Below are questions and my answers concerning the Biblical text: issues regarding various translations of the text and the transmission of the text.
Q: How do we know that the Bible is the word of God, other than that it says that it is?
A: In the end, we can only know this by faith. We must believe that there is a God, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). We must believe that Jesus is His Son (John 3:16). This does require a step in faith, not just in evidence.
On the other hand, we can be sure that our belief is not mere fantasy. The Bible's record is consistent with known evidence from the period of its revelation. The story of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the Gospels has been scrutinized heavily, yet never successfully been contradicted. We have every reason to believe, and none to disbelieve.
Finally, I would say that the Scriptures present the world for what it really is. Other religions either try to make Heaven like earth, or make earth Heaven somehow. In reality, the earth has been corrupted and incorruptibility cannot come from it.
Q: The Divine Name YHWH has an uncertain pronunciation. Some scholars have supposed a pronunciation of Jehovah or Yahweh. Is it right that a few Bible translations include this Divine Name in our language?
A: While we do not have definitive evidence for the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (the divine name YHWH) as Yahweh, the use of "Yah" in names and on its own as a divine particle, along with information from Greek authors who believed they heard the divine name as Iabe or something similar makes a strong case for "Yahweh" as the pronunciation. "Jehovah" derives from a misunderstanding of the way the Masoretes (the Jewish textual transmitters of the first millennium) pointed the text.
Now, should it be found in our translations? The earliest translations of the Hebrew-- Greek, Latin, and Syriac-- translated the Tetragrammaton as "Lord" (kurios, dominus, and marya', respectively). This concords to our use of "Lord" for its translation, and normally marked off in Bibles in all caps (LORD) to denote the Tetragrammaton as opposed to another word for God.
Whether we should use LORD or YHWH/Yahweh in translation is a matter of liberty. God never established any sort of command as to what we should do in regards to the Tetragrammaton. Some people may have strong feelings against saying "Yahweh"; those feelings should be respected. On the other hand, many texts are made much clearer by using the specific identification of God as Yahweh, especially when God is being discussed along, or in contrast, with other "gods." In the end, therefore, we can use LORD, YHWH, or Yahweh; it is not wrong to use "Jehovah," but it is rather inaccurate, and we ought to be striving for accuracy wherever possible (2 Timothy 2:15).
Q: In Matthew 27:9-10 Jeremiah is mentioned as being the prophet that is being quoted and/or being referred to when in fact it's Zechariah 11:12-13 that is acually being made refence to. I looked it up in my Matthew Henry commentary, but he does not address it. It would be nice if you could solve this cunundrum.
A: Adam Clarke's commentary on this verse speaks well of the various answers:
Jeremiah the prophet - The words quoted here are not found in the Prophet Jeremiah, but in Zechariah 11:13. But St. Jerome says that a Hebrew of the sect of the Nazarenes showed him this prophecy in a Hebrew apocryphal copy of Jeremiah; but probably they were inserted there only to countenance the quotation here.
One of Colbert's, a MS. of the eleventh century, has Ζαχαριου, Zechariah; so has the later Syriac in the margin, and a copy of the Arabic quoted by Bengel. In a very elegant and correct MS. of the Vulgate, in my possession, written in the fourteenth century, Zachariam is in the margin, and Jeremiam in the text, but the former is written by a later hand. Jeremiah is wanting in two MSS., the Syriac, later Persic, two of the Itala, and in some other Latin copies. It is very likely that the original reading was δια τοι προφητου, and the name of no prophet mentioned. This is the more likely, as Matthew often omits the name of the prophet in his quotations. See Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:15; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 21:4. Bengel approves of the omission. It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Dr. Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first beginning with the law was called The Law; the second beginning with the Psalms was called The Psalms; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called Jeremiah: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Dr. Lightfoot quotes Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi's preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest. But Jeremiah is the reading in several MSS. of the Coptic. It is in one of the Coptic Dictionaries in the British Museum, and in a Coptic MS. of Jeremiah, in the library of St. Germain. So I am informed by the Rev. Henry Tattam, Rector of St Cuthbert's, Bedford.
