Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .6
A Perfect Saviour
I, this series of blogs I have already mentioned the importance of the truth that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ was sinless and perfect. In order for Him to be our Passover Lamb He had to be without spot and blemish. Once again in this area the modern bibles are found wanting.
The family into which the Lord Jesus was born was certainly a godly family, His mother Mary and Joseph followed the obligations of the Law of Moses and saw to it that the infant Jesus was circumcised and brought to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord. This particular instance is recorded for us in Luke chapter 2. In verse 22 of this chapter Luke tells us of Mary’s observation of the Law concerning purification.
‘And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;’
You will notice very clearly that the purification mentioned here relates to Mary and not to the Lord Jesus. It is ‘her purification’. We learn about this law in Leviticus 12
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. Leviticus 12 v1-4
You will notice in the verses above the continual reference to her, she and a woman. The new bibles agree with this rendering as they do the same as the AV and show clearly that this purification relates to the mother. However, in the rendering of Luke 2 v22 in the new bibles they do not refer to ‘her’ purification but rather ‘their’ purification. The clear suggestion is made that there was something impure about the infant Jesus.
‘When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.’ NIV
The NASB, NLT, ESV & NET do exactly the same and the Message and the NCV leave it unclear as to who the purification relates to. What an awful way to translate this verse, to even dare suggest that there is something impure about the spotless Lamb of God is terrible. Let us not forget the description of the Lord Jesus given by the writer to the Hebrews ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.’ I’m not sure what textual argument they use to justify this translation but it flies against the revelation in Leviticus.
As if this is not bad enough (and it is) may I show you another bizarre translation that makes our Blessed Saviour out to fickle at best or a liar at worst? I am speaking now about the translation of John 7 v8-10 in the some of new bibles. First of all let’s see what the AV has to say.
‘Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.’
On this occasion the Lord Jesus sent His brethren up to the feast in Jerusalem telling them that He was not going up yet, however, later in verse ten the ‘not up yet’(see below) of verse eight has passed and He goes up. That makes sense to me I have often sent people on ahead for whatever reason and meet them somewhere at a later time. When we come to consider some of the new bibles they do something different.
οὔπω = oupō = not yet
8You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." 9After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. ESV
In this story the Lord Jesus has told His brethren that He is not going up to the feast, but then He does go up. The ‘not yet’ has been dropped. Either He has changed His mind or He has told a lie. Which is it?
Changed His mind
That is a ridiculous suggestion. The Lord Jesus Christ is God, he does not change His mind. He is Immutable! If we had a fickle God who changed His mind then what hope have we of heaven? He might be in a mood to take us today but not tomorrow. No, no, God does not change His mind.
He is a Liar
This suggestion is also ridiculous. The Lord Jesus as God is perfectly righteous, He does not sin therefore He does not lie. But I’m afraid the poor translation given by the ESV paints Him as such. Please note the NLT, CEV & NASB all make this grave error.
I will certainly be avoiding bibles that cast any doubt on my Saviours character or make Him out to be in any way impure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'The clear suggestion is made that there was something impure about the infant Jesus.
ReplyDelete"When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." NIV'
A very strange way to smear Jesus, since it references back to the Law of Moses - and that Law says nothing about the child being impure.
If the reader is to think Jesus was impure, he/she would have to be pretty stupid. And the NIV staff pretty stupid to think anyone would fall for it.
The same word translated 'her' and 'their' is translated 'their' 318 times in the AV, 242 times as 'her'.
I assume the 'their' here is merely a general reference to Mary as Jesus' mother - her purification in connection to his birth.
Regarding the 'not' vs the 'not yet' in John 7:8, it is not a matter of poor translation. The translators were following their Greek text.
ReplyDeleteWe can say the Greek text was wrong here, but why it was wrong is another matter. Did the copyist desire to impugn the veracity of Christ, or make Him uncertain of His own mind? Or did the copyist just leave out a word by mistake, and as that copy came to be copied, the mistake was propagated?
The AV is also guilty of additions and omissions. Are they all down to deliberate intention to corrupt the word? No, copyist mistakes can explain them all.
Wolfsbane, you said:
ReplyDelete"I assume the 'their' here is merely a general reference to Mary as Jesus' mother - her purification in connection to his birth."
That's just it, though - your assumptions do not equate to verified facts!
The AV demonstrably gets it right here, the modern versions quoted above by Maurice do not! - Given that the AV got it right, then subsequent "modern translations" are without excuse to have gotten it wrong. To the adversary out there, who has always attempted to question, twist and even destroy the Word of God, this is yet another piece of ammunition to add to the stock-pile.
This is about accurate translation of Scripture using accurate source texts and sound translation methodologies and philosophies. It is Scripture we are dealing with here, not a Burger King Menu - you can't just "have it your way!"
"Regarding the 'not' vs the 'not yet' in John 7:8, it is not a matter of poor translation. The translators were following their Greek text.
We can say the Greek text was wrong here, but why it was wrong is another matter. Did the copyist desire to impugn the veracity of Christ, or make Him uncertain of His own mind? Or did the copyist just leave out a word by mistake, and as that copy came to be copied, the mistake was propagated?"
The translators who incorporated these errors into their "new" version/s produced a less accurate version than the AV.
The amount of error included in the "modern" versions is to such an enormous extent that they can in no way be considered reliable, certainly not as reliable as the AV!
'The amount of error included in the "modern" versions is to such an enormous extent that they can in no way be considered reliable, certainly not as reliable as the AV!'
ReplyDeleteAs I asked elsewhere, how much error is acceptable to you? Just the amount in the AV? Or a bit more? Twice as much?
For the record:
ReplyDeleteThe NIV has problems BOTH with its reliance on dynamic equivalence and non-Byzantine texts.
The ESV has only the latter problem.
The AV has problems, to a lesser degree, with non-Byzantine texts.
The NKJV has the the same problems as the AV, but notes where the Byzantine text differs (footnoted as Majority Text).
All of these versions have their own idiosyncrasies, minor quirks, etc.
So I want to know how you determine what is merely a less accurate translation of the word, and what is so bad it is NOT the word of God.
“'The amount of error included in the "modern" versions is to such an enormous extent that they can in no way be considered reliable, certainly not as reliable as the AV!' As I asked elsewhere, how much error is acceptable to you? Just the amount in the AV? Or a bit more? Twice as much? So I want to know how you determine what is merely a less accurate translation of the word, and what is so bad it is NOT the word of God.”
ReplyDeleteAgain, you repeat yourself, so I shall repeat my answer:
Again, as has been repeated to you over and over and over again, it is vitally important that, when discussing these matters honestly, we compare like with like. You simply cannot compare apples with oranges, so-to-speak. First of all, the AV does not have “hundreds of thousands” of erroneous anything! The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. Indeed, as a recent BBC news article correctly pointed out, the AV changed the English language in many respects. Latin versions that came before it were certainly not perfect, but consulting them and using certain words when the English had otherwise been exhausted was not a wrong course of action where this was done accurately and faithfully in relation to the original text. This cannot, however, be used to excuse the translators of so-called “modern” versions who consulted other works and cherry picked from them at will, and changed words without first exhausting the vocabulary of the English language. Indeed, the translators of so-called “modern versions” PRIMARILY based their works on rejected and heavily corrupted source texts, unlike the AV translators who PRIMARILY used the Byzantine and Masoretic texts. Your argument here about the AV translators using the same tactics as the so-called “modern versions” is deceitful, to say the least! The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it. If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV. THEY DO NOT! Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts, and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon. Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.
Wycliffe produced a more accurate version in English than anything else that existed at that time, the AV translators did a better job. The translators of the so-called “modern” versions DID NOT produce a more accurate version than the AV. Wycliffe and then the AV translators produced better translations in English than what came before them, whereas the modern critical scholars of the so-called “modern versions” produced English versions that are LESS ACCURATE than that which came before… their work represents a regression, not a progression, and thus a corruption. Your use of those versions, and your encouraging others to use them, helps to promote this corruption and regression from accuracy.
“All of these versions have their own idiosyncrasies, minor quirks, etc.”
That is a massive misrepresentation of the truth! “minor quirks”?!!!!!
'That is a massive misrepresentation of the truth! “minor quirks”?!!!!!'
ReplyDeleteAgain, how much error can a version have before it is no longer a Holy Bible?
You rightly point out most of the modern version omit several passages in the NT - but then yo seek to justify the AV when it adds passages - and indeed omits bits too.
No use saying it is 'apples and oranges', for it is Greek text in both cases.
The AV, NKJV,NIV, ESV, NASB, etc., all agree by far the majority of the NT text. The dispute is over a small number of variant texts.
When you make the NIV or ESV a perverted version, you do so to the AV also.
Stop the childish hysteria, and call them less accurate versions - unless you are willing to call the AV 'the least perverted version'.
"No use saying it is 'apples and oranges', for it is Greek text in both cases."
ReplyDeleteMore deceitful sleight of hand ... might work on the simple minded, Wolfsbane, but it's really pathetic! As if there was only one Greek text out there!!!!!
"When you make the NIV or ESV a perverted version, you do so to the AV also."
No, I don't make any version "perverted", neither does my coming to the conclusion that certain texts are corrupted make others equally so ... I judge each case in turn ... some have blemishes ... others are certainly manipulated in ways that seriously affect lots of doctrinal issues ... especially those which are based upon texts which are not reliable as orthodox renderings. If you cant tell the difference ... that's your problem, not mine.
They are certainly not all equally at fault. Neither are they equally reliable. To say that one is the best, by a long way, does not prevent me from saying that others are corrupt beyond use as reliable translations.
Unless, you are playing your silly straw-man games again, and / or accusing me AGAIN of things I have not said.
"Stop the childish hysteria"
You do like irony, don't you?!!
'To say that one is the best, by a long way, does not prevent me from saying that others are corrupt beyond use as reliable translations.'
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you are not calling them 'perverted', but what does 'corrupt beyond use as reliable translations' mean , if not 'perverted'?
Maybe the difference is clear in your mind, but I fail to see any real difference.
Here's the nub - the NIV, ESV, NASB, even though based on a faulty text, carry the same message as the AV and NKJV. How? Because the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text and the Critical Text differ only on a small number of places, and no doctrine of the Bible is overthrown or any heresy established.
In my book 'corrupt beyond use as reliable translations' would only apply to versions that overthrew any doctrine or established any heresy.
"Here's the nub - the NIV, ESV, NASB, even though based on a faulty text, carry the same message as the AV and NKJV. How? Because the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text and the Critical Text differ only on a small number of places, and no doctrine of the Bible is overthrown or any heresy established."
ReplyDeleteYour circular arguments may stunt the debate ... but utterly fail to further your argument.
We have been here before, Wolfsbane, and you completely ignore or outright deny the facts ... not much wonder you "[refuse] to see any real difference".