Now Some of the opponents of Bible credibility have presented extracted passages of various portions of the Bible from various translations in order to prove their point. Once again under further investigation, like in many previous cases, the opponents of Bible credibility used either a false English translation in comparison to a true and accurate translation or used an older English translation of a original Greek or Hebrew word in comparison to an updated English translation of the same original Greek or Hebrew word. For example: In an very old King James Version English translation of the Bible that I read when I was 8 years old, there is a passage in the book of Exodus that speaks about when Moses descended from the mountain where God's presence was. The passage read that Moses descended from the presence of God with "horns" poking out from his head. (Exodus 34:29) Now in the more up to date translation of the same passage it reads:
"..when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him."
What happened? Why was there a change from the older English translation of the King James version of the Bible? Why was it changed from the way it was originally written? I was 14 years old when I got a hold of a modern King James Version of the Bible and read the updated version of the passage. I was determined to find out why it was changed. So I investigated why there was change between the two King James English Versions of the Bible. What I found out was that there was no change in the words of the original languages of the scriptures from whence the two passages were translated into English. No, rather it was human error in the translation of the older King James Version English translation of the scriptures. When the older translation of the original languages of the scriptures were translated into English, they did not know what those words actually could be properly translated in the English of their day, so they translated the words according to the sentiment of the day. I did some research and discovered that found that the time when the older English King James Bible was translated, there was great feelings of antisemitism, that is, there was a deep hatred for the Jews. Why? There was this idea that was propagated that the Jews killed Jesus, the Christ. So I concluded that the translator back then translated the text according to the sentiment of day. Was it a correct translation? No, it wasn't. This translation of the phrase and those like it was proved as a wrong translation eventually by some scholarly work done by some fair minded, truth seeking Christians. The Christian scholars proved that the Jews did not directly kill Jesus, even though the Jews solicited and persuaded the Pagan Roman authority at the time to have it done. Now there is a lot less antisemitism because of these corrections in the English translation of the original copies of the scriptures.. This also proves that just because a translation is older, does not mean that it is more correctly translated than a more modern translation. It also proves that a change the original languages of the Bible was not the cause of the change in the passages of the English King James Bible. What cause the changes? In brief: Cultural perception and understand of a word. You see, American English is very different for the English of the King Jame Bible. Even though they are related as American English is an off shoot of 16th Century English, some words have changed in concept and meaning between the two cultures. For instance, the word "Let" in the Bible doesn't mean the same today as it did when the King James Bible was first translated. In the 16th century world of England, the word "let" meant to prohibit or to prevent, but in American English the word "let" means to allow or permit. Why don't we take a look of a passage in the new testament that uses the word "let" and apply the two different cultural definitions and perceptions:
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:7
At first glance, this verse would appear to be saying according to the American concept and definition of the word "let" that the mystery of sin is already at work and only he who now permits sin will continue to permit it until he is stopped and taken out of the way.
Now the King James English is not 21st century English, it is 16th Century English and the the passage above reads according to 16th century English definition and concept that the mystery of sin do already work: Only he who hinders and prohibits sin, will do so until he is stopped and taken out of the way.
This is the reason for up to date English translations of the original language of the Bible, to prevent the misunderstanding of the intent of the Biblical author. This shows that what was written is not necessarily what the text means. For modern English readers of the verse under discussion to understand it properly, they would have to look at how a 16th century Englishman would have understood the verse. This also proves that the original languages from whence this verse is translated did not cause nor do not cause the miss-understanding of the text, neither did the translation, rather it was the reader of the text being no careful to evaluate the verse read it according to his current understanding of the 16th century English words used in the verse. The problem is that many Americans read the scriptures according to their own cultural understanding and not the according to the culture of the translation. I feel that this is one of the reasons why there is many denominations of Christianity in America.
How do we know then with any assurance that the modern English translations of the copies of the original scriptures were not translated with some sort of prejudice of the translators? This is a fair and honest question, a question that I myself had. So I went on another investigation into the Bible translation process, and this is what I have found out, Looking through some Bible translation history documents and just recently videos. I discovered that the King James version is not a word for word translation. The website http:\\www.christian.stackexchange.com, a theologian named Richard provides us the following information:
The King James Version or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars.
It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation. The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language.
Compared to modern paraphrase translations, the King James version is almost a word-for-word translation. However, there were places where the scholars explicitly rejected the word-for-word translation in favor of wording that would make more sense to the contemporary English reader of the day.
Here's an example in Romans 5:2-3
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
The words "rejoice" (in verse 2) and "glory" (in verse 3) are the same word in the original text. A word-for-word translation would have given the same word for those in both cases.
Having said all of this and in light of today's translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation. If you compare this, for example, to a thought-for-thought translation or a paraphrase, this translation is much closer to the original text (dramatically so in the case of a paraphrase).
While the original text scholars intentionally rejected word-for-word translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation when compared to thought-for-thought or paraphrase translations.
