An Argument with LCers on Bible Versions

[DistantStar]

I just thought I'd add this while it is on my mind.

Before I get started, I have to say that I always use the King James bible. I'm no expert on the different translations, but from what I've gathered it seems to be the best. It is not my intention to start a debate here on Bible versions. I just want to share this experience.

One day, a week or so after I left Christians on Campus, while I was walking on campus with the intention of going home, I walked into two members.
Since I didn't come for the small Bible study that week, they asked if I wanted to do it with them in their office. I said yes. In my heart I knew I was done with this society, but they did not realise it yet.

We did a reading on Colossians 1. They read from the Recovery Version while I read from the KJV. While they read the verses I could see definite differences compared to the KJV. I decided to see what they would do if I pointed out these differences.

One verse stood out: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

So in an offhand manner I said I liked that verse because principalities and dominions are political concepts and as I study politics, it was interesting to note that God is the author not only of physical things, but of political ones as well.

Compare it with the Recovery Version: Because in Him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him.

When I said this the one guy got really quite. He looked at me with very distant eyes and said: "The Recovery Version does not say that".

The other guy then asked me if I knew on which manuscript the KJV is based. I said the Authorized Text. He then told me that the majority of Bibles are based on the majority text. I simply responded that majority opinion means nothing. Now it could well be that the majority text is correct. I merely questioned his logic. They then said that they did learn a bit of Greek. I thought by myself that this is very insignificant. They are basically saying that by learning a bit of Greek on their own, only attending classes by other members who themselves studied it at their own, they are more knowledgeable on the Bible than the actual translators.
They implied that their knowledge of the Greek is better and therefore they are right and I am wrong.

What is their logic here? So the translators of the King James knew more than they do, (they admitted this by saying that they know only a bit of Greek) but they claim they are right because they know more than I do?

He then told me that (in spite of them being based on different texts) the verse I quoted is in both manuscripts identical. I said that that is impossible. The differences are not mere synonyms or word order. I know almost nothing of Greek, but I know Afrikaans and English, and at university I studied Spanish and German. And in my spare time I've tried to learn a bit of Russian. Now I understand that Greek is a unique complex language, but I thought that I at least have some idea of how languages can work. But admittedly, they knew more than I do. One of them then took out his cellphone on which he compared, in Greek, the majority text with the authorized text. They were clearly different. The symbols were clearly different. I said that unless synonyms are used or the word order changed, these two verses are not identical.

They didn't say much after that. Before I left they said that issues such as Bible differences shouldn't take away our focus from Christ. That we shouldn't be distracted. I agreed in principle, but there are verses which matter. After that discussion I had the feeling that I appeared to them to be a heretic. They didn't say it, but from the look of it they didn't expect me to stand my ground.

After I left I realised something: They started the discussion. They were the ones that got distracted.

What bothered me during this conversation is that airily, distant look in their eyes. Like ghosts. I've seen this in a number of them.

P. S. Like I said initially, it is not my intention to debate the KJV. I am aware that other Bible versions may also have different meanings to "principalities" and "dominions". I just wanted to test them. Perhaps it was wrong, but at the time I didn't care for their feelings.

[OBW]

We've had the "this source text v that source text" in the past, mostly on a previous forum. And at least one person who absolutely insisted upon the Authorized Text.

The general feel is that the RecV is very similar to a couple of others, and is almost the same as one of them except where Lee really wanted to make some of his peculiar points. Like saying "reality" instead of "truth."

But like every in-house translation, the general finding is that the few alterations are designed to prove the somewhat aberrant theology of the group. In the case of the RecV, the bulk of it is in the footnotes. I am not aware of a printing of the RecV without them.

In effect, the Bible is considered incomplete without them. It really doesn't matter which Greek/Hebrew texts were started from. Once you add in the footnotes as if required to understand the Bible, then he whole thing is suspect even where it otherwise reads exactly like the KJV, RSV, NASB or any other.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I just thought I'd add this while it is on my mind.

Before I get started, I have to say that I always use the King James bible. I'm no expert on the different translations, but from what I've gathered it seems to be the best. It is not my intention to start a debate here on Bible versions. I just want to share this experience.

One day, a week or so after I left Christians on Campus, while I was walking on campus with the intention of going home, I walked into two members.
Since I didn't come for the small Bible study that week, they asked if I wanted to do it with them in their office. I said yes. In my heart I knew I was done with this society, but they did not realise it yet.

We did a reading on Colossians 1. They read from the Recovery Version while I read from the KJV. While they read the verses I could see definite differences compared to the KJV. I decided to see what they would do if I pointed out these differences.

One verse stood out: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

So in an offhand manner I said I liked that verse because principalities and dominions are political concepts and as I study politics, it was interesting to note that God is the author not only of physical things, but of political ones as well.

Compare it with the Recovery Version: Because in Him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him.

When I said this the one guy got really quite. He looked at me with very distant eyes and said: "The Recovery Version does not say that".

The other guy then asked me if I knew on which manuscript the KJV is based. I said the Authorized Text. He then told me that the majority of Bibles are based on the majority text. I simply responded that majority opinion means nothing. Now it could well be that the majority text is correct. I merely questioned his logic. They then said that they did learn a bit of Greek. I thought by myself that this is very insignificant. They are basically saying that by learning a bit of Greek on their own, only attending classes by other members who themselves studied it at their own, they are more knowledgeable on the Bible than the actual translators.
They implied that their knowledge of the Greek is better and therefore they are right and I am wrong.

What is their logic here? So the translators of the King James knew more than they do, (they admitted this by saying that they know only a bit of Greek) but they claim they are right because they know more than I do?

He then told me that (in spite of them being based on different texts) the verse I quoted is in both manuscripts identical. I said that that is impossible. The differences are not mere synonyms or word order. I know almost nothing of Greek, but I know Afrikaans and English, and at university I studied Spanish and German. And in my spare time I've tried to learn a bit of Russian. Now I understand that Greek is a unique complex language, but I thought that I at least have some idea of how languages can work. But admittedly, they knew more than I do. One of them then took out his cellphone on which he compared, in Greek, the majority text with the authorized text. They were clearly different. The symbols were clearly different. I said that unless synonyms are used or the word order changed, these two verses are not identical.

They didn't say much after that. Before I left they said that issues such as Bible differences shouldn't take away our focus from Christ. That we shouldn't be distracted. I agreed in principle, but there are verses which matter. After that discussion I had the feeling that I appeared to them to be a heretic. They didn't say it, but from the look of it they didn't expect me to stand my ground.

After I left I realised something: They started the discussion. They were the ones that got distracted.

What bothered me during this conversation is that airily, distant look in their eyes. Like ghosts. I've seen this in a number of them.

P. S. Like I said initially, it is not my intention to debate the KJV. I am aware that other Bible versions may also have different meanings to "principalities" and "dominions". I just wanted to test them. Perhaps it was wrong, but at the time I didn't care for their feelings.

That's great Distant star! You challenged them and helped try to make them think. Too bad you will now be on their concerned list. You should expect a very serious brother in a white shirt and tie to visit soon. Hold strong!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by HERn

....Too bad you will now be on their...list!

Can you please keep it clean...just in case you think this isn't profanity? This is a Christian forum and Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Eph. 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Nell

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Nell

Can you please keep it clean...just in case you think this isn't profanity? This is a Christian forum and Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Eph. 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Nell

Yes, I can do that. Thanks for the encouragement.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

The other guy then asked me if I knew on which manuscript the KJV is based. I said the Authorized Text. He then told me that the majority of Bibles are based on the majority text.

Brother, try to have an open mind here. If this point troubles you, I suggest reading up on Textual Criticism. I knew Dr. Philip Comfort, a renowned Greek scholar, and he has written some great books on this subject. A great starter book which he edited and compiled with other renowned scholars would be The Origin of the Bible.

The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which was a very good text in the 16th century. It was "authorized" by James, the king of England, the head of the church of England, who thus made all other contemporary translations illegal.

Since then we have discovered new manuscripts of the N.T. which have improved our accuracy of the Greek text of the NT. Note that the KJV is a 400+ year old translation of the best manuscripts of their day of the original Greek language. Besides the beauty of classical Shakesperean English, there is no divine "authorization" on any specific translation of the Bible.

The quality of any translation is based on the quality of the Greek Text (Nestle-Aland (NA28) and the American Bible Society 5th Ed. are accepted as the best) and the quality of the translators. There are today many excellent translations of the New Testament.

The problem most of us have with the Recovery Version is not the text, but the footnotes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Can you please keep it clean...just in case you think this isn't profanity? This is a Christian forum and Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Eph. 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Nell

It's just wonderful to have a sister here making sure the place is kept clean.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by HERn

Yes, I can do that. Thanks for the encouragement.

Thanks.
Nell