Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

Imposter?

Neo,

Yes, I kind of picked up on that too. I am currently trying to find the real author.

I agree with you Timber. It is impossible for me to (logically) agree with you, because I don't find your position tenable. My latest replies have provided a refutation of your position, one which includes and applies the very definition of the words in question ("interpret"). To simply claim that I am unable to agree with you (which implies you are correct and I am not), is insufficient. If my comments amount to sophistry, then please proceed to show what it is that distinguishes what you would agree is a plausible argument from an argument that is truly sound.

If God did not reveal what he meant with perfection, then man would have no hope of understanding the concepts he was expressing to us via his revelation. That man is able to incorrectly interpret what God has said does not minimize the usefulness of the original words which were delivered - such a conclusion relies upon the assumption that God wants every person to understand exactly what he says the first time out without any reliance upon God.

I

Question: The KJV of the Bible has antiquated language. Isn't the NIV a better translation of the Bible?

Answer: On the matter of the NIV being a better translation, the truth is that the NIV is a corrupted translation. It can be proven by a comparison of its text with the Greek manuscripts that it is not a accurate translation. Yes, the KJV, uses some antiquated English, but it uses it correctly in accordance with the Greek language and in particular the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text.
The Textus Receptus reflects the Majority or Western text which exists in the body of over 6000 extant Greek manuscripts. The NIV is based on the Westcott Hort texts which number a grand total of two or three manuscripts, which although are older, show clear signs of being corrupted.

By the way, I too while in Bible college was subjected to the same pressure and arguments for the NIV and other modern translation as you are. I to a degree succumbed and started using the NIV on a limited basis. I, however, did not feel comfortable and began to investigate the various English versions for myself. As the result of my studies I found many many errors, omissions, poor translating biased toward liberalism and etc. I abandoned its use and became a firm user of the KJV based on the superior way it consistently translates Greek into English. Yes, the NIV does translate into modern English some of the antiquated KJV words, but that does not make it a good translation

C.I.,

Would you mind telling us who those words were spoken/written by? A link? Anything?

C.I.
You should really stop copying your material from the internet without giving the source. You are attempting to use other people's material and pass it off as your own. At least give credit where credit is due. Shame.

http://www.bible-truth.org/FAQ-BibleVersions.html

Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, states in his preface:

"The market-place is being glutted with new books which are being represented as versions of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them . . . . they all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying atonement. This is due to their decision to depend upon an Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God's words which has been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us as the Received Text. These new versions [such as the NIV, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And these are words attested to as God's words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek manuscripts . . . .
" . . . it has been written, 'For I say to you, Until the heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass away one iota or one point from the Law, until all things come to pass.'- -Matthew 5:18 [Green's paraphrased] . . . .

"What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also admittedly carelessly executed. The Sinaiticus was so poorly executed that seven different hands of 'textual critics' can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible . . . it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it . . . . they have systematically removed Luke's witness to the ascension of Christ--and of course they have done away entirely with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus . . . .

" . . . Origen, an early textual critic . . . said, that 'the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written' . . . . given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean....Justin Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of others practiced their 'textual science' by operating on manuscripts, or by writing their own 'versions' . . . .

" . . . Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green's Interlinear and the King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit the Received Text because they say it is not ancient. But now that manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as 'late readings' by nearly unanimous consent of the 'textual scientists' are appearing in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts . . . . Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not reported to the class."

We use the King James Version exclusively as our main study Bible, only using other translations to aid study of certain passages, to get another perspective. The fact that modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and Vatican corruptions of the New Testament should make us avoid them as a "main Bible."

Why Are There Errors in the King James Version?

You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

Well, if C.I. won't post where he got that stuff from, I will post it for him.

http://www.bible-truth.org/FAQ-BibleVersions.html

Um, Momma.... I had already done that :-)

C.I. always lets others talk for him.

Okay, I am thoroughly embarrassed. I didn't see the link, Intrepid.

Don't be embarrassed, Momma. C.I. fills up the pages with so much rhetoric that it is hard to see other posts. ;-)

Thank you, Intrepid.

Implicator, I return yet again to the point of interpretation. That such might be necessary or even desirable in the context of divinely revealed truth is an absurd, self-cancelling notion, defensible only through sophistry; it does not stand to objective, critical, linear, logical thought. Whether or not any religionist proposition, Christian or otherwise, may have any validity is immaterial; no forensically valid argument for same can be presented. That is not to say cogent, powerful, even compelling arguments may not be made - many such exist (though none have been presented in these discussions by any proponent of the Theory of Christianity) - just that no forensically valid argument can be made for any such proposition. Going back to definitions, by definition the metaphysical, with its entailed ontology, is that which lays beyond physical experience and reference. Forensically, any pro-religionist proposition by necessity proceeds from the illicit, assumption-based thesis that the religionist proposition presented is self-evidently valid. Religion itself is the prime example of circular reasoning.

Thank you, timber.

They have sacrificed common sense, logic, and any evidence for their support of their religious' thesis. They can't refute the evidence that is provided that shows the many errors and omissions of the bible, so they attack the poster.

Typical.

How in the world did C.I. think that this was an explanation and defence of the babble that he has been pasting?

In case you missed timber's post:

Whether or not any religionist proposition, Christian or otherwise, may have any validity is immaterial; no forensically valid argument for same can be presented.

In case you missed it, C.I. This applies to both sides.

And for the record, I submit never have I contended otherwise. I champion neither atheism nor theism; I am an agnostic, which I see to be the only logically validated position to take; there is no conclusive evidence to either side of the question.




I will of course admit to a strong lean toward skepticism, however.

Fair enough, Timber