I am inclined to reject the first and third pieces of evidence, since any apocryphal form of Jeremiah that would so closely parallel Zechariah would have been spoken of in other places, and, in regards to the third, it does not account for the use of accuracy in other citations and the fact that the nevi'im include the "history" books of Joshua-2 Kings along with all of the prophets. I would agree with the second argument, that some later copyist thought that Jeremiah made the prophecy, and therefore added his name, and all the rest of the copies speak in the same way.
Q: I understand that Simon bar Jonah means son of Jonah and that Bartimaeus means son of Timaeus. What did they say for daughters? Did they have last names? Which language uses the (bar) terminology?
A: "Bar" is the Aramaic word for "son;" the Hebrew equivalent is "ben". The word for daughter is "bat" in Hebrew, and they would be identified as "daughter-of-father". The Israelites did not have last names as we understand them; they were known by their name and their father's name, along with their family, clan, and tribe.
Q: Since you say that there are no conflicts between bible versions, why in Philippians 2:6 does the KJV say,
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,when the NIV says,
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Now I know I'm sorta stupid, but the last time I checked, those newer version is plain outright saying that Jesus is not equal to God nor is it in His grasp. And I'm not talking about the Greek, just the English translation.
A: Philippians 2:6 is a difficult verse because of the complexity of the statement Paul is making, and that difficulty has crept in to the translation of the verse.
It must first be said that there is no distinction between the Greek texts used to translate the KJV and the texts used to translate the modern versions. The distinction is based on understanding the Greek.
The ASV renders Philippians 2:5-11 in the following way:
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The difference in translation between the KJV and the ASV is interpretative. The word "robbery" is based on the Greek harpagmos, and while robbery is one meaning, it makes less sense in the context than the meaning "gain" (why would being equal to God be compared to robbery?).
I would translate the verse, fairly literally, as follows:
He who, being in the form of God, did not consider it gain to be equal with God.
The message is that God the Son humbled Himself by becoming a man and by so doing became lower than His previous and future position as God the Son in spiritual form. This is consistent with Jesus' constant declarations of subservience to the Father throughout His earthly ministry.
In the end, the verse does not teach that Jesus cannot grasp equality with God, but establishes that Jesus does become subservient to the Father in His earthly form and that He became such voluntarily. The KJV reading, while more acceptable to orthodox Trinitarianism, does not make any sense in Paul's context. Why would Paul, in the middle of speaking about Jesus' humiliation which results in His exaltation, speak of God the Son not considering it "robbery" to be on an equal level with God and therefore humbling Himself to become a man? The argument makes no sense.
Q: Since you believe that all "formal equivalence" translations are the Word of God, what does one do when they contradict one another? I have read the Bible for over 40 years, so I just "wonder" what kind of "advice" you could possibly give me.
A: [Note: The webpage on the site regarding which he is responding is Is There Only One True Bible Version? --ed.]
A: First I would make a slight correction, not to be nit-picky, but to be accurate. The formal equivalence translations do not "contradict" one another-- that is, we don't have the NASB saying that x is true while the ESV says that x is not true. There is no "contradiction" involved. What we do have sometimes are discrepancies-- slight variants in various texts. These variants are most notable between the KJV family of translations (KJV, NKJV) and the ASV family of translations (ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, etc.), since the KJV was based on the Textus Receptus of Erasmus and the ASV was based on the eclectic Nestle and Wescott/Hort texts based on the more ancient authorities.
Thus we do not have "contradictions" but we do have discrepancies. None of those variants cause contradiction in the text, and none of them regard a change in a critical doctrinal issue. They all provide different perspectives on the same Greek text, and therefore I can conclude that all formal equivalence translations provide us with the Word of God and all, when read and understood properly, can lead us to salvation.
