Modern translations change doctrine when compared to the KJV

[Billyray]

There was a recent discussion on another thread about modern translations of the Bible verses the KJV. A poster said that the modern translations change the basic meaning of the text. I pointed out that the doctrine is unchanged when comparing the KJV to the modern translations such as the ESV or the NASB. I would like to know more about this from the lds point of view. What changes in meaning do you guys see in the modern translations and what doctrine has been changed by these newer versions?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

There was a recent discussion on another thread about modern translations of the Bible verses the KJV. A poster said that the modern translations change the basic meaning of the text. I pointed out that the doctrine is unchanged when comparing the KJV verses the modern translations such as the ESV or the NASB. I would like to know more about this from the lds point of view. What changes in meaning do you guys see in the modern translations and what doctrine has been changed by these newer versions?

There are non-Mormon sites who make this argument. Many believe some of the newer versions do not adequately portray the scriptures.

[BigJulie]

Here is one:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

Here is an example:

AV (King James): For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New International: OMITTED
New American Standard: footnote casts doubt
New World Translation: OMITTED

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

There are non-Mormon sites who make this argument. Many believe some of the newer versions do not adequately portray the scriptures.

Can you give me an example where you think that the translation changes the meaning of the text and changes the doctrine as compared to the KJV?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can you give me an example where you think that the translation changes the meaning of the text and changes the doctrine as compared to the KJV?

Well, I gave you an example from a non-LDS site that shows that a verse was completely omitted. Does that change the meaning of that text---well, if it doesn't exist now, how could it have the same meaning?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Well, I gave you an example from a non-LDS site that shows that a verse was completely omitted. Does that change the meaning of that text---well, if it doesn't exist now, how could it have the same meaning?

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Here is one:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

Here is an example:

AV (King James): For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New International: OMITTED
New American Standard: footnote casts doubt
New World Translation: OMITTED

The example you gave was for Matthew 18:11 but the exact same phrase in found in Luke 19:10. If the translators were trying to change the doctrine they didn't do a very good ***.

Net Bible
Luke 19:10

19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." NIV
19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." NASB
19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. ESV
19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and save those who are lost.” NLT
19:10 "for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." NKJV
19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost." NRSV
19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost . KJV

The reason that the modern translations have omitted (or made a notation) for Matthew 18:11 isn't because they wanted to change the doctrine--which is obvious because the exact same phrase is found in Luke--rather it is because this was an addition to later m****cripts that was copied over from Luke.

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+18

14 tc The most important mss (א B L* Θ* Ë1,13 33 892* pc e ff1 sys sa) do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg W Θc 078vid Ï lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed, as it were, from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Well, I gave you an example from a non-LDS site that shows that a verse was completely omitted. Does that change the meaning of that text---well, if it doesn't exist now, how could it have the same meaning?

Do you have any other verses that you would like to share that you feel changes the meaning of the text/changes the doctrine?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you have any other verses that you would like to share that you feel changes the meaning of the text/changes the doctrine?

Can you give me an example where you think that the translation changes the meaning of the text and changes the doctrine as compared to the KJV?

I gave you an example where the text was completely omitted. So, why was it omitted from one? Did it change the context of the surrounding scriptures or the understanding of the surrounding scriptures? Why was it put there in the first place?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I gave you an example where the text was completely omitted. So, why was it omitted from one?

I actually already answered that one for you in one of my prior posts--perhaps you missed it so I will reprint it below.

The reason that the modern translations have omitted (or made a notation) for Matthew 18:11 isn't because they wanted to change the doctrine--which is obvious because the exact same phrase is found in Luke--rather it is because this was an addition to later m****cripts that was copied over from Luke.


https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+18

14 tc The most important mss (א B L* Θ* Ë1,13 33 892* pc e ff1 sys sa) do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg W Θc 078vid Ï lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed, as it were, from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I actually already answered that one for you in one of my prior posts--perhaps you missed it so I will reprint it below.

How do they know it was copied over from Luke as they did not have the original m****cripts. (No one does as far as I know.)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

How do they know it was copied over from Luke as they did not have the original m****cripts. (No one does as far as I know.)

The most likely explanation is that this was borrowed from the p***age in Luke which has this exact phrase--but this was not in earlier more reliable m****cripts which is why it has been omitted (or noted in the text).

[Billyray]

Is that it for the so called translation errors in the modern texts? BTW you have yet to give me a single "translation" error.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The most likely explanation is that this was borrowed from the p***age in Luke which has this exact phrase--but this was not in earlier more reliable m****cripts which is why it has been omitted (or noted in the text).

But where did Luke get it? And what makes something more reliable when one does not have the original. Maybe a later one is more reliable because those who wrote it were more experienced with the originals.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Is that it for so called mistaken translation of the text? BTW you have yet to give me a single "translation" issue since the one that you just gave me was not a translation error.

Actually, as I said, there are whole non-Mormon sites that go into debates against these new translations.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Actually, as I said, there are whole non-Mormon sites that go into debates against these new translations.

It would be nice if you would at least give me ONE verse that shows a "translation" error. Thus far you haven't given me one.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

It would be nice if you would at least give me ONE verse that shows a "translation" error. Thus far you haven't given me one.

I gave you a whole site--that isn't even LDS. (See post #3)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I gave you a whole site--that isn't even LDS. (See post #3)

Go ahead give me another one so we can look at it together and perhaps dismiss your misperception about the modern translations. After that we should talk about the JST--the translation that butchers the Bible.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Here is one:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

Here is an example:

AV (King James): For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New International: OMITTED
New American Standard: footnote casts doubt
New World Translation: OMITTED

I am sure julie knows the new world translation is a HIDDEOUS translation made by the jw's FOR the jw's with all sorts of 'jw-specific' junk stuck in or omitted for their own predetermined reasons just as the 'inspired version' of the mormons was 'translated' by joey smith from non-existant texts for HIS own personal reasons.

The REAL QUESTION is 'what do the original-language texts ACTUALLY SAY?' IN THIS CASE, SOME more recent ones include it, OTHER (mostly older and closer to the original {autograph} texts do not.

So it looks like little julie doesn't have enough information about those texts to KNOW which is the 'correct' version.

Because she is mormon however, she will attempt to disavow the authority of the Bible in favor of the book of mormon with ITS 4000 + changes in it.

Hmmm.

[Christian]

Poor confused julie posted:

AV (King James): For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Well, I gave you an example from a non-LDS site that shows that a verse was completely omitted. Does that change the meaning of that text---well, if it doesn't exist now, how could it have the same meaning?

I suppose she didn't notice that THE REST OF SCRIPTURE INCLUDES that doctrine MULTIPLE times.

Now shall we quote a 'non-mormon source' such as the fundamentalists or the reorganized lds for stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the UTAH mormons?

Is Julie can post junk from fringe groups such as 'kjv-onlier' nuts why shouldn't we?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Christian

Poor confused julie posted:


Well, I gave you an example from a non-LDS site that shows that a verse was completely omitted. Does that change the meaning of that text---well, if it doesn't exist now, how could it have the same meaning?

I suppose she didn't notice that THE REST OF SCRIPTURE INCLUDES that doctrine MULTIPLE times.

Now shall we quote a 'non-mormon source' such as the fundamentalists or the reorganized lds for stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the UTAH mormons?

Is Julie can post junk from fringe groups such as 'kjv-onlier' nuts why shouldn't we?

What I don't understand, is why debate someone who only trust the Holy Bible as it is translated correctly; what ever that means?
All fall back positions for the LDSinc, is when they get cornered, they say, (as far as it is translated correctly)!

[Christian]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

What I don't understand, is why debate someone who only trust the Holy Bible as it is translated correctly; what ever that means?
All fall back positions for the LDSinc, is when they get cornered, they say, (as far as it is translated correctly)!

There is a subreligion referred to as 'king james onliers' that tries to debunk and lie about all other translations and tries to claim (they can't quite pull it off, of course) that ONLY the kjv is 'correctly translated.' When other cults latch on to that by claiming '. . .is missing in ...translation' it shows that they, like the kjv 'onlier' nuts don't know how the Bible is translated or what the Bible (including the kjv) is/was translated FROM.

Pointing out the ignorance of the 'onlier nut' crowd when it is displayed in a cult forum is not improper. Why feed the critters that use 'as far as it is translated correctly' as a cop-out to invent anything they want and pretend it is from God?

Sorry, but Paul told Timothy:
2 Tim 4:2-4
2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
NKJV
Pointing out the errors of those fables should be done wherever they occur.

in Christ Jesus,
morefish

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Christian

[B][COLOR=#008000]There is a subreligion referred to as 'king james onliers' that tries to debunk and lie about all other translations and tries to claim (they can't quite pull it off, of course) that ONLY the kjv is 'correctly translated.' When other cults latch on to that by claiming '. . .is missing in ...translation' it shows that they, like the kjv 'onlier' nuts don't know how the Bible is translated or what the Bible (including the kjv) is/was translated FROM.

You hit the nail on the head. A few years ago on this board we had a long ongoing discussion about KJV only--unfortunately several who held this view we a couple of Christians that use to post on this forum.

[alanmolstad]

so far no listed mistranslated verse has been shown by anyone...

So the argument that the King James is somehow "better" is lacking in merit.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

There are non-Mormon sites who make this argument. Many believe some of the newer versions do not adequately portray the scriptures.

About the same percentage of mormons believe the earth is flat too. Such nonsense as both arguments can be found all over the internet.

Just because a few mormons believe that the fundamentalst mormons represent true mormonism, or a few other wierd folks believe that the KJV is the 'only true' Bible does not make those things be the TRUTH.

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by Christian

About the same percentage of mormons believe the earth is flat too.

He hath founded earth on its bases, It is not moved to the age and for ever. • Psalm 104:5

there is nothing new Under the sun. • Ecclesiastes 1:9

And The Sun Stood Still, and The Moon Stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So The Sun Stood Still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. • Joshua 10:13