I did not realise how serious the error is the Protestant Bibles.
It depends on the translation. None are perfect. But some Protestant translations are quite good. (With reference to the OP, the NIV is not that great).
Now google search engine and google translation available, one can just hit the search button to do any research.
Online resources are fantastic. Studylight has some great resources available for free, and there’s a variety of interlinear sites that provide direct links to lexical information and concordances.
First, the protestant bibles, they delete “among women” in Luke 1:28
Some manuscripts have “among women;” others delete it. (Yes, I am talking about manuscripts, not translations). There is some discrepancy among the most ancient manuscripts that are available. As a result, some translations will include the phrase while others will put it in the footnotes. You can’t always see the footnotes if you’re just looking it up online, though.
Have you done any sort of in-depth study pertaining to these manuscripts and the degree of confidence that you can have in relying on the ones that do include this phrase? If you haven’t, I strongly suggest that you do the work. And no, selecting a preferred translation and calling it “authoritative” does not count as doing the work. Finding out what the different manuscripts are, exploring the nature of them, and learning about the ways in which people have interacted with them over the years is a better example of doing the work.
and changed the “full of grace” to “you are favored”.
The word in question is κεχαριτωμένη. The only way you get “full of grace” is by taking a detour into a Latin translation and then coming over to English. I don’t know any Latin (nor do I have much use for knowing it very well), but I do know that the appropriate English translation of this word is something like “thou that/you who are highly favored” or “favored one.” This has nothing to do with the denomination I belong to or the translation I prefer. It’s a strictly linguistic evaluation of what that Greek word means when it’s translated into English. Apparently, this is something that you haven’t accounted for, and that absolutely boggles my mind.
You do realize there are resources besides translations that work a little more like dictionaries, right? They usually have the word “lexicon” somewhere on them. You look up a Greek word and then it tells you the full English range of that word’s meaning. You need to use those resources every once in awhile.
Then I was opinion that Greek Bible is always the most accurate Bible…
The most accurate English translation as of right now is the ESV. These things do change over time, though.
But that’s not the case. Even some Greek Bible is biased toward Protestant. They delete the word “among women”. In Greek Bible.
Again, you’ve forgotten that the nature of Bible translation is not such that there’s one single Greek manuscript that everyone looks at and attempts to translate. There are many different copies of copies of copies from many different places and times, and among these different copies, there are slight differences in certain places. One of these places is Luke 28.
You’ve looked at all the different translations (though you may not have seen all the footnotes indicating that “some manuscripts include…”), but that’s the easy part. If you want to know more, you have to find resources that tell you about the different manuscripts. You need to find out how ancient the different manuscripts are and note where it was that this phrase initially started to be included. Take a look at what various experts in ancient writings have said about this over time. See what kind of evidence has come to light over the centuries and how that’s affected the way in which this passage has been viewed.
Again, that’s how you do the work. What you’re doing is assuming that you are a “good guy” and the Protestants are “bad guys,” and you’re looking for evidence to support “your thing” as opposed to “their thing.” This is comical for a variety of reasons. First, there are no good guys and bad guys, there’s just folks. Second, Protestant scholarship in general does not have a single monolithic POV regarding the degree of confidence they have in manuscripts including this phrase vs. manuscripts that don’t include this phrase. There are overall tendencies, but these have changed over time as the issue has been re-examined and new evidence has come to light. Catholic scholars are doing this same type of work, and you really don’t know what the general opinion is within either body of scholarship because you clearly haven’t checked.
You should really check on that. You might be a little surprised at what you find. You might even find that the majority opinion among Catholics is now the same as the majority opinion among Protestants. That happens sometimes.
I would bet my life on “Greek Orthodox” Bible since I just trust them more, as I see they didn’t delete any word.
In this specific example, I don’t think you should bet your life on any translation until you find out more information about the various manuscripts.
Also, although Hail means Greetings, changing hail to greetings makes a big differences.
The word in question can be found at Strong’s number 5463. It is the imperative form of a verb that means “rejoice (exceedingly)” or “be well, thrive.” Here though, it’s used in the imperative form, as a greeting or salutation. There is no one specific English greeting that corresponds exactly to this word, but any that succeed in conveying a sincere wish for joy or good tidings upon the recipient while also saying “Hi” are considered preferable.
.
I’ve got his study on the Gospel of John, the Book of Acts and Romans and all were very good. I have heard thought that the series has been released in one book so you don’t have to buy them individually. The NT that is since, AFAIK, he has not gotten to the OT yet.