From: mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:21:07 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

The Rink (ss1@kepler.unh.edu) wrote:

: To start off with, here's a brief outline of the history of all
: these Bibles.  In 1611, the King James Bible was translated.
[stuff deleted to save BW]
: Anyway, the majority of the Hebrew and Greek
: manuscripts were all the same, and those are the manuscripts that
: the King James Bible was translated from.  However, there were a
: few manuscripts that differed, and these were compiled together in
: 1881.  Starting with 1884, new translations were made from these
: manuscripts.  ALL the new Bibles were translated from this.  The
: American Standard, the New American Standard, the New International
: Version, the Living Bible, the Catholics' Bible -- everything that
: is accepted as a legitimate translation of the Bible came from
: this, with the exception of the New King James.  Small portions of
: the New King James were translated from the same manuscripts that
: the King James was translated from, but still, the majority of the
: New King James comes from this 1881 compilation of Hebrew and Greek
: manuscripts.

I beg to differ.  The NT portion of the KJV was based on a Greek
translation compiled by Erasmus in the early 1500's based on 12th and
13th century documents, representing a "byzantine" flavor of Greek.
Unfortunately, Erasmus' translation had many errors, some of which
had been corrected by other scholars by the time of the KJV.

If you study what was happening at that time, you will discover that the
scholars were using much the same techniques then, which are used today
to reconstruct texts -- primarily by going back to the oldest existing
texts and by making critical judgments on textual variants.  The KJV
made use of the best texts of the time, and was an excellent translation
for that day and age, and was instrumental in spreading the word of God
in the common English language.

Modern translations are also based on the best texts of the day.
Modern translations are not "based" on work done in 1881, although this
was the starting point of the ASV translation.  Most reputable modern
translations used the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 23rd edition.  The source
documents for this start in the 2nd and 3rd century, a full 1000 years
prior to the source documents for the KJV.  A simply comparison of these
documents clearly shows that a multitude of changes were made to the 
texts over time for various reasons.  Some changes were errors in copying
the text by hand.  Others were deliberate editing done to make the text
more readable or less harsh.  The challenge of scholarship is to go back
to as close to the original text as possible in order to retain the
"harshness" or tough statements which people tend to smooth out.

As a companion to the Nestle-Aland NT, there is a book by Bruce Metzger
which discusses all the major variants in the NT, ranks them, and then
discusses why the specific variant was chosen.  The modern readings were
not chosen out of whim or fancy.  They were carefully analyzed in an
effort to explain how and why the variants came into being, and thus to
arrive at what the original wording may have been.  I suggest that you
read the introduction to this book.  It gives an excellent history of
the Bible from the earliest documents to today, and then gives the 
methods by which variants are analyzed.  The name of the book is something
like "A Textual Commentary [Criticism?] on the Greek New Testament" or
something like that, and is available through American Bible Society.
Metzger is (in my opinion) a scholar and Christian of the highest caliber.

Some of the rules of textual criticism include:

1)  Choose the harder reading.  Editors tend to make things easier to
    read instead of harder.  This is especially true in the "hard"
    statements of Jesus.  People tend to soften them up because they
    are not easy to live up to. (See my comments on Matt 6, below).
    There is also often a tendency to harmonize passages so that 
    different books say the same things.

2)  Choose the shorter reading.  Editors tend to add text in order
    to clarify instead of taking away text.  Very little text is
    ever removed in copying.

3)  Follow the Alexandrian reading when in doubt.  The Alexandrian
    readings tend to have the fewest changes over time.  The Byzantine
    and Western readings tend to introduce the above two problems.
    BTW -- the KJV is based on Byzantine texts which have been smoothed
    and lengthened.

4)  Try to explain how variants could arise from one another, and choose
    the one which cannot be explained by the others.  i.e. "why would
    someone change a word to something else?" is the question to be
    asked.

Another problem with later texts is that they all add punctuation.
In the original language, there was no punctuation (or spaces between
words for that matter), so it is necessary to examine these sorts of
issues.

A further problem with your argument is that of the Catholic church.
They include "extra" books, and have done so for hundreds of years,
including the time prior to the reformation.  By your methods of 
examination, the fact that this has existed over such a period of
time should prove its authenticity and validity.  Also, the Catholics
for many years (1500+) have used the Latin Vulgate.  Wouldn't this
be authoritative and match with the KJV?  Well, they don't, and I'm
not willing to say the Vulgate is not the Word of God just because 
it doesn't match with the KJV.  The KJV has nothing whatsoever to do
with defining the concept of the infallible word of God.  Rather it
is a translation of the word of God.

: Before we get into Scripture, consider the fact that all the new
: Bibles are copyrighted.  Some man or company owns those copyrights,
: and they receive royalties any time one of their Bibles is sold or
: somebody publishes a book using quotations of their particular
: translation.

Better check into this.  The Lockman foundation is "NOT FOR PROFIT".
To quote the NASB you do NOT have to pay royalties.  I believe that the
NIV is the same on royalties.  Copyrights help protect the Bible from
quacks taking someones translation, making changes, and then quoting
it as the Bible.  I see nothing wrong with them.