Q:Why is verse 7 of I John 5 left out of most modern versions?
A: 1 John 5:7 is not really left out of most modern versions:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV)
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [Ed. note: different Bible publishers use different verse standards for 1 John 5:7-8; some put the whole passage as verse 7, some split it up into verses 7 and 8. This may be causing some confusion.] (NAU)
You have come across probably the greatest problem with the KJV translation made in 1611. I will try to explain here why.
For the sake of clarity, we will call the KJV's rendering of 1 John 5:7 as reading A, and the NAU's rendering as reading B.
Our story begins in the sixteenth century, when a German named Erasmus began working on an accurate Greek text of the Bible. The Roman Catholic church in the west had used the Latin version of the Bible, called the Vulgate, since Jerome translated it in the fourth century. The Vulgate used reading A in 1 John 5:7. When Erasmus examined the Greek texts that he could find, every single one of them read as reading B. Therefore, in the first two editions of his Greek text, he translated 1 John 5:7 as reading B.
The authorities of the Roman Catholic church, however, favored reading A, for it assisted them in demonstrating the truth of the Trinity. They began to pressure Erasmus to include reading A in his text, but he would not. They finally got him to agree that if one Greek text could be found with reading A, he would use it in his Greek text. Lo and behold, from Ireland, comes such a text-- it would later be proved to be a forgery. Erasmus was true to his word and inserted reading A as 1 John 5:7 in his subsequent editions.
About 75 years later, the committee that would create the KJV began to use Erasmus' Greek text to correct any errors made in previous English translations of the Bible. Therefore, the KJV uses reading A. In the 19th century, older Greek texts were discovered, and all of them followed reading B. In fact, to this today, not one of the thousands of Greek texts of the New Testament that have been found contains reading A. They all use reading B.
Q: The Johannine Comma Debate: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
A: [Note to reader: this question, ostensibly for informative purposes, is probably in response to my page on KJV Onlyism ( http://www.deusvitae.com/faith/matters/KJV.html). The question above may provide some information quickly about the Comma, the text of 1 John 5:7-8. I recommend that if you have not already done so that you read the information provided above and at the KJV Onlyism page. The answer to the question below is a response to the material presented on that page, and feel free to examine the material on that page first and then my response. Thanks.]
- The Greek evidence. It perhaps may be in texts from the tenth century and onward but this is of no value in textual criticism since by that time the Greek text could have easily been influenced by the Latin Vulgate and other such texts. It is compelling evidence that no Greek text earlier than the tenth century contains the Comma; this mountain of evidence cannot be so easily overcome.
- The Latin evidence. While it perhaps is in the Old Latin versions, those texts in general are somewhat questionable since their translators are unknown and the translations may not be of the highest quality. There is no evidence that the Comma was in the Latin Vulgate developed by Jerome; no text of the Vulgate before the eighth century contains the Comma, and this also is compelling evidence against its inclusion.
- The "church fathers." One may assert that the "church fathers" quote the Comma, but it is just as likely that one of these "church fathers" coined the Comma and others quoted him until it eventually found a place in the Biblical text.
- The internal textual evidence. Despite the author's claims, the Comma is obviously inserted in the text; it has nothing to do with the context. 1 John 5:5-8 NASB:
Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The context is evident. John speaks of the foundation of the faith that Jesus is the Son of God: the water (His baptism), the blood (His blood on the cross), and the Spirit (the revelator of the Word of God). John comments that these three witnesses to Jesus Christ are in agreement. Jesus Christ is NOT one of the witnesses; the three (water, blood, Spirit), witness TO Him.
If we continue with the text with 1 John 5:9-10, this is even clearer:
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
John is again speaking about belief in Jesus Christ and now the testimony of God, ostensibly the Father. Again, Jesus Christ is NOT a witness, but God the Father also witