Who/What Determines the Authenticity of a Bible Version?

[Old_Scholar]

You had implied that the manuscripts used by the KJV translators in 1607 were the “best” ever. I pointed that the single most significant find in Scripture studies EVER was unknown before the mid-19th Century.

Since then many manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts have been recovered. The textual variations have been compared and assessed.

The manuscript recoveries have made it clear, for example, that the Johannine comma was not part of the original text.

Quoting to me the dating of Codex Alpha at 340 does nothing to support your assertion.

Actually I said the KJV translators used the best possible sources for their translation.

Does the Comma Johanneum lead you to the belief that this primary passage to define the “Trinity” may in fact, deny the Trinity because of its late insertion?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Glad you brought us back to the topic of “authenticity” of a Bible version. Perhaps the question might been better posed regarding a “translation” rather than a 'version." KJV qualifies as a translation because the translators really were attempting to do justice to the text. Before the AV, people were working off of the Vulgate or the Septuagint. The AV boasted of being translated “out of the original languages.”

But as for the Authenticity of a Bible Version," the best place to start for determining THAT today, in modern times, would be to measure a version by its fidelity to the original texts, and by “original” texts, one would mean the consensus of the most ancient manuscripts. This would be apart from any individual Church authorization. Authorization is different from authenticity.

“Versions” tend to be aimed at audiences. “Good News” tries to reach people with no more than a fourth grade reading ability. RSV aims for fidelity to the original languages. NAB goes for fidelity and oral read-ability. NIV is a dynamic equivalence effort that sacrifices textual fidelity to ?? comprehensibility.

I don’t disagree with you on that. But that’s why I personally believe the KJV is the best translation available to us. It isn’t altered toward any particular belief system but was done in order to be as truthful as it could according to the sources.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Fornication: Specifically, sex between two unmarried persons.

Adultery: Extramarital sex. These are the Biblical definitions.

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

You only gave part of the definition. What you left out completes the sentence: "specifically: Sex between two unmarried persons, or two persons not married to each other."

No matter where you look, fornication that involves a married person is adultery…

 

[sambos671]

I don’t disagree with you on that. But that’s why I personally believe the KJV is the best translation available to us. It isn’t altered toward any particular belief system but was done in order to be as truthful as it could according to the sources.

That is a nice belief. However, didn’t you read my last post? How do you substantiate your claim over the other translations? The NIV would make similar claims and have as evidence use of the qumran finds which are closer to the originals than the KJB could even dream about. Do you know how it was put together?

 

[sambos671]

I don’t disagree with you on that. But that’s why I personally believe the KJV is the best translation available to us. It isn’t altered toward any particular belief system but was done in order to be as truthful as it could according to the sources.

That is a nice belief. However, didn’t you read my last post? How do you substantiate your claim over the other translations? The NIV would make similar claims and have as evidence use of the qumran finds which are closer to the originals than the KJB could even dream about. Do you know how it was put together?

 

[sambos671]

I don’t disagree with you on that. But that’s why I personally believe the KJV is the best translation available to us. It isn’t altered toward any particular belief system but was done in order to be as truthful as it could according to the sources.

That is a nice belief. However, didn’t you read my last post? How do you substantiate your claim over the other translations? The NIV would make similar claims and have as evidence use of the qumran finds which are closer to the originals than the KJB could even dream about. Do you know how it was put together?

 

[sambos671]

I don’t disagree with you on that. But that’s why I personally believe the KJV is the best translation available to us. It isn’t altered toward any particular belief system but was done in order to be as truthful as it could according to the sources.

That is a nice belief. However, didn’t you read my last post? How do you substantiate your claim over the other translations? The NIV would make similar claims and have as evidence use of the qumran finds which are closer to the originals than the KJB could even dream about. Do you know how it was put together?

 

[sambos671]

I don’t disagree with you on that. But that’s why I personally believe the KJV is the best translation available to us. It isn’t altered toward any particular belief system but was done in order to be as truthful as it could according to the sources.

That is a nice belief, however, how do you substantiate your claims? Did you read my last post? The NIV can make similar claims and back it up by use of scripture text found in Qumran which the KJB did have. The Qumran text are closer in time to the original texts than anything the KJB had. The KJB is said to have used the Textus Recepticus works for its translations but even that had certain coping errors. Do you know how scriptures were put together? How the earliest church used the LXX which have books that the most recent KJB does not contain. The earliest KJB did have them. Did you know that the church councils alway accepted the LXX as authoritative. Did you know that protestants agree with Rabbinical Judaism who “canonized” the 39 books of the OT so as to remove specific messianic prophecy from a widely accepted greek translation of the Jewish scriptures so as to isolate christianity from them? Did you know the earliest reformers maintained the apocryphal writings even if it was indexed?

 

[mercygate]

Actually I said the KJV translators used the best possible sources for their translation.

Does the Comma Johanneum lead you to the belief that this primary passage to define the “Trinity” may in fact, deny the Trinity because of its late insertion?

Sometimes I have trouble following the way you connect the dots.

Yes. The translators of the KJV DID use the “best possible sources” – **in their day. **We have more and earlier manuscripts today. The fact that there is so little difference between early and late manuscripts is a testament to the care with which copyists handled their material.

It does not follow that the doctrine of the Trinity is compromised by the insertion of the Johannine comma. The fact that it is THERE testifies to the acceptance of the doctrine at the time those manuscripts were produced. We do not accept that doctrine of the Trinity because of the Johannine comma. We accept the doctrine of the Trinity because it is TRUE. And we know it is true, not because it is laid out word for word in Scripture, but because a council of the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, discerned and defined the precise way in which God is One in Three and Three in One in Nicea in 325 A.D.

 

[beeliner]

qui est ce posted:

NAB says: Matthew 5:32 *
“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (**unless the marriage is unlawful) ***causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”
You are saying “except for adultery.” Which translation is correct?

…to which Old Scholar replied:
Old Scholar:

But then you list the New American Bible. Notice that it does not use the term “fornication” but instead uses the term “unless the marriage is unlawful.” I am sure you must be aware that this Bible is worded this way to accommodate the Roman Catholic view of this verse which requires annulment in order to remarry.

This is a very interesting exchange becuase, first of all, most of the translations I use prefer the word ‘immorality’, which is probably the best rendering of the Greek, and would, of course, include adultery, fornication, and perhaps more.

But my main problem here is the source of the excerpt that qui attributes to the NAB. I agree with OS that ‘unless the marriage is unlawful’ is a completely indefensible translation, but my NAB says nothing like that, but rather:

What I say to you is: everyone who divorces his wife - lewd conduct is a separate case - forces her to commit adultery.

…which I think is a perfectly reasonable rendering of the verse - I see no denominational bias here.

qui, please double-check your source for “unless the marriage is unlawful”.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Call me a puritan, I personally prefer my Bible to reflect the BVM as being full of Grace.

DR
Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

NAB
And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.

Another critical Catholic section John 6:

DR
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

The DR is clearly a literary masterpiece, worthy of devouring.

NAB
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.

If you like your Bible “simple”, and the BVM as being favored, instead of being full of grace, the NAB is for you. Or maybe the NIV, NKJV or the other 4000 different Protestent Bibles.

 

[mercygate]

qui est ce posted:…to which Old Scholar replied:This is a very interesting exchange becuase, first of all, most of the translations I use prefer the word ‘immorality’, which is probably the best rendering of the Greek, and would, of course, include adultery, fornication, and perhaps more.

But my main problem here is the source of the excerpt that qui attributes to the NAB. I agree with OS that ‘unless the marriage is unlawful’ is a completely indefensible translation, but my NAB says nothing like that, but rather:…which I think is a perfectly reasonable rendering of the verse - I see no denominational bias here.

qui, please double-check your source for “unless the marriage is unlawful”.

The word “unlawful” translates “porneia”. The rationale for translating it as “unlawful” is that Jewish polygamy was common in those days, and that a polygamous arragement would be “porneia” as well as the lewdness and adultery that constitute porneia today. I think it’s more of an ICEL problem than a “Church” problem.

 

[beeliner]

The word “unlawful” translates “porneia”. The rationale for translating it as “unlawful” is that Jewish polygamy was common in those days, and that a polygamous arragement would be “porneia” as well as the lewdness and adultery that constitute porneia today. I think it’s more of an ICEL problem than a “Church” problem.

I understand your interpretation, though it seems a bit of a stretch.

That still leaves open the question of which version(s) translate it that way. The NAB was named, but does not, unless there is more than one NAB version.

 

[RobHom]

**Notice the verse I have highlighted above. The Scripture does not condemn divorce and remarriage. It only condemns divorce if it is not because of adultery. If a spouse commits adultery, then the other spouse may divorce and remarry, as long as he/she marries one who has not violated this rule either.

Contrary to belief, this verse does not condemn divorce completely.**

You were referencing Matthew 19:9…but while the one little snippet you used may not fully condemn divorce and remarriage, the fallacy and failure of your argument is contained in the prior verses…IMHO.

Read here:

**3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.**

The Catholic interpretation of 19:9 is this:

*9 “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living. *

Now, in my minds eye, being fully capable of speaking my mother tongue…its clear to me that Christ clearly issued a complete prohibition for divorce, with the one possible exception being “adultery”…and there was no “free pass” or “out” given by virtue of a technicality to remarry for either party.

Your “theory” that the KJV is the one and only and best…is full of holes. Don’t take my word for it…google the words “Errors King James Bible” and read…

Here is a commentary from a “protestant website” that also says much about the errors in bibles…

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version. … One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible.

From here: greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/* There are many other sites that explain the reasons for the KJV…and most all of them are “protestant”…and many disagree with each other.

The simplest and most logical…and honest reason for the KJV was that it was “politically” inspired. Why? Because King James was an “Anglican”…and so was against the Catholic Church, thus…he had to have his own church have its own bible…

I own an NAB…but I much prefer the Douay-Rheims for its purity and clarity…to me that is the best Bible there is.*

 

[mercygate]

I understand your interpretation, though it seems a bit of a stretch.

That still leaves open the question of which version(s) translate it that way. The NAB was named, but does not, unless there is more than one NAB version.

There is more than one NAB. The one that uses “unlawful” is the one posted on the Vatican and USCCB web sites, which I believe is the 1986 edition. The 1970 edition may be the one you are citing.

 

[RobHom]

There is more than one NAB. The one that uses “unlawful” is the one posted on the Vatican and USCCB web sites, which I believe is the 1986 edition. The 1970 edition may be the one you are citing.

I have the 1986 edition…and what it says is:

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

Note that the parentheses are not mine…they are in the verse. But its easy to see that the parentheses were put there to clarify why its the only exception. That is why I prefer to deal with the more thorough and original language in the Douay-Rheims. drbo.org/index.htm

drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm Matthew 19…its very clear to me what Christ said…and “meant”.

 

[beeliner]

The Catholic interpretation of 19:9 is this: *9 “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living. *

Now, in my minds eye, being fully capable of speaking my mother tongue…its clear to me that Christ clearly issued a complete prohibition for divorce, with the one possible exception being “adultery”…and there was no “free pass” or “out” given by virtue of a technicality to remarry for either party.

That may be ‘the Catholic interpretation’ but I don’t see that in the verse. The subject is ‘putting away’, i.e. divorcing, one’s wife. If the wife is ‘put away’ because of adultery, then there is, ipso facto, no longer a marriage - no ‘wife [who still] is living’.

Also, the Catholic Church DOES give a ‘free pass’ in certain very limited situations, for example divorce and remarriage in favor of the faith, about which Christ said nothing.

It seems more a matter of the Church exercising her power to bind and loose than of interpretation of scripture.

 

[RobHom]

That may be ‘the Catholic interpretation’ but I don’t see that in the verse. The subject is ‘putting away’, i.e. divorcing, one’s wife. If the wife is ‘put away’ because of adultery, then there is, ipso facto, no longer a marriage - no ‘wife [who still] is living’.

Sounds a tad “legalistic”… just because one is divorced, one is not dead. Granted the former wife is now the “ex-wife”… but the word wife is still involved. Therefore the prohibition stands.

Also, the Catholic Church DOES give a ‘free pass’ in certain very limited situations, for example divorce and remarriage in favor of the faith, about which Christ said nothing.

That may be, but I have no knowledge one way or the other…either to agree or disagree. I only know of that in respect to the Catechism. But I can only guess that they are very limited and from what I hear…annulments are not easy to obtain at any rate.

It seems more a matter of the Church exercising her power to bind and loose than of interpretation of scripture.

In accordance with scripture?

 

[cfrancis]

You only gave part of the definition. What you left out completes the sentence: "specifically: Sex between two unmarried persons, or two persons not married to each other."

No matter where you look, fornication that involves a married person is adultery…

Cal, here’s your statement:

This verse says that the only reason a man can “put away” (divorce) his wife is for the cause of fornication. That would mean she committed adultery and he is allowed to “put her away,” or divorce her for that.

There is a way for the man to “put away” his wife for fornication without including adultery: if the man discovers she had sexual relations with a man before she was married.

 

[beeliner]

There is a way for the man to “put away” his wife for fornication without including adultery: if the man discovers she had sexual relations with a man before she was married.

If she had claimed to have been a virgin, then I agree, that would probably have constituted fraud. Would that be grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church today?

In any case, according to another poster, who I’m sure is correct, the Greek word being translated is “porneia”, which means lewdness or sexual immorality. (It is, of course, the root of the English word pornography.) It does not mean adultery nor fornication specifically, for which there are other words.

Thus what Jesus intended is open to speculation, and accordingly different Christian denominations have different norms concerning marriage and divorce. Arguing whose norm is most correct seems rather fruitless.

If common sense is applied, which is not always the case with regard to VARIOUS religious beliefs, it would seem that when a marriage is over, no matter how sincere the couple’s intentions when the marriage began, it is over, period. There is no basis for reconcilliation, in many cases both partners go on to marry others. To claim that almighty God, under such circumstances, regards the original marriage as still in force seems contrary to reason.

But I do not expect to be elected pope anytime in the near future, so for now the Church’s ban on divorce and remarriage is likely to remain, which is too bad, because, like the ban on artificial birth control, it has driven probably MILLIONS of good Christians away from the Church to other denominations which view their situation more realistically.