: Third, if you ever talk to the translators of the new Bibles and
: pin them to their beliefs, they don't even belief there IS an
: infallible Word of God ANYWHERE on this Earth today.  Well what
: in the world are people who believe that doing translating Bibles?
: To tell you the truth, I have absolutely no idea.  Maybe they've
: got some fool idea that they can at least improve the accuracy of
: the Word of God by translating it again and again, but it doesn't
: take much sense to realize that the more man tampers with the Word
: of God, the more it's going to get all bent out of shape and full
: of errors.  I, personally, believe a good portion of the reason
: is those royalties they are getting from the sales of their
: particular version.

Read the statement from the Lockman foundation at the front of a NASB.
They believe that this is the word of God, they desire accuracy, and
they want the Bible to be presented to the "masses" in language which
they can understand -- which happens to be the same reason that the
King of England authorized the KJV, why Martin Luther translated a 
German Bible, why Jerome made the Latin Vulgate translation.....

: Fifth.  The American Standard Version was translated in 1901, and
: everybody everywhere were getting so caught up in it, claiming it
: was the most reliable Word of God for the English language.  But
: then, when the New American Standard Version came out decades
: later, the American Standard Version disappeared.  Vanished.  Now,
: you can't hardly find a single copy of the American Standard
: Version.  Everybody's using the New American Standard.

Per the Lockman foundation, the NASB was designed to replace the ASV
by offering a Bible which was more readable in the 1960's and 70's.
The ASV's style was not understandeable to people several generations
later.  So, the ASV isn't exactly dead.

: Sixth and last, whenever a Bible was translated into a particular
: language, it was done -- understandably -- at the peak of that
: particular language.  The King James Bible was translated at the
: peak of the English language.  As a result, it comes out more
: specific and clear, however archaic the language.

Bunk.  Luther's German translation appeared when German was a gutter
language.  His Bible became the basis for modern written German.  It
was not written at the peak of the language, but more at the birth.

Besides, we speak American English not the King's English.  Ask any
good linguist and they will tell you this.  Or, you could simply test
this imperically.  Go survery 1000 Americans on which they can understand
better, the KJV or the NIV/NASB.  The KJV will lose big-time.

If I used King James English in a sermon I would never reach my
target audience.  It isn't appropriate or understandeable.  My primary
goal is to reach people with the gospel of Christ, and to do so, I
must put the message in language they understand, which is NOT
King James English, and in the future will probably not be NASB
English.  Word usage and meaning changes over time, and the Bible must
take this into account.  It must be contextualized.

The Roman Catholic church finally accepted this concept, and began
holding the mass in the language of the people instead of Latin.  It
has helped bring great renewal in the Catholic church, especially 
since people could understand what was going on and being read, etc.

: In many cases, the archaic language is an asset, rather than a
: hindrance.  : Consider the words for "you."  In modern English we 
: have an overwhelming one word for it.  "You."  In 1611, when they
: translated the King James Bible, they used four words.  "Thou,"
: "thee," "ye," and "you."  "Thou" and "thee" are singular; "ye"
: and "you" are plural.

I agree with this.  Perhaps they could better use "you all" when 
refering the plurals (or "all of you").


Now, I will comment on your variant readings.

: DIFFERENCE:  Mark 1:2-3
: 
: KJV says:  "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my
: messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
: thee.  The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
: way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
: 
: NIV says:  "It is written in Isaiah the prophet:  I will send my
: messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.  A voice of
: one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make
: straight paths for him.'"

If this is your strongest case, your are in trouble.  The _GREAT_
majority of texts in the Greek state that Isaiah is the prophet,
which he is, for the first quote.  The emendation to "prophets"
instead of Isaiah is clearly a later editor making the passage
more "correct" so that it includes both quotes.  Metzger gives the
Isaiah reading an "A", which means that they are VERY sure that this
represents the original reading.

: DIFFERENCE:  Luke 2:22,24
: 
: KJV says: (verse 22)  "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."
: 
: NIV says: (verse 22)  "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."

Two of what are considered source documents use "her" the rest use
"their".  The strongest indication is that "their" was used in the
original documents.  "Her" is easily explained as a correction to
the text for the reasons you have noted.  The question is, should
the translation use "their", which has the weight of evidence, or
"her", which is more correct based on Leviticus.  This is a tough
call.  I'm not sure.  In either case I would footnote it.

As for the implication that "their" means that Jesus needed an
offering for sin.  I disagree.  His parents seem to have gone through
all the rituals, which probably included visits to Jerusalem to 
sacrifice at the temple for the family.  This in no way indicates 
that Jesus sinned.  In indicates that he lived within Jewish ritual.
Other passages provide all the Biblical basis that we need for the
sinless nature of Jesus.

: DIFFERENCE:  Matthew 5:22
: 
: KJV says:  "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
: brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."
: 
: NIV says:  "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his
: brother will be subject to judgment..."

What you have missed here is the principle of keeping the harder 
reading.  You choose the translation which is easy -- the one which
gives you a justification for anger.  Anger at a brother is judged.
Jesus anger was judged (I believe) and found to be righteous and
correct because the temple was being violated, and because people
were refusing to acknowledge the hand of God in their midst.  Besides,
within the passage, it does not seem to refer to what some would call
"righteous anger -- i.e. zeal for God", but plain old anger at a 
brother.  Jesus was angry at the hardness of their hearts and their
callous disregard for God.  I think the harder reading should be 
followed.  We better watch out for our anger and know it will be
judged.  If our anger is righteous, it will be vindicated by the judge
otherwise it will be condemned by the judge as wrong.

The problem here is not "removing 'without a cause'" as you have 
said, but in adding without a cause in order to soften the original
statement in order to justify our anger at others.

: DIFFERENCE:  John 1:18
: 
: KJV says:  "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
: Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
: 
: The NIV is way different, but it doesn't say what some of the other
: new Bibles say, and that is instead of "begotten Son," "begotten
: God."

The earliest documents support the translation God.  The editing of
this to be Son is seen as harmonizing the passage to read in a manner
similar to other passages in John.  It is hard to explain why Son
would be changed to God in some situations (since it seemingly makes
less sense), but it is easy to explain changing God to Son in order
to make the passage read better.

Some commentators have speculated that "only-beggoten" should be read
as a noun followed by a comma, which gives the reading "the only 
begotten, God, which is in the bosom...", thus clearing showing the
deity of Christ.

: DIFFERENCE:  Colossians 1:14
: 
: KJV says:  "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the
: forgiveness of sins."
: 
: NIV says:  "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

Two later sources, which just happen to have been the sources for the
Greek texts which Erasmus used, include the reference to blood.  The
remainder do not.  They are quite positive that this was not part of
the original documents.  This is probably a case of harmonization
where they wanted the scripture to read the same as the passage in
Ephesians (I think it is Ephesians which says about the same thing).
Editors tend to like to do this.

: DIFFERENCE:  Mark 16:9-20
: 
: KJV talks about Jesus after His resurrection.
: 
: In the new Bibles those twelve verses aren't even there!  If they
: are, it's in brackets or something saying the text isn't reliable
: or authoritative.

Most translations note that these verses are not in the earliest
documents.  That is correct, they are not.  This is not to say that
this is not reliable or authoritative since the evidence of the
resurrection and ascension is clearly presented in the other Gospels.

: ....the most reliable and early manuscripts when the
: Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that the NIV was translated from
: weren't even compiled into Hebrew and Greek Bibles until 1881?

Bunk again.  These were not "compiled".  After these ancient texts
were discovered, they were used to examine the Biblical text in a
critical manner in order to better insure that what we have and 
translate is accurate both grammatically and syntactically.  In
most cases, they confirmed the existing texts.  In some, they 
challenge it, indicating poor copying of later texts, changes by
people to smooth out the reading or make things clear, or changes
to make the hard statements of the Bible easy.

: DIFFERENCE:  Luke 24:51-52
: 
: KJV says:  "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was
: parted from them, and carried up into heaven.  And they worshipped
: him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
: 
: The NIV is in the clear on this one, but some of the other new
: Bibles leave out Jesus' ascension and even the people worshipping
: Him.
  
: DIFFERENCE:  1 Timothy 3:16
: 
: KJV says:  "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
: seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
: world, received up into glory."
: 
: NIV says:  "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit,
: was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed
: on in the world, was taken up in glory."

"He" was probably used in the original text.  It was changed to God
in order to make the passage easier to understand since the pronoun
is ambiguous.  However, if you read back up, it becomes clear that it
is refering to Jesus.


Oh well, enough analysis of your variants.  I have to get back to
work now.

My suggestion:  Learn about textual criticism.  Read commentaries.
Become a scholar.  And don't forget about the work of the Holy 
Spirit within the translator or group of translators.

If you are going to discuss the trasmission and translation of the
Bible, you better learn how it is done, the problems, etc., etc.,
before you comment on it.  If I was grading this for a school class
I would tell you to go the sources and read about textual criticism.

My conclusion:  We need to study the Bible more.  If you are going 
to translate the Bible to another language, you don't reinvent the
wheel.  You start with the standard Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. which
scholars have spent years working on so that the word of God is 
presented accurately.  You don't base your translation on late 
documents which have little or no scholarly support.  God gave us
minds that think, and provided these source documents for a reason --
so that we can insure the accuracy of the word of God.  Then, after
going to the sources, you work to translate the archaic language into
something usable, which the common people can understand, while not
compromising or losing any of the truths of the Bible.


p.s.  I have nothing against the KJV, except that it is not highly
understandeable language.  God wants us to understand His word not
stumble over His word.  Sticking with archaic language is another
way in which the church puts stumbling blocks in front of the un-
churched population.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark McGregor -- mmcgreg@uswnvg.com

The truly infallible Word of God is Jesus Christ.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian