Changes

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.  

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to  served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5)  "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.  

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to  served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5)  "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.  

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

1. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or  "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24,  "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6"  "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10)  "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or  "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24,  "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6"  "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10)  "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

2. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.   

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.   

3. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand,  modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key),  while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.  

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand,  modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key),  while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.  

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations.  [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand  why some argue  the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]  

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations.  [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand  why some argue  the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]  

''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

     * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ''

     * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or  "thought  it not  robberyG725 to be  equalG2470 with God: But  made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.  

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or  "thought  it not  robberyG725 to be  equalG2470 with God: But  made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.  

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood  

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood  

''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."  

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."  

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing''

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

This examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole.  Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the  overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7).  The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole.  Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the  overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7).  The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".  

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".  

But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?''  

But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''  

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15:  "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15:  "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.   

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.   

''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.''

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias''

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.   

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.   

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text,  such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.   

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text,  such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.   

#Third Example - Socialism  

'''#Third Example - Socialism  

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times,  "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.  

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times,  "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.  

I do not know where the ESV found so many.