Martin Luther "edited" The Word of God...

[2ndGen]

Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans

The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:

…Martin Luther would once again emphasize…that we are “justified by faith alone”, apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein (“alone”) in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther’s move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority–a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By “papists” he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.

A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.

He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,

…because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word ‘only’ before the term ‘wrath’ to Romans 4:15 (O’Hare, p. 201).

This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.

Two Other Mistranslations

Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures (ibid, p. 200).

Matthew 3:2 states,

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”.

Martin Luther, in his German translation, changed the word ‘repent’ to ‘mend’ or ‘do better’ (ibid, p. 201), presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God’s laws through repentance.

Martin Luther, for example, taught,

Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).

The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states,

“And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds…”

Yet Martin Luther rendered it, “they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles” (O’Hare, p. 201).

There are several possible reasons why Martin Luther intentionally mistranslated Acts 19:18, but the point on this article is to show that he did.

cogwriter.com/luther.htm

 

[2ndGen]

Now, with these verifyable facts being revealed to us, can any true Christian trust any of his teachings if he was willing to literally change The Word of God?

 

[bengal_fan]

i see some one knows how to cut and paste.

have you bothered to read from any knowledgeable source as to why he added the word? german, greek, and english are all very different languages and to translate from one language to another is difficult to say the least.

but again, there are already many threads that have already addressed this issue. do a search and you can read the answers.

unless you just want a fight.

 

[SyCarl]

Now, with these verifyable facts being revealed to us, can any true Christian trust any of his teachings if he was willing to literally change The Word of God?

This has been dealt with in previous threads. Cherry picking and taking statements out of context is not right. We could just as easily say that the Catholic Church is founded on Satan because Jesus called Peter Satan. It could also be said that the Catholic Church was founded by someone who didn’t even know Jesus. After all Peter said this three time in one evening. These have the proof of Scripture. We know that such would be taking things out of context. The same applies with quotes from Luther.

However, Protestants do not claim infallibility for our leaders. Are you saying that Popes have never said or written things that were wrong?

 

[nsper7]

It should be noted that, regardless of whether Luther’s translations of Scripture are truthfully based on the original intent of the Scriptural text, most recognized and prolifically used English versions do not use his translations.

Romans 3:28:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (KJV)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (NKJV)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (NASB)

For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. (RSV)

Romans 4:15:

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. (KJV)

because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. (NKJV)

for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. (NASB)

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. (RSV)

Matthew 3:2:

And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV)

and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (NKJV)

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (NASB)

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (RSV)

Acts 9:18:

And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. (KJV)

And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds. (NKJV)

Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices. (NASB)

Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. (RSV)

((All bible verses are taken from www.blueletterbible.org, an excellent resource site))

 

[swariffin]

However, Protestants do not claim infallibility for our leaders. Are you saying that Popes have never said or written things that were wrong?

Dear SyCarl,

In term of church teachings, No. the Pope is infallible. In term of other, science for example, may be. In term of general issue such as football (may be), Pope Benedict 16 perhaps is no better than me. At least he betrayed his native country in the last world soccer game, when Italy beat German.

 

[2ndGen]

i see some one knows how to cut and paste.

have you bothered to read from any knowledgeable source as to why he added the word? german, greek, and english are all very different languages and to translate from one language to another is difficult to say the least.

but again, there are already many threads that have already addressed this issue. do a search and you can read the answers.

unless you just want a fight.

There is no excuse:

Revelations 22:
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[2ndGen]

This has been dealt with in previous threads. Cherry picking and taking statements out of context is not right. We could just as easily say that the Catholic Church is founded on Satan because Jesus called Peter Satan. It could also be said that the Catholic Church was founded by someone who didn’t even know Jesus. After all Peter said this three time in one evening. These have the proof of Scripture. We know that such would be taking things out of context. The same applies with quotes from Luther.

However, Protestants do not claim infallibility for our leaders. Are you saying that Popes have never said or written things that were wrong?

I’m sure you’d just love to “not” talk about Martin Luther’s editing The Holy Bible to change the meaning, but that’s the topic.

You dont’ “have to” respond.

If you want to talk about Saint Peter, God’s chosen to reveal The Messiahship of Jesus Christ, I’ll be happy to defend him.

But start another thread.

Let’s stick to the topic here.

OK?

It’s very easy for you to “not” be here…Just click on the “X” at the top right side of your screen and you’ll not have to be engaged in this discussion.

And now…back to Martin Luther changing Scripture to suit the needs of “his” new religion…

 

[bengal_fan]

There is no excuse:

Revelations 22:
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

well, good thing luther did it with the book of romans and not revelation since that is where you are quoting from.

i didn’t give an excuse, i gave the scholarly reason for differences when translating from one language to another. again, i’d suggest actually studying rather than just cutting and pasting from sites that have a specific bias.

 

[2ndGen]

It should be noted that, regardless of whether Luther’s translations of Scripture are truthfully based on the original intent of the Scriptural text, most recognized and prolifically used English versions do not use his translations.

Romans 3:28:

Romans 4:15:

Matthew 3:2:

Acts 9:18:

((All bible verses are taken from www.blueletterbible.org, an excellent resource site))

Well stated.

The fact is that Martin Luther based Doctrine on his “edited” verse.

That has nothing to do with translations or with language differences…He outrightly and unapologetically and arrogantly changed the text AND the meaning of the scripture to create a “new” doctrine when he created “his” own church.

But your points are definately an excellent reference for those who follow Martin Luther’s Doctrine(s).

 

[2ndGen]

well, good thing luther did it with the book of romans and not revelation since that is where you are quoting from.

i didn’t give an excuse, i gave the scholarly reason for differences when translating from one language to another. again, i’d suggest actually studying rather than just cutting and pasting from sites that have a specific bias.

I argued that same point once to a Protestant (that John was speaking of The Book of Revelations when he wrote that). Then he said to me “How do you know that God didn’t reveal to John that his book would be part of a collection of books that would comprise The Holy Bible?” I had to agree.

Now, if you state that “not” changing words to God’s Word is only to be adhered to the Book of Revelations, then you must believe that the rest of The Holy Bible is “editable”.

This explains alot. Cafeteria Christianity. Pick and choose what you want to believe and leave the rest behind.

Fact is, an intelligent Christian would automatically know that it’s wrong to add or to take away from The Word of God.

And as for the difference in language?

Language has nothing to do with literal translation.

Maybe “you” should study before you pass judgement.

The first German Bible was written about 1200 years “before” Martin Luther was born.

The 2nd German Bible was The Mentel (1466 AD).

It also never stated that we were saved by “faith alone”.

 

[2ndGen]

However, Protestants do not claim infallibility for our leaders. Are you saying that Popes have never said or written things that were wrong?

Name “one” doctrine that any Pope has taught incorrectly?

 

[emarc]

Now, with these verifyable facts being revealed to us, can any true Christian trust any of his teachings if he was willing to literally change The Word of God?

Hello 2nd Gen, I’ll quote verbatim from the book “Where we got the Bible” by Rev. Henry G. Graham and judge for yourself. [Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting - that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabee, together with seven chapters of the book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called "the Song of the Three Children ‘Daniel 3:24-90, Douai version’. These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture - an ‘Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with not character of the Gospel in it’. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonored the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e. his Gospel). The presumptous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1200 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and maybe read in his biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Wetcott’s The Bible in the Church.] pp 44-45. We have many evidence of Luther’s dis-respect for the Word of God even included in his own writings. Our Protestant brothers who read this piece are best advised to listen and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance leading them to the truth. Life is short but eternity is forever.
God bless.
emarc

 

[2ndGen]

Hello 2nd Gen, I’ll quote verbatim from the book “Where we got the Bible” by Rev. Henry G. Graham and judge for yourself. [Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting - that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabee, together with seven chapters of the book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called "the Song of the Three Children ‘Daniel 3:24-90, Douai version’. These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture - an ‘Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with not character of the Gospel in it’. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonored the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e. his Gospel). The presumptous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1200 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and maybe read in his biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Wetcott’s The Bible in the Church.] pp 44-45. We have many evidence of Luther’s dis-respect for the Word of God even included in his own writings. Our Protestant brothers who read this piece are best advised to listen and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance leading them to the truth. Life is short but eternity is forever.
God bless.
emarc

One of my unanswered posts…Does anybody have any evidence that a bible existed “before” the 16 century with only 66(6) books?

 

[Alexius]

Dear SyCarl,

In term of church teachings, No. the Pope is infallible. In term of other, science for example, may be. In term of general issue such as football (may be), Pope Benedict 16 perhaps is no better than me. At least he betrayed his native country in the last world soccer game, when Italy beat German.

No, not a football game, and most likely not science either. One of the stipulations is that the declaration is on faith and morals. Second, even if the Pope said, “Believe in the German soccer team for your salvation,” the doctrine must be interpretive, not originative.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[swariffin]

Dear Alexius,

You are correct brother. I do believe in Pope’s infallibility in term of church teaching, i.e when the Pope issued the encyclic, for instance. I am in agreement with you. I was just kidding when I made my posting, because I thought the tense of the member posting here in this thread were rising.

 

[Alexius]

Dear Alexius,

You are correct brother. I do believe in Pope’s infallibility in term of church teaching, i.e when the Pope issued the encyclic, for instance. I am in agreement with you. I was just kidding when I made my posting, because I thought the tense of the member posting here in this thread were rising.

I understand now. Many don’t realize there are restrictions on what he can declare infallibly…sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn’t really questioning your beliefs, just stating this because I saw the statement. As you were…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[swariffin]

Dear Alexius,

No problem at all, brother. No need to be sorry either. Happy New Year.

 

[Alexius]

Dear Alexius,

No problem at all, brother. No need to be sorry either. Happy New Year.

Same to you!

 

[bengal_fan]

I argued that same point once to a Protestant (that John was speaking of The Book of Revelations when he wrote that). Then he said to me “How do you know that God didn’t reveal to John that his book would be part of a collection of books that would comprise The Holy Bible?” I had to agree.

no you didn’t have to agree since that is not at all what the verse means. try reading a bit more and you’ll see that the admonition was not to add or take away anything from the prophecy in the book. it has nothing to do with any other book of the bible. if it did, the catholic church would be in error for having added any books (by “adding” i mean the NT) to scripture.

Now, if you state that “not” changing words to God’s Word is only to be adhered to the Book of Revelations, then you must believe that the rest of The Holy Bible is “editable”.

again with the bad logic and jumping to conclusions. it never says anything about not “changing God’s word” in the verses you quoted. you added that interpretation to them. well then… you must think it’s okay to add things to the bible. see how easy that was to twist your words. you are doing the same thing with luther’s. i am no german scholar but i have read numerous ones who have all said that luther’s addition was not far off base considering his interpretation of the verses (which every translator… yes, even jerome… and yes, i have read the vulgate in the latin and in the greek and there are slight differences). i do not agree with his addition but you are completely twisting things and just cutting and pasting.

This explains alot. Cafeteria Christianity. Pick and choose what you want to believe and leave the rest behind.

yeah, nice try. i guess the orthodox do that too. and all of the rest of Christianity. oh, and any catholic that doesn’t think the same way you do as well. give me a break.

Fact is, an intelligent Christian would automatically know that it’s wrong to add or to take away from The Word of God.

which he did not do. he added an interpretation of the original text into his translation. he did not add a greek word into the scriptures and say paul wrote it. he added a german word to reflect the (what he believed) intention of paul in the original language.

And as for the difference in language?

Language has nothing to do with literal translation.

obviously you are not a translator.

Maybe “you” should study before you pass judgement.

hmmm, maybe i should. oh wait… i have and continue to do so. i only judge a tree by it’s fruit and considering your pitiful argument, i assumed you hadn’t studied much on your own. just glanced at a few biased websites by the look of it.

The first German Bible was written about 1200 years “before” Martin Luther was born.

The 2nd German Bible was The Mentel (1466 AD).

It also never stated that we were saved by “faith alone”.

because those translators did not either: arrive at the same interpretation as luther or deem it necessary to include the german word for alone as they thought the audience could gather the meaning from the passage without the word.

every translation adds interpretations… it’s the nature of the beast. that is why the bible can only be considered inerrant in it’s original languages.