Who/What Determines the Authenticity of a Bible Version?

[qui_est_ce]

**If you speak Latin every day to everyone, how many understand you? Scholars and most theologians speak several languages. It helps to speak Latin, Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic if you want to study the Scriptures thoroughly. Many can read it but don’t speak it very well.

My ancestors spoke Olde Tyme Inglisch. I’m afraid I do not very well.**

So why would you used and Olde Tyme Inglische translation when new more faithful translations are available?

Any student knows that. I do not advocate anyone who does not have a good knowledge of reading such languages to just pick up a Bible and attempt to understand it. That is easy enough for the learned but not for the ignorant. Any well educated person should not have any problem with it however.

Are you saying that only the scholarly should read the Bible? Which scholar’s interpretation? Reconcile the above with the below:

Incidentally, did you know the Bible says peter was ignorant, as well as his brother? And they seemed to do fine.

??

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

My NAB footnotes disagree with you:
NAB:

There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful
.

The way I read it is that if the marriage is unlawful, it was not really a marriage to begin with, therefore the person is free to remarry. Therefore the “divorce” is actually an annulment, meaning a declaration that no lawful marriage existed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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. Your Douay Rheims has the correct rendering of this verse. This is a good example of what I mentioned before; using the Scripture to fit your agenda. That is what the NAB has done. It was made by the Catholic Biblical Association of America and I am not condemning it any more than I am the other “newer” English versions because they all make changes for a purpose.

introduction to NAB:

On September 30, 1943, His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued his now famous encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu. He wrote: “We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.”

The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. **The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic **fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, "with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that "all Christians may be able to use them."

The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.

Where the translation supposes the received text–Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be–ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. But for those who are happily able to study the original text of the scriptures at firsthand, a supplementary series of textual notes pertaining to the Old Testament was added originally in an appendix to the typical edition. (It is now obtainable in a separate booklet from The Catholic Biblical Association of America, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064.) These notes furnish a guide in those cases in which the editorial board judges that the manuscripts in the original languages, or the evidence of the ancient versions, or some similar source, furnish the correct reading of a passage, or at least a reading more true to the original than that customarily printed in the available editions.

**
The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran**, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek.

Are they lying?

 

[beeliner]

1. My NAB footnotes disagree with you:
2. The way I read it is that if the marriage is unlawful, it was not really a marriage to begin with, therefore the person is free to remarry. Therefore the “divorce” is actually an annulment, meaning a declaration that no lawful marriage existed.

Taking them in reverse order:

1. No argument IN SUCH CASES, but the verse in question does not specify that situation.
2. Well, several things. First of all, ‘porneia’ does not specifically mean incest nor adultery not fornication, all of those concepts have their own words in Greek as in English. It means sexual immorality or lewdness in general, which would, of course, include all of the prementioned specifics, so a case could very reasonably be made that Jesus was referring to any of them being exceptions.

With regard to your other citations, they all seem to center around the issue of injustice to the wronged spouse. Neither Jesus nor Paul seem to address the cause a very high percentage of divorces: a couple mutually agreeing to end the marriage due purely to incompatibility - that would be different than a married person ‘putting away’ a spouse specifically in order to marry someone else.

Your footnote, as far as it goes, is fine, but it is just that - a footnote. Being in a Catholic Bible, it is certainly not binding on non-Catholics and, in itself, i.e. as commentary, probably not on Catholics either.

It used to be forbidden for a Catholic to marry in a Protestant Church. Now a simple dispensation and the attendence of a Catholic priest-witness is all that is necessary, other requirements having been met.

Some wheels turn very slowly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

With regard to your other citations, they all seem to center around the issue of injustice to the wronged spouse. Neither Jesus nor Paul seem to address the cause a very high percentage of divorces: a couple mutually agreeing to end the marriage due purely to incompatibility - that would be different than a married person ‘putting away’ a spouse specifically in order to marry someone else.

