ok, this is part of the article I was reading:
"Most modern English Bible translations are based on bogus versions of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, no English translation of the Bible has been made using the Byzantine text-type manuscripts of the New Testament since the King James Version (KJV) in 1611. The others are all based on the eclectic Greek New Testament manuscripts and various Hebrew Old Testament texts. The bottom line is that manuscripts which the Orthodox Church did not use or copy have been elevated above those texts which the Church has preserved by modern and contemporary Scripture scholars and translators. Sadly, but perhaps significantly indicative, is the fact that the scholars who put together those eclectic critical texts decisively reject the Byzantine (that is to say, Orthodox) text-type, claiming that the Byzantine text was corrupted by Orthodox copyists eager to conform the text of Scripture to Orthodox theology as it developed over the first several centuries of the Church’s life…
Modern translations obscure the Divinity of Christ. In what can only be a return to the ancient heresy of Arius, even the much touted 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation of Scripture tends to minimize Christ’s divine nature. Forty years ago the King James translation was widely impugned for being based on the Greek Byzantine texts which were called corrupt — an amazing accusation considering the pedigree of the eclectic critical texts. In the liberal theological milieu of that time, many Protestant theologians denied not only the virgin birth, but also the divinity of Christ and His resurrection. One curious feature of the RSV translation is its apparent mixture of old and new English; the older traditional second person singular pronoun, thou/thee/thy, is intermixed with the nondescript modern ye/you/you. While at first glance this seems chaotic, it actually serves as a hidden code. The traditional thou usage is employed when God is addressed, but you whenever anyone else is addressed…The clearly Protestant bias against the Theotokos, and her Orthodox definition as critical to preserving the divinity of Christ is also very evident in the RSV. Consider Matthew 1:25 (KJV): (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus. But in the RSV: (Joseph) knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. From the Byzantine, Orthodox, texts, the KJV tells us that Mary brought forth not a son, but her firstborn — precluding her having had previous children. Moreover, He is clearly her son; but not Joseph’s. Note how the RSV is distinguished from the KJV in Luke 2:33; after Simeon returned Jesus to His mother, the narrative tells us (KJV): Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. But the RSV: And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. The RSV infers that Joseph is Jesus’ father, presumably his biological father — a clear refutation of the dogma of virgin birth…The Byzantine text is clearly reflected in the KJV; the eclectic text by the RSV…There are many more examples, but let us simply note one more, I Corinthians 15:47, which needs no further comment. KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven. But the RSV: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
The Corruption of Paraphrased Bibles. There is no need in this article to provide such critical analysis of the various other translations which followed the RSV (e.g, NIV, NAB); all are even more flawed"
hypno
“…What Translation Should I Use?The answer is this: the King James Version (KJV) is the most reliable and faithful English translation. Unfortunately, it is written in an archaic, 500 year old style of English. Although not as incomprehensible as the 2000 year old Greek of the New Testament and Liturgy is to modern Greek speakers, it is still awkward and difficult for many to understand…”
Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17.
read the entire article article here:
www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html
now I realize this article is written from an Orthodox perspective, but seems to bring up some interesting points, and as I have recently begun to attended D.L. at an eastern catholic parish, I had recently sought out a New Testament of the same translation as they use (the RSV) so that I could bring my little copy to read as the scriptures are chanted so I won’t miss anything, at least until I get used to the chanting/readings (so far I find it depends on who’s chanting
) and the calender I picked up provides daily reading references, so I figured I’d incorporate the daily readings (which are different readings than the RC ones) with my morning prayers at my little altar/icon “corner”…so I stumbled upon this article, and thought I’d submit the issue to you all for your opinions… (Mr. Woodstock? What do think of these arguments?)
anyway, thanks in advance for all your opinions and (name removed by moderator)ut!
