I stumbled across a video by Michael Hoggard comparing the differences between modern translations vs. the King James version. So these summaries are chapters 2 and 3 of “The Desecration of Translation” blogs that I began with Eugene Nida last week. Mr. Hoggard does a great job of presenting the differences side-by side; I will compare them in a similar fashion.
Before I do that, I need to give you background that I couldn’t on my first blog; it would have made it too long. The ‘desecration’ I’m talking about is that the texts used for the King James Version, which all Protestants used for 400 years, was abandoned; two other, questionable texts were substituted, and there are significant negative doctrinal effects because of the switch, as we will see.
The King James Version started with Erasmus, a Dutch theologian, who in the early 1500s, took over 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many of them only part of the New Testament, whether they were vellum (animal skins) or parchment, most of them agreeing on the same exact verbiage of each Bible text. Then he combined and translated— he took the most reliable of the Greek MSS, some of which had miniscule differences with one anothr, combined the best, and where there was a gap in text, he took it from the Vulgate, a Latin version made in 400 AD (the sole language the Catholics used for over a thousand years), and created a superb Greek text (like Apple, his second version was better), which was called, ever since, the Textus Receptus (Received Text), also the Majority Text. Martin Luther then used his second version to translate the Bible into German, or as they say, “into the vernacular.” A process that previous people gave their lives for, because the Catholics hated it. In England, Tynedale, called the “architect” of modern English, produced an English text from the same sources as Luther, in 1526. But King James of England was not a fan of it, and in 1604 he gathered a God-given group of 54 superb holy scholars (one of them was a linguistic savant; he knew 21 languages, many ancient ones, intimately). These were from competitive Puritan and Anglican theologians (perhaps they were like our Lutherans and Baptists). The King James Version was the result, and came out in 1611. But this became old English and hard to understand; so the “thee” and “thou” and such were updated through 1982 with the New KJV. Nobody deviated from the Received Text to that point. But in the 2013 updating, the New KJV strayed away from the Received Text, and now has many of the ‘modern version’ problems we will see here momentarily. The New KJV will not compete against modern versions, unless people refuse to buy it and insist on it going back to what it was.
Now let’s take a look at the opposition. The documents used for the modern versions, which rejected the Received Text, substituted from two sources which were combined--but both were questionable: one was discovered in the mid-1800s from the rubbish bin (I kid you not) of a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, called the Codex Sinaiticus. The BBC documentary on this called it “history’s most altered manuscript.” (That does not mean the KJV was deficient. Quite the opposite. As several experts who viewed the Codex Sinaiticus details have said, it looks like different scribes had a fierce debate about what some verses meant. There were cross-outs and replacements plenty in their notes).
The other basis for modern versions presumably was hidden away in the basement library of the Vatican itself in Rome; supposedly having been there from the 6th century, they say. (It actually was discovered in 1475, given a shelf number, and restocked, and ignored for the next 330 years. Erasmus wasn't interested in it). It was called Codex Vaticanus (it was in Greek, and not to be confused with the Latin Vulgate). They claim the Vaticanus was originally made in Caesarea. Like the Sinaiticus,it had little support (45 copies--not like the 5000 Greek MSS Erasmus worked with.)
It was again pulled of the Vatican library in the 1870s, just in time to squeeze it and Sinaiticus together for the modern versions the ecumenicists were calling for. (I don’t know how “ecumenic” it was, since both sources have Roman Catholic roots). These two were proclaimed to be “old” b y Roman Catholic paleontologists and what’s more important, the Received Text—used for over 270 years—were pronounced corrupted. A false claim. The Received Text, nevertheless, was then discarded and replaced by these two recent discoveries for all the modern versions to use. This decision was made in 1881. These two replacements were, at that time, accused of fraud in when they were produced. One expert of the day scathingly said: "The 'Revision' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as--what it most certainly is--the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the Age."
Let me give you one more quote, from an expert scholar who compared these two that were “put together” for modern versions. Dean Burgum’s quote:
“In the four Gospels alone, these two versions have 3,036 significant differences in translation. It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS differ, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”
My question is, how were they able to throw away the Textus Receptus, after 400 years, without a serious comparison? Even if they had the oldest surviving text, that likely came from the Egyptian area--dry climate, as it is--but that area was infected with Gnosticism, a heresy that I do not have time to tell you about. Oldest is not best.
So here's what we have: Before, everyone brought their Bibles to church and actually each found the text the pastor announced, and all read it together. Now, they chose this replacement--from one, a single copy found in a rubbish bin (there is a fascinating story behind that--see, in YouTube, “The Great Bible Hoax of 1881”). The other was a copy from the Vatican, who have a history of despising Scripture. One of these texts doesn’t even internally agree, much less two of them agreeing together. The past 45 years have been a blizzard of differing versions, all creating doubts as to whether this God's infallible Word. The “modern” Greek versions have been altered 28 times. So now, there’s no reason to bring a Bible to church, since likely your version will not be used in quoting Scripture. Pastor will put the verses, with his favorite text, on a Power Point board--if the church has the money to buy a good one. Since most (liberal) Protestants and Catholics have recently formally agreed on a single text (previously, even with modern translations, the Catholics had their own version), then what we have for the future is a single, theologically deficient, version that will be produced and occasionally revised. A few of us stubborn conservatives will continue using the King James, with the “thees” and “thous;” or the New King James (but making darn sure the publishing date is 1982 or before). Hopefully the publishing empires (mostly owned by secular companies) will continue production of these “dinosaurs” for us dinosaurs.
I did a few comparisons between “old” and “new” versions in my first blog, but let’s get on it big time; that will be my effort for blogs 2 and 3.
a)Mr. Hoggard has a problem with modern translations of Daniel 3:25. Nebuchadnezzar has just tossed 3 Jews in the fiery furnace. But he sees a fourth, probably Jesus (called a ‘theophany’), and he calls Him “a son of the gods,” according to the modern ASV, ESV, CSB, NASB, and NIV (glossary at end). But the KJV says his quote was a ‘Son of God.’ (A name prophesied for Jesus.) The question is not ‘Which is right?’ The question is, Which words did Nebuchadnezzar say?
Either is possible, but I say, lean to the newer versions on this one. Since Nebuchadnezzar is an uninspired polytheist, we can expect that at most, he might have been in awe of the Hebrew God; and, yes, he knew that they only worshipped one God. But for him to, further, call the 4th person the Son of God (with “son” capitalized) was a stretch for him. This is Old Testament, before Jesus. The Book of Daniel is also partially versed in Aramaic, which uses the word “Elohim” in what Nebuchadnezzar said, which is a plural term (see Genesis 1:1 and your Bible notes). Polytheists used the single term “son” a lot because in many myths, a “son of the gods” might be a demigod. Lots of those among polytheists. Yet the Bible also describes the Jewish God as a Three-in-One. We know that Nebuchadnezzar was wishy-washy in his respect for Jewish beliefs. Putting all these facts together, I swing with the modern versions as more likely accurate. Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan, not a theologian.
b)Mr. Hoggard also questions the modern version‘s translation of Hosea 11:12, since it called the tribe of Judah as “unruly against God.” Whereas the KJV in the same verse says “Judah yet ruleth with God.” Which is it?
First, the modern translations have a backing from context; in at least 4 places in Hosea, Judah is raked against the coals (12:2, 6:4, 5:10, and 5:12.) All those evil deeds were also recorded by KJV. The real problem with 11:12 is that a Hebrew word rud used there is of utterly uncertain meaning—a seldom-seen problem, thank the Lord. So it could have either meaning, flip a coin. Theologically, Judah is the tribe from which Jesus comes, and they were a “better” tribe than the 10 tribes of northern Israel, as the history of their immoral kings exceeded the number of immoral kings of Judah. Also a fact: Judah was taken away into captivity by the Babylonians only 125 years after the 10 tribes were taken away by Assyria—both punished for evil idolatry. But Judah was a royal tribe, as Jewish scribes knew, and records were carefully and continually kept, and Jesus did descend from that tribe. But that doesn’t change the uncertainty about the Hebrew word rud—was it unruly, or ruly? We conclude that we don’t know which was more accurate.
Now let’s get to differences that are real mistakes by modern translations. I will use the NIV, mostly, but the NIV is a stand-in for modern translations--they all had pretty much the same flaws. Frankly, I didn’t want to plow through reading 6 “favorite” modern versions when one version tells you where they’re all at, in most cases. We will compare them to the New King James, 1982, most often. (Not the New KJV of 2013, which has been radically modernized.)
We will start with God’s command that Abraham offer his promised son, Isaac, on the altar:
1)Genesis 22:2-NIV Then God said, Take your son…Sacrifice him…as a burnt offering.
KJV: And he (God) said, Take now thy son…and offer him there for a burnt offering…
This is one I never heard of before, and Hoggard makes a good point here. If God told him to “sacrifice” him, per modernist versions, then Abraham was obligated to put him on the altar and kill him. The angel (or Angel) who stopped him, he should have ignored and fulfilled God’s command. You’re familiar with Galatians 1:8 emphasizing perfect obedience:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed
BUT if God merely told him to “offer” him as a sacrifice, his obligation was complete when he laid Isaac on the altar and tied him up. If God wanted him to kill him, that would take a separate command. Since God wouldn’t make a command that Abraham wouldn’t be expected to fulfill, the NKJV is my choice. (Perhaps you think I sound too much like a Philadelphia lawyer. A requirement of debaters).
2) Modern versions (not the NIV—yet): Isaiah 7:14: …a young woman will conceive
KJV: …a virgin shall conceive….
I covered this in Part 1. Virgins is so right, “young woman” is so, so wrong.
3)Likewise, I covered the difference in Mark 1:1. The New Revised Standard Version does not call Jesus the Son of God, so as to not offend the Muslims. But it’s wrong. The KJV, of course, does call Him that—which is correct. Do NOT sacrifice truth for fear of man.
4) Jesus’ birthplace is prophesied in Micah. But notice what He is called:
Micah 5:2, NIV… one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
KJV: The One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old,
from everlasting.”
First, “The One” is far superior to just “one” in the NIV. Jesus is unique, right? And second, the KJV has the words “from everlasting.” The NIV has “from ancient times.” That’s a weaker phrase. Such a phrase is an indeterminate length of time. Compare to the power Jesus has in His eternity (read His prayer in John 17 for further proof). “From everlasting” is much better! Why did the modern “theologians” downplay Him??
5) Matthew 18:3 NIV: unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
KJV: unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven
Is the Gospel (how to enter the kingdom of heaven) just a matter of reforming ourselves, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps? That’s what the puerile word “change” suggests. But Jesus told Nicodemus: unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Is that just “change,” or is that God helping us to start over? Another Scripture refers to us as a “new creation.” The point is, you can’t be born again by yourself. God has a part to play, much of it the actions of the Holy Spirit. “Change” doesn’t suggest God even HAS a role. NOT a Gospel word. Modern versions fail on that one.
6) We all know John 3:16, right? Well, maybe not--did you ever think of the phrase “He gave His only begotten Son” in KJV? Did you know “only begotten” isn’t the greatest translation? Since the KJV’s Genesis chapter 4 has ‘somebody begat somebody, they begat somebody else,’ the word ‘begotten’ tends to emphasize birth, right? But such an important verse, John 3:16, should not focus on His birth, because He is eternal. Upon further archaeological digs, they figured a better definition for the Greek word, and it really meant “One and only Son.” Emphasizing His uniqueness. Actually, SOME of the modern versions got this right; the NIV uses the phrase “His one and only Son.” They even capitalized Son. (Well, like a clock, you have to get it right once in a while). Unfortunately, there is a long list of modern versions that merely say, “he gave his only Son.” That’s weak. “One and only” conveys the uniqueness of Jesus that other modern versions totally miss. (By the way, if you feel left out, you and I are not “sons;” we are adopted children (Ephesians 1:5). Technically, the term sons of God (if you include them in Job 1 and 2, like you should) represent direct creation by God. That includes only Adam, Eve, all the angels, including those that went bad, even including Satan. And, of course, Jesus (despite how the modern versions scandalously accuse His mother).
7) This modern version (the New English Bible) is so poor on this that I have to bring it up:
II Timothy 3:16 NEB: Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching. (That’s the whole verse!)
NKJ: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
First is the disgusting idea that only the inspired Scriptures have a use. So, are we supposed to consider which Scripture is inspired? Is this along the lines of “I have my truth, you have yours?” That tends toward chaos. So we can cherry-pick Scriptures that we like or don’t like? So you may say,” I think Jesus was not inspired when He spoke of divorce.” Get real! Secondly, the NEB uses small caps for “scripture.” Give me a break—it’s pretty obvious that they consider the Bible just another book with high morality. Thirdly, the NEB translators must have said, ”all the other ‘purposes’ for Scripture (reproof, correction, instruction) are all nasty, negative words! Throw them away! Everybody should have only happy scriptures!” I hope you get my point.)
8) I Timothy 3:16 NIV He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels…
NKJV: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels,
The NIV has “He (who?) appeared in the flesh,” which does not emphasize the incarnation as does the KJV, “God was manifested in the flesh.” The word “manifested” also adds gravitas; it implies His eternity, that His substance was 100% God.
9) Mark 10:24 NIV AND NKJV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Old KJV: And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Well, even the New King James of 1982 failed us here. Note how the NKJV takes sides with the failed NIV in being “nicey-nice” to the rich folks. So we don’t want to offend the rich folks…hmmm. Well, I’m intimately familiar with the “deep State” conspiracy, which is tied in to the multibillion-dollar rich folks; all the unregulated AI (worse than nuclear bombs for our safety, says Elon Musk), the fake money, the collapse of the banking system, all are prescribed. For their benefit. We will see that no matter how much the Gates give to philanthropy (never to churches), they’re still manipulating our lives, as they always have been. They’re just surveilling our lives secretly instead of out in the open. Jesus resonates with me when He reprobates the rich people many times in Scripture. So the KJV has contextual backing. Let’s record EVERY word of Scripture, no matter who is offended. Stick with the old KJV on this verse.
10) Isaiah 14:12 NIV How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
NKJV How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!
The problem is, Jesus is called the Morning Star in another verse (Revelation 22:16). So when you read the NIV here, you might think it’s referring to Jesus—who is being accused of evil. So where are you leading novice readers? Since both, in modern Scripture, are called morning star, some might even think they were brothers; how stupid is that? The NKJV makes it clear by flat-out calling him “Lucifer,” which shouts out Satan. In the NKJV, Lucifer is simply “son of the morning,” not morning star. This de-emphasizes any connection to Jesus, Morning Star. The NKJV is better; the NIV seems to go out of its way to tie these two together.
NEXT WEEK We do 18 more desecrations of translations.
No comments:
Post a Comment