I’ll venture that ending marriages purely du to incompatibility is a fairly modern invention.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Not true. The meaning of the word “porneia” is:

*porneiva Porneia ***(por-ni’-ah);

Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4202

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   
   a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism,
   intercourse with animals etc.
   
   b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   
   c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman;
   Mk. 10:11,

It does in fact mean sexual intercourse which is fornication. If it is a married person, then it is also adultery. There is no other meaning that can be applied here. This word is used 26 times in the New Testament and always means fornication…

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.

There really isn’t any other meaning Christ wanted to infer here. To change it to fit an agenda is what is foolish. This is one of those things that seems so clear to most people. It is only the RCC that doesn’t like what it says.

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.

It was for this very reason that King James ordered a new translation of the Bible.

 

[Old_Scholar]

So why would you used and Olde Tyme Inglische translation when new more faithful translations are available?
Are you saying that only the scholarly should read the Bible? Which scholar’s interpretation? Reconcile the above with the below:
??

It is easier to interpret with the oldest translation available. In too many translations, the words have been changed too much and do not still have the same meaning as intended.

Regarding Peter’s ignorance, we don’t have to speculate on that. It is quite clear in Scripture:

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

If you want to know more about the Apostles, study them. Paul was extremely educated, and intended the best schools, in fact was a Pharisee, but he did not write or speak as well as he would like, so he usually had someone else write the epistles as he dictated them. Peter, though not so well educated or learned, also had to use someone else to do his writing. As a result, his writings were very good and understandable by most people.

 

[mercygate]

It is easier to interpret with the oldest translation available. In too many translations, the words have been changed too much and do not still have the same meaning as intended.

Well, the oldest “modern” translation of the New Testament is the Douay-Rheims. Are you good with that?

Regarding Peter’s ignorance, we don’t have to speculate on that. It is quite clear in Scripture:

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Right you are.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Any student knows that. I do not advocate anyone who does not have a good knowledge of reading such languages to just pick up a Bible and attempt to understand it. That is easy enough for the learned but not for the ignorant. Any well educated person should not have any problem with it however. Incidentally, did you know the Bible says peter was ignorant, as well as his brother? And they seemed to do fine
Originally Posted by qui est ce:

So why would you used and Olde Tyme Inglische translation when new more faithful translations are available?
Are you saying that only the scholarly should read the Bible? Which scholar’s interpretation?
Old Scholar;3813495:

If you want to know more about the Apostles, study them.
Regarding Peter’s ignorance, we don’t have to speculate on that. It is quite clear in Scripture:If you want to know more about the Apostles, study them. Paul was extremely educated, and intended the best schools, in fact was a Pharisee, but he did not write or speak as well as he would like, so he usually had someone else write the epistles as he dictated them. Peter, though not so well educated or learned, also had to use someone else to do his writing. As a result, his writings were very good and understandable by most people.

I sincerely wish you would stop misaddressing my posts. I never doubted what you said about the ignorance of Peter. Read the original post. Nowhere do I even hint that your post is speculation. Then you go on to patronize me that I should learn more about the Apostles! In other posts you tell people they "really should read [insert book]. This is totally unnecessary and patronizing. Your snide little asides have no place on CAF, where you are a guest. Read the Forum rules about being respectful. Thank you.

 

[beeliner]

I’ll venture that ending marriages purely du to incompatibility is a fairly modern invention.

Well, that may or may not be true, but surely there is a difference between a couple agreeing to divorce because they simply cannot get along and one spouse leaving the other in the lurch, having met someone s/he likes better.

In the former case, it’s hard to accept that God would wish two young people in that position to remain celibate (or reconcile, which, for the sake of argument, let’s say is not an option) for the rest of their lives, or at least until one of them dies. While one does not try to outguess the Lord, it just doesn’t seem logical nor reasonable.

Human beings make mistakes. I usually make several daily.

