fire.)
Since the time of Paul, man has been inspired to undertake the mission of
preaching the Gospel of our Lord, and teaching the people about what God's Word
is saying. But unfortunately all of these men have not been sent by the Lord to
do these works. Not saying that all of these men were not honorable, and what
they have undertaken to do was not out of love and desire to please God,
because in most cases, it probably was. But unless a man has been called
by God to do a certain work, prepared by God to
accomplish this work, and sent by God to perform this work, the
results of his labors will not always be gold, silver, and precious stones,
some of the fruits of his labors will be wood, hay, and stubble.
************
Acts Chapter twelve verse four reads as follows:
Acts 12:4 And when he had
apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four
quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
The word “Easter” was
translated from the Greek word Apascha, which refers to passover throughout the New Testament.
The word pascha is translated passover 28 times throughout the NT, but only once in Acts is it translated
Easter.
The translator of the book of Acts decided that in this verse
passover would not have been the correct translation, so he used the word
Easter, which was the celebration of the pagan feast of Ishtar. Ishtar was a
babylonian goddess of fertility, an openly promiscuous woman.
This was an abomination for a translator to introduce into
scripture a pagan holiday and he should never have been appointed to handle the
sacred scriptures.
************
In Matthew 21:2 Jesus said: Go into the village over against you,
and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and
bring them unto me.
Saying you will find an Ass and a colt, loose them,
and bring them to me.
The added words indicate two animals, when in effect there was
only one, an ass’s colt, a young ass. The words and, and the words them
which were added by the translators and causes the misunderstanding. John
12:14-15 makes this clear.
John 12:14-15 And Jesus, when he
had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of
Sion: behold, your King comes, sitting on an ass's colt.
************
Giving our attention to the book of John’s Gospel, the
translator took such tremendous liberties with the addition of words that were
not in the original writings, that his credibility could be called in question.
This translator would take just a few of the written Greek words that by doing
just a word for word translation would provide no intelligent understanding at
all, so it appears that he just added words to make it say whatever he thought it should.
John 17:21 is shown for one example. Only the bold type, or
underlined words were translated word for word from the Greek, the other words
in italics have been added. Though this verse in the Bible has all of the words
in “red” indicating that Jesus spoke them, only the actual translated words are
listed in red or bold type or underlined by me.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me.
************
There has for a long time been a controversy about Paul's two
accounts of what occurred during the time that Jesus appeared to him on the
Damascus road. On one occasion in the ninth chapter of Acts, the scripture
states that Paul had said: "the men who were with him heard the
voice of the Lord" as He spoke to Paul. During the second accounting,
which appears in the twenty second chapter of Acts, the scripture states that
Paul had said: "the men with him didn't hear the voice"
of the Lord.
The two scriptures are
quoted as follows:
Acts 9:7 And the men which
journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing
a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with
me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.
Now you
can accept that explanation if you desire to, but I can see no
difference in the two verses, that one should have been translated "noise
or sound" and the other translated "voice".
Again, there is no indication that in both verses the Greek word should have
been translated to anything other than the English word "voice".
The translation error occurs in verse 9 because of the added
words “but” and “not” by the translator.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with
me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but
they heard not the voice
of him that spoke to me.
With the elimination of the added word “not” and the word “and”
used in place of the added word “but”, the verse would read as follows and
agree with Acts 9:7.
(And they that were with me saw
indeed the light, and were afraid; and they heard the voice of him that spoke
to me.)
Again we have two different verses of scripture translated to
say two different things.
************
Luke 14:26 wording goes against God’s principle of honoring your
father and mother as a result of a poor translation.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
he cannot be my disciple.
Comparing Luke 14:26 with Matthew 10:37 makes it clear.
Matt 10:37 He that loves father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me.
Again two verses saying two different things because of poor
translations.
************
In First John Chapter two verse twenty three a string of words
were added by the translators which were not a part of the original Greek
scriptures.
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denies the
Son, the same has not the Father: (but)
he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
The words shown in blue italics, although could be viewed as
appropriate, were nevertheless improperly added by the translators in this
verse.
Don’t let what I have pointed out shatter your faith in the
Bible in general or the Authorized King James Version in particular. The
Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version of the
translation of the Holy scriptures that we have, because of the word for word
translation that was made. Just keep in mind that God does not micromanage
man’s lives in such a manner that man cannot make mistakes. God has given us
the Holy Spirit indwelling in our lives to testify what is the truth and has
ordained teachers in the Church to bring us all into the unity of the faith.
The
Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. Since man has introduced his
own words into the scriptures, the truth is that the Bible contains the Word of God.
If your
Bible teacher makes excuses for these errors, saying it’s your misunderstanding
at fault, seek out another teacher who God proves has been sent by Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment