Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
In any case, both the Hebrew and the Greek words can legitimately be translated as both God and Lord, and many Bible translators have done this very thing.
Quote:
|
Exactly. So, why is it such a great deal when other versions choose another legitimate translation?
|
Hi p. When it comes to the issue of 'legitimate translations', the question to ask is: According to whom? Do we make every man's own mind and understanding the deciding factor as to what is legitimate or not? You effectively end up with No Final Standard, and every man does that which is right in his own eyes.
I am not saying that the perverted versions like the NASB,NIV,NKJV,RSV etc. do not contain much of God's words nor that God cannot use them to some degree. However they all pervert and change literally hundreds of verses and drastically change the meaning of the verses.
Is it a 'legitimate translation' that the NASB teaches that God was DECEIVED in Psalm 78:36 instead of being 'flattered'? or that Christ has "origins" in Micah 5:2 by the NIV?, or that the NIV says God became Christ's Father on a certain day in Acts 13:33 instead of "this day have I begotten thee" referring to the resurrection? or that the fine linen is "the righteousness of saints" has been changed in the NKJV, NIV, NASB to teach that the fine linen is "the righteous acts of the saints"?
All sorts of correct doctrines have been perverted in 2 Peter 3:12 where the KJB correctly states that we are 'hasting unto' the coming of the day of God (we are fast heading towards the already set day of judgment), whereas the NKJV,NIV, NASB have perverted the truth by saying we are "hasting" the coming of the day of God (we are making it come faster to us, and the time is not set).
There are hundreds of verses where the truth has been corrupted by what the scholars call "legitimate translations".
Check out just this one example from the book of Daniel.
Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.
There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.
Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."
John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."
David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."
John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."
However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".
Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".
Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."
The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."
New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."
Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."
1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)
New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."
Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."
Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."
The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."
Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?
This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.
These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.
If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.
Will Kinney