 

[beeliner]

A. **The meaning of the word “porneia” is: 1. illicit sexual intercourse

  a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism,      
      intercourse with animals etc. 

  b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 

  c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; 
      Mk. 10:11,

It does in fact mean sexual intercourse which is fornication. If it is a married person, then it is also adultery. There is no other meaning that can be applied here. This word is used 26 times in the New Testament and always means fornication…**

B. There really isn’t any other meaning Christ wanted to infer[sic] here. To change it to fit an agenda is what is foolish. This is one of those things that seems so clear to most people. It is only the RCC that doesn’t like what it says.

C. It was for this very reason that King James ordered a new translation of the Bible.

A. Well, that is close to what I said, various types of sexual immorality.

B. By ‘infer’ I assume that you mean imply. I agree with you that the translation referring to an ‘unlawful union’ is indefensible. I have the first edition of the NAB and , as I noted earlier, it says ‘lewd conduct’, which is a perfectly reasonable translation.

C. Now, OS, don’t get cute on me here. You know that wasn’t the reason!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well, the oldest “modern” translation of the New Testament is the Douay-Rheims. Are you good with that?

Right you are.

Actually I believe that version came from the Minority Text.

The reputation of the King James Bible far exceeds any other translations available today. It was translated from the original languages, by the most educated and qualified Biblical Scholars of that day. The process used was designed to keep out errors and they are very minimal. Is it the English of that day? No! It was translated into *Biblical English *and one must remember that the language of the New Testament, for example, was biblical rather than contemporary. The commission was to produce a Bible that required the translators to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a version, which God will bless. They had to use language, which was above the level of daily speech, language that is intelligible and also biblical and venerable. The language and text of the King James Bible is still by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible.

Why not make a new translation of the Bible in the language of today? This is easy to answer.

The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century in which it was written. In fact it is in a language that has never been spoken anywhere. It is *Biblical English *and its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even by using the words thee and thou, they were not following the English spoken in that time but Biblical usage. Those terms had already been changed to you in most conversations.

When someone says it should be translated into the language of today, they never really define what they mean. What is the language of today? It is not the language of the 17th, 18th or
19th or even the 20th century. What will be the language of the
21st and 22nd century? Who knows???

Unfortunately many are already translating it into the language of today, mostly in folk songs, etc. and usually not even reading the word of God. The Language of the King James Bible will endure as long as the English language remains in the foreseeable future. Those children who memorized the 23rd Psalm in Sunday School 30 or 40 years ago can still find those words in the KJV but will not find them in the newer translations. We need a standard.

Those who attack the King James Version for its “Archaic” language and instead are promoting modern-speech versions are discouraging the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children. Why memorize something that will soon be out of date? When there are so many versions to use, which one would they use to memorize? It is a real shame today that even in conservative churches children are growing up densely ignorant of the Bible because they are not even encouraged to memorize and keep its life-giving words in their hearts.

Another good reason not to have so many modern translations is that they are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible does not claim to be a modern book. The morning newspaper is newer day after day but is that what we want in a Bible? If this were so, it would not be the Bible. The Bible is an ancient, divine book but nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself. That’s why I say it should be venerable as well as intelligible. The King James Bible fulfills that requirement much better than any other translation.

Another reason is that modern-speech Bibles are not scholarly. The language of the Bible has always savored the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It is Biblical and not contemporary and colloquial. Recent claims that the newest discoveries of papyrus and other writings show that the Bible was written in the everyday Greek of that time have proven to be erroneous. It was an exaggerated claim. The writers of the New Testament had the readily availability of the Septuagint and they were very familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Their language was Biblical rather than contemporary like some versions today.

One more reason is that the King James Version is the historic Bible of English-speaking Protestants and other churches that teach as the Apostles did, directly from the written word of God. God has placed His stamp of approval on this version by the many generations of Bible-believing Christians who have used it. Therefore I believe that God’s preservation of the Scriptures has kept the King James Version in our hands and by using it we will be following the clear teaching of Almighty God.

 

[beeliner]

Old Scholar:

The reputation of the King James Bible far exceeds any other translations available today. It was translated from the original languages…

One of the biggest piles of dreck I have read in years. Forum rules prevent me from using a stronger term.

Nearly every sentence is erroneous, and it would take me until after midnight to submit a line-by-line refutation, which I’m not going to do. If other posters would like to begin such a rebuttal, I will add my two cents worth tomorrow.

To start, though, it was translated from the original languages as primary sources to the extent possible, but with many secondary and tertiary sources consulted and compared, including the LXX, the Vulgate, and several previous English translations, most of them heretical.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I sincerely wish you would stop misaddressing my posts. I never doubted what you said about the ignorance of Peter. Read the original post. Nowhere do I even hint that your post is speculation. Then you go on to patronize me that I should learn more about the Apostles! In other posts you tell people they "really should read [insert book]. This is totally unnecessary and patronizing. Your snide little asides have no place on CAF, where you are a guest. Read the Forum rules about being respectful. Thank you.

If you think I am misaddressing your posts, then I apologize. That is not my intent but the post in question was asking me to reconcile my statement above with the one below it. The one above was my answer as to why I used Olde English and the one below it was my statement about Peter being ignorant. Between those two, you asked me to reconcile them:

your statement:Are you saying that only the scholarly should read the Bible? Which scholar’s interpretation? Reconcile the above with the below.

Then you posted my statement about Peter and after that you placed two question marks: ?? Check your post #97.

Was I not to believe you were asking me to prove what I said about Peter?

Perhaps it is not simply me but the way you are reading some things.

But if you feel it is me, then I apologize…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[RobHom]

beeliner… I have to agree with you. Merely by “googling” the following words: Errors King James Bible, one will get a rather significant number of hits… one of which goes into quite some detail as to why and where the errors are. theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm It is a bit much to make such a bold statement declaring the KJV to be the one and only. It was commissioned by a Protestant King…for his own reasons, and it had nothing to do with spelling errors. Simple as that.

 

[Old_Scholar]

A. Well, that is close to what I said, various types of sexual immorality.

B. By ‘infer’ I assume that you mean imply. I agree with you that the translation referring to an ‘unlawful union’ is indefensible. I have the first edition of the NAB and , as I noted earlier, it says ‘lewd conduct’, which is a perfectly reasonable translation.

C. Now, OS, don’t get cute on me here. You know that wasn’t the reason!

**Well actually it was. It was because he wanted a divorce, but the Pope wouldn’t give him one, that King Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church and began the English Church. It wasn’t until King James came along that they wanted a different Bible than the one they used. They wanted to eliminate the Puritans and the Calvinistic beliefs and to do that they had to get rid of the Geneva Bible.

After the King James Bible was produced, they banned the Geneva Bible in England. The biggest thing about the Geneva Bible was that it was full of marginal notes and it seemed the beliefs could be changed too easily. That’s why the KJV has no marginal or other notes. Just Scripture.

So without the matter of divorce, King James would not have ordered a new Bible. England would still be Roman Catholic.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

beeliner… I have to agree with you. Merely by “googling” the following words: Errors King James Bible, one will get a rather significant number of hits… one of which goes into quite some detail as to why and where the errors are. theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm It is a bit much to make such a bold statement declaring the KJV to be the one and only. It was commissioned by a Protestant King…for his own reasons, and it had nothing to do with spelling errors. Simple as that.

Golly I just “googled” errors in the Douay Rheims Bible and got 32,000 hits.

I believe you will find that in any version.

 

[RobHom]

Golly I just “googled” errors in the Douay Rheims Bible and got 32,000 hits.

I believe you will find that in any version.

I got 47,600 hits… I think you forgot the hyphen between Douay-Rheims. But I think the major difference is that you will find that there is a difference in the commentaries with regards to negativity and positivity where the two are compared.

Naturally…you will get differences of opinions… though the KJV Errors King James Bible generated over 1,900,000 hits. Now I honestly don’t expect all of them to be concerning errors because the word error will fall away or become the only issue in any search of that nature…but a boolian search narrows it to 560,000 hits. The Douay-Rheims boolian search is reduced to 41,800 hits.

I think that stating that the KJV is the be all to end all…is a stretch.

Not trying to be argumentative…but its seems that people like this, who are non-Catholics have problems with the KJV as well. asapnet.net/remnant/page5isKJVonly.htm

I don’t agree with much of what they say about anything, and the reason why would be amply “obvious”

 

[cfrancis]

The reputation of the King James Bible far exceeds any other translations available today…
(snip)
…Therefore I believe that God’s preservation of the Scriptures has kept the King James Version in our hands and by using it we will be following the clear teaching of Almighty God.

For those who want to read the words from Cal’s post above from the original author, you’ll find them in Chap 8, Sec 4, part g of Edward F.Hills’ The King James Version Defended

 

[mercygate]

Actually I believe that version came from the Minority Text.

The reputation of the King James Bible far exceeds any other translations available today. It was translated from the original languages, by the most educated and qualified Biblical Scholars of that day. The process used was designed to keep out errors and they are very minimal. Is it the English of that day? No! It was translated into *Biblical English *and one must remember that the language of the New Testament, for example, was biblical rather than contemporary. The commission was to produce a Bible that required the translators to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a version, which God will bless. They had to use language, which was above the level of daily speech, language that is intelligible and also biblical and venerable. The language and text of the King James Bible is still by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible.
. . . .

Deletions for size limitations

Unfortunately many are already translating it into the language of today, mostly in folk songs, etc. and usually not even reading the word of God. The Language of the King James Bible will endure as long as the English language remains in the foreseeable future. Those children who memorized the 23rd Psalm in Sunday School 30 or 40 years ago can still find those words in the KJV but will not find them in the newer translations. We need a standard.

. . . It is a real shame today that even in conservative churches children are growing up densely ignorant of the Bible because they are not even encouraged to memorize and keep its life-giving words in their hearts.

My 6th grade Scripture class memorizes Scripture for every session.

Another good reason not to have so many modern translations is that they are unhistorical and irreverent. . . .

Another reason is that modern-speech Bibles are not scholarly. The language of the Bible has always savored the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It is Biblical and not contemporary and colloquial. Recent claims that the newest discoveries of papyrus and other writings show that the Bible was written in the everyday Greek of that time have proven to be erroneous. It was an exaggerated claim. The writers of the New Testament had the readily availability of the Septuagint and they were very familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Their language was Biblical rather than contemporary like some versions today.

One more reason is that the King James Version is the historic Bible of English-speaking Protestants and other churches that teach as the Apostles did, directly from the written word of God. God has placed His stamp of approval on this version by the many generations of Bible-believing Christians who have used it. Therefore I believe that God’s preservation of the Scriptures has kept the King James Version in our hands and by using it we will be following the clear teaching of Almighty God.

Actually, the KJV is very much “the language of its day” (albeit decent and good language). It was criticized for being too “common.”

You seem not to be drawing the distinction between literal translations and dynamic equivalence translations in your essay.

As you know, I am a great admirer and fan of the KJV, and frequently speak up on its behalf on these forums. But for textual accuracy (sometimes at the expense of linguistic flow), the RSV (which I call “Son of King James”) is a virtual trot to the Greek and Hebrew. I am reluctantly becoming acquiescent to the NKJV, since a friend of mine uses it as his main translation (the guy reads Greek) and it has done a respectful job of rendering the text without the archaisms that render the KJV incomprehensible to modern speakers of English.

I don’t read “dynamic equivalents” like the NIV or (God help us) Good News.