How much do bible translations matter christian forums electricity notes pdf

#

Click to expand…The translations you mention are all fine translations that will mostly say the same thing. Catholic translations will of course have a slant in a passage that might not be present in the NIV and visa versa. As long as you are using a translation that attempts to be faithful to the original languages you should be fine. I would avoid paraphrases and more "dynamic" translations if possible (The Message, NLT, etc).

I personally use the New American Standard Bible published by the Lockman Foundation since I was given an R.L. Allan edition years ago. Allan if you don’t know puts out what can best be described as the Cadillac of bible editions that will set you back a couple of bills easily. That said, I also really like the English Standard version (ESV) and if having the deuterocanonicals is important there is an edition published by Oxford University press that might be worth checking out. I also know the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is a pretty solid translation that I have on my shelf.

You stated that there are almost 6,000 Greek NT manuscript (around 5778 copies). Among them are 400,000 variants of differences, while there are only 139,000 words in the NT. However, Prof. Bruce Metzger wrote that the NT is 95% reliable when compared to the original manuscript of the New Testament.

Prof. Bruce Metzger was one of the 20th century’s the greatest textual critics of the New Testament manuscripts. However, if you do not read Prof. Bruce Metzger’s work for yourself, you will not fully grasp the meaning or full force of his conclusions.

We now have discovered nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (NT). We don’t know how many mistakes there are among our surviving copies, but they appear to number somewhere about 400,000. I will put this in comparative terms: there are far more differences in the NT manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

Bear in mind that well over 90% of these errors are the result of sloppy slipups, and are insignificant. They show us nothing more than ancient scribes could spell no better than most people can today. Textual critics, however, contend that they can reconstruct more than 90% of these mistakes. This may be the case. We can never say that we can know that this would be matched to the ORIGINAL books of the NT, because NOBODY has the originals. They are lost!

King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not “corrupt” but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.

Baptist writer William P. Grady, in a chapter titled the “Synagogue of Satan,” writes, “The average Christ-ian is unaware that the manuscripts from which the modern ‘Bibles’ have been translated are Egyptian in origin; more specifically, Alexandrian. This lack of understanding is exacerbated by little or no knowledge of Egypt’s heretical climate at that time. When these factors are appreciated, the weakness and hypocrisy behind the modern revision movement becomes more readily apparent.”1

The claim that modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) are based upon “corrupt” editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts is a common argument of King James Only advocates. Believers who encounter the claims of individuals such as Peter Ruckman,2 Samuel Gipp,3 Gail Riplinger,4 or D. A. Waite5 will often hear that while the King James Version (KJV) is based upon “God honoring manuscripts,” the modern translations are based upon only a handful of heretical, corrupt manuscripts.6 They allege that these manuscripts can be linked to every kind of heretical belief, even when those beliefs are contradictory to one another. One will find KJV Only advocates7 linking these manuscripts to Arianism, Gnosticism, liberalism, and Roman Catholicism. These manuscripts allegedly deny salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of Christ, and the existence of hell, and affirm any number of other heresies and errors. Therefore, since nearly all modern translations8 are based upon these “corrupt” manuscripts, the translations are also corrupt and should be rejected by all “Bible believers.”