This information provided by the post of Richard the theologian at the Christianstackexchange.com website, shows that the intent of the translators was not to change what the original scriptures stated or insert words that did not exist in the original scriptures, rather they attempted to capture the concept of the original scriptural passage and translate that concept into the English of their day in the 16th Century, in order get as near to the meaning and ideas of the original scriptures as possible. There was no intention to mar or to distort the original scriptures.
A very long time ago, when I had the opportunity I kept a vigil watch over the production of the New International Version English Bible, also known as the N.I.V. English version of the Bible. I saw that the Bible publisher used committees of theologians from the Jewish faith and the Christian faith for each book of the new Bible they intended to translate and to publish. They would release one book at a time to see if the public would accept the new translation or would there be outrage from the pulpits of American churches and synagogues. With each release there was an explanation for why they translated a word or a phrase differently than that of other Modern English translations, however that did not stop the criticisms from the religious communities. There were a great many accusations laid at the translators feet, one of which was changing the scriptures from their original meaning. To see if there accusations were true, I would go out and purchase a book of the new translated Bible every time one was published and compared it to the King James Bible I had in my possession. I asked myself this same question concerning each of them: What changes to the text did this Publisher allow the translator to make and on what grounds? I read that part which came with each release which was an explanation of the text, why certain words were translated differently and why was it better than what the King James translation of the Bible presented in this new version of the scriptures.
Not at one time did the issue of changing a concept or a word because of the translator's perception, perspective or prejudice was used. The cited reason was always, what best presented the scriptures to the understanding of the common people was their goal in translating the original scriptures. I was also comforted from the fact that each translator signed an oath to the readers of their intent and purpose in bringing in a new translation into the American culture was without bias or prejudice with each release of a portion of the new translation. Therefore, I have great confidence in the N.I.V. English Bible today, that it is one of the most up to date Bible readable and understandable translations ever assembled. Now we also have the English New King James Version Bible, also known as the N.K.J.V. Bible, which combined the readability of the N.I.V. English Bible with the authoritative style of the English K.J.V Bible. I have all three bibles in my possession and is very confident that the concepts are consistent between all three of them and they with the original copies of the scriptures.
In a previous Facebook post, some time ago, I responded to an opponent of the English King James Bible who deliberately changed the words of a English Bible text to make it say what he wanted it to say and claim it came from the K.J.V. of the Bible. I pulled up my English K.J.V. Bible and found that he was miss-representing the K.J.V. Bible at a particular verse. What I did was posted the actual K.J.V. verse in question and corrected his miss-quote. Bible credibility opponents love to fool Christians with a good sounding self-paraphrased quote from the Bible. I was not fooled by the person and demonstrated how the concept and the ideas of the original translated scripture was not changed through all 3 different Bible English translations by posting all three English versions in my possession of the particular verse. Then he used a false translation and claimed that the Bible was in fact changed. I pointed out to him that the translation he used was a false translation of the Bible because it did not follow the testimony of the Apostles and early church fathers.
A false translation is a Bible that is translated into English but the original concept of the original scriptures is not preserved in the translation. Instead, another alternative translation is inserted according to the beliefs and prejudices of those who published it or altered it. For example: The New World Translation is a false Bible translation, in that the concept of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God is removed and the concept as Jesus being a separate God is propagated through its texts. The Book of Mormon, which presented as another testament of Jesus Christ, is a false testament, even though it is not a direct translation of the established original scriptures, it is written in the King James Bible translation style. This was done to give it a "king James" kind of feel to the readers of its contents. All in all it is a fabrication that tells of Jesus coming to the Americas, just before his ascension to bring the good news to the native Americans. This all sounds good and plausible because after his crucifixion and resurrection he appeared to the disciples while they were locked inside a closed and secured room. So why couldn't Jesus have appeared to the native Americans and preached the Gospel to them? The reason Jesus did not come to the Americas to preach the Gospel to the native Americans is because he did not need to come to the Americas to preach the Kingdom of God to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Jesus assigned all believers with the task of spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations starting from Jerusalem. This concept that the book of Mormon presents makes it seem that Jesus believed that his disciples would fail in bringing the Gospels to the native Americans and had to do it himself. We all know that isn't the truth and there were countless Christian Missionaries that successfully preached the Gospel to the native Americans. Think about it, if Jesus believed that his disciples would fail in carrying out his great commission, why did he commissioned the Apostles with the task of preaching to the world the Gospel? Also there are no archaeological discoveries to confirm the contents of the Book of Mormon when it speaks of people, places and events. The point is, because there is so many accurate reproductions of the English translations of the original scriptures that a false bible is real easy to identify.
What also makes me so confident that the English King James Bible is accurate in its translation from the original scriptures? I was made confident because when a English bible is published, each book is translated by a separate and distinct committee from another. After each committee is finished translating the particular book of scripture into English, the books are assembled together without regard to cross textual consistency. Which means without changing the contents of one book to correlate to the contents of another book. This creates the appearance of a discrepancy when a New Testament character quotes Old Testament scripture, for example: In Isaiah 53:5 there is a phrase that says "...and with his stripes we are healed...." This phrase of scripture is quoted by the Apostle Peter, but in his letter it reads, ".. by whose stripes ye were healed...." (1 Peter 2 :24 ) Is this a miss-translated verse in the Old Testament or is it a miss-quoted verse in the New Testament? The answer is that it is neither. Both English translations are true to its expression in the language it was translated from. What this supposed variation shows is the revelation that the Apostle Peter had concerning the Isaiah 53 prophecy. He looks at the prophecy as being fulfilled in Christ and quotes it according to that revelation. He quotes it in the past tense, looking back at the Cross where Jesus was crucified. With this understanding, the supposed discrepancy disappears. This is also true with many other New Testament quotes of Old Testament scriptures.
Finding all this stuff out about the King James Bible translation and other modern English translations that are consistent with the testimonies of the early church and the Apostles of Christ. I was impressed with the thoroughness of the various bible committees and concluded that no malicious attempt to change the bible was possible. As explained before, if someone attempted to change any of the original concepts, without justifiable explanation, of the English Bible it would be quickly identified as a fake bible and by and large rejected by many Churches and Christians.
The only question that is left is this: Have the original copies of the scriptures been changed through the repetitive copying of them? The logical answer is yes, but the factual answer is no. Why is it logical to believe that the original copies of the scriptures have been changed due the repetitive copying of them. It is logical to think that as those who copied the first document, also known as the autograph, and then repeatedly copied the copy of the copy, that over time as they became more removed from the autograph, the first original document composed, that some words could have been changed, re-arranged and replaced. The fact of the matter, that is not what happened at all concerning the reproduction of the holy scriptures. What did happen was exact replicas of the autographs were reproduced. How could this be? First, please understand that there were no copying machines when the first copies were produced. What they had were men that were trained as scribes. Their job was to produce an exact replica of the autograph or the exact copy of the autograph for people who were willing to pay a good price for it if they were a foreigner, it was free if they were an Jewish leader or a Christian. In order for them to properly do this they had to adhere to strict copying policies and techniques. If a error was made and discovered, the document produced by the scribe was destroyed and he had to start all over. There was no tolerance for error in copying the autographs of Holy writ. No incorrect copies of any authorized Old Testament and New Testament scriptures were allowed to survive. Add to this the popular demand for exact copies of the autographs of the original scriptures and you find that thousands were reproduced, the ones that were not distributed were stored in various places on papyrus paper scrolls. These copies were generated during the first two centuries of the Church and circulated throughout the known Roman world. Even though all these exact copies were reproduced, the papyrus that they were written on began to decay and rot away. So more vigilant efforts were performed to preserve the copies of the autographs as time moved on. I must state here that the original copies of the holy scriptures are among the most well preserved set of books in the world. This why we have exact copies of the autographs dating from the first and second centuries of the church still with us today. It is from these exact copies of the autographs, which have long since decayed away, that modern English translations including the King James Bible are translated from.
Now the icing on the cake is that one of the oldest complete Bibles discovered, Codex Sinaiticus, which was written in one of the original languages and dates back to the early 4th century, when it was translated into modern English, it confirmed that no changes were made in concept or purpose in the words bible since that time. If that wasn't enough, a theologian took up the challenge that the bible was changed and did something completely different. He took the 800 plus pieces of literature which were the autograph copies of the early church fathers and using only their quotes of the New Testament reassembled the entire New Testament to the letter. He didn't even use the known Codexes of the Bible and was able to produce an accurate copy. The Old testament, on the other hand has had a incredible record of authenticity and accuracy over the centuries, insomuch that the ancient city of Nineveh was found just using the geographical references provided within its pages. The Kingdom of the Hittites was discovered just where the Bible said they would be. Archaeology has confirmed the the Bible many times and has given us reason to believe its contents as accurate and authentic. Think about it, if a story in the bible was just made up and presented as fact, it would never be confirmed by archaeology . So has the Bible changed since its inception? Many have tried and failed to change its contents to suit their beliefs. Just remember in order for a fake Bible to be created there must be an authentic one to emulate.
The last evidence is the Apostles and the many disciples who died to preserve the original scriptures. If they died for false scriptures, then they were all fools, because they died for what they did not know was false. Even worse If they knew it was false and persisted in the propagation of that which is false, they are guilty of being co-conspirators in a mass con scheme of the likes the world have never seen and willingly died for it. Or they just lost their minds and gave up their lives preserving that which is not authentic or accurate. Regardless of any of those possibilities they never recanted their testimony and preserved the holy scriptures until the day of their death. They left a standing testimony of scriptural accuracy and authenticity that still effects us today and all who believe because of their sacrifices and testimonies preserved in the holy scriptures have the assurance that what is in the Bible is true when responsibly translated into whatsoever language it needs to be in order that the Great commission of our Lord would be accomplished.
No comments:
Post a Comment