Questions about manuscript evidence

[Dante]

I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.

[Raphael]

I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.

And Easter instead of Passover

[rogue06]

I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.

Well that'll get the KJV Only crowd spinning on their eyebrows and spitting out wooden nickles

[Cerebrum123]

Well, being liberal means you are more open up to newer ideas. I remember reading the passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where the passage meant rape. But then, I did some research and some articles say it does not mean rape. Some suggest it is seduce.. well, can we have them change that word 'rape' into seduces in all the bible versions.

Context is key, and the Hebrew is different than the English. The word translated merely means "lie with", and in the context, seduce makes better sense. Especially since the English understanding of rape is given a different judgment in the text. Oh, and context is what would decide for many translations. This is because words often have multiple meanings, so that has to be taken into account. You're also wrong about your example, here's the NIV of Deuteronomy 22.

Source: NIV

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

© Copyright Original Source

Rape is used as the translation in both passages, even though seduce makes more sense of the context.

That's not the definition of liberal that I'm familiar with, where did you get it?

I guess there is also no slavery in bible history. Only servants right?

You do know there is a difference between indentured servitude, and modern understandings of slavery, right? Much of what is spoken of in the OT is indentured servitude, although there are instances of chattel slavery. Anyway, both the word slave and servant are used in the NIV, and it appears to be based on context. I suggest these videos for a quick look into the issue on the word translated as both servant and slave('ebed).

See, the people who redo the new version of the bible tried to make it more acceptable by using words that total means something else. It doesn't mean what it says!

That doesn't appear to be the case with the NIV, especially since your first example is false, and there is the original language and context to consider.

[AkByR64]

Not to derail the thread, but would you classify those Christian's who were open to newer ideas, back in the day, like heliocentrism, as liberal?

What evidence is there that heliocentricism is true? By all appearances the earth doesn't move. If we look up in the sky, we see the sun appears to revolve around the earth and the stars appears to rotate once every 24 hours. This is how it appears and this is probably how it is.

[AkByR64]

Reading a translation won't always offer you the full context of a passage. That's not good Bible study. If you can't read the original language, it's good to go to commentary sources in order to get a better understanding of said passage. In your Deut. example the NIV uses the word "rape" and the NET Bible uses the phrase "overpowers and rapes her", whereas the King James version uses the phrase "lay hold on her, and lie with her". It has the same meaning, but different wording. Other modern translations use similar language as the King James. The ESV and the NASB use the phrase "seizes her and lies with her".

Academic commentators aren't using the King James or any modern translations like the ESV or NASB. They're reading the words in the original languages, but even reading the passages in the original languages doesn't guarantee that they're all going to agree with one another on an interpretation. While the Gospel message may be simple enough, the Bible take dedication and prayerfulness to understand. The Bereans were commended for their exuberance in examining the scriptures. I've been studying the scriptures for decades now, and am constantly learning new things, and finding new dimensions to things I thought I already knew. An old translation or a modern translation of the Bible isn't going to change that.

I am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.

[Dante]

I am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.

I think you don't understand how translations work. Change is inevitable when it comes to translating from one language to another. A single word can mean two very different things, but depending on the context, the meaning of the word changes, therefore changes are to be made. Surely even you should know that to table a motion means to postpone the discussion of something during a meeting, but that's only in the US, whereas in the UK, the meaning is the complete opposite, such that the translator must first understand whether tabling a motion is in the US sense or the UK sense, before the translator can make the translation, and when one translates, one cannot translate such a term literally. This is why Google Translate is unreliable. It is not the context of what the word originally means that is changed when the word itself is changed; the context remains constant, but the meaning becomes erroneous. Therefore, it is for this very reason that all should reject the KJV as a reliable translation.

[AkByR64]

This website states rape is not in view in the Deut 22:28-29 passage. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

Again, it implied rape, regardless of language.

[AkByR64]

Context is key, and the Hebrew is different than the English. The word translated merely means "lie with", and in the context, seduce makes better sense. Especially since the English understanding of rape is given a different judgment in the text. Oh, and context is what would decide for many translations. This is because words often have multiple meanings, so that has to be taken into account. You're also wrong about your example, here's the NIV of Deuteronomy 22.

Source: NIV

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

© Copyright Original Source

Rape is used as the translation in both passages, even though seduce makes more sense of the context.

Seduces is different from rape I'm afraid. If you used the word seduces, it would not mean rape. ^_^

[Cerebrum123]

Seduces is different from rape I'm afraid. If you used the word seduces, it would not mean rape. ^_^

Yes, they are two different words in English, but in ancient Hebrew you have different words available, and there are limitations that come with that. The word translated merely means "to lie with", so context has to inform what it would mean when translated into English. The context suggests that "seduce" is a better English equivalent. "Rape" fits the earlier verse that has a punishment of death.

[One Bad Pig]

I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.

Checking Bible Gateway, the BRG, Geneva, and Jubilee Bible contain all three mythical creatures; the ISV, NABRE, NASB, and RSV contain "satyr", the Wyclif bible contains "unicorn" and "cockatrice" and the YLT contains "cockatrice."

"Lucifer" is in 11 other translations.

(Yes, I'm bored at work).

[Adrift]

I am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.

As Dante said, the process of translation and interpretation doesn't work in the way you seem to think it does. Even the KJV was translated in such a way as to accord with the best available knowledge that the translators had in the early 17th century. The original penners of the Bible were the inspired ones, not the translators who came some 1600 or 2000 years later. Again, as Dante pointed out, words can have a number of different meanings, and it's up to the translation committee to figure out the best grammatical, literary, historical, and social context of the passage in order for it to make as much sense to the modern reader. In that regard, all translations of the Bible from the Vulgate to the Wycliffe, to the King James, to the modern NET Bible are going to be infected with some of the beliefs and personal interpretations of the translators. There's no getting around that. That's why it's good to study the Bible in it's original languages, and to consult various commentaries so we can get a broad understanding of what the original authors were trying to convey.

Unless we're talking about clearly and openly biased translations like The Queen James, or The Silent Voices Bible, most modern translations aren't purposely attempting to foist their personal interpretations on the reader. The NIV isn't a conspiracy attempt to mislead people away from the truth. The translators of the Bible are doing their best to convey what they believe the original authors were saying. Some Bibles do a better job at this than others.

I don't agree with Dante's characterization of the King James. I certainly don't think it's one of the worst translations available (that might go to one of the more dynamic Bibles). It's not the best either.

[Adrift]

What evidence is there that heliocentricism is true? By all appearances the earth doesn't move. If we look up in the sky, we see the sun appears to revolve around the earth and the stars appears to rotate once every 24 hours. This is how it appears and this is probably how it is.

Ooookay. I see now that I've been wasting my time.

Yeesh. We should have a litmus test for new posters so that we get a heads up.

[Juvenal]

[...] I believe the NKJV has been supplemented with some of the Dead Sea Scroll findings.

• Edited by a Moderator •

[One Bad Pig]

The NKVJ has indeed been supplemented with some of the DSS findings (just checked my copy); I'm fairly certain the NRSV also incorporates material from the DSS.

As far as I am aware, the long delay in releasing material from the DSS pertains mostly to the non-canonical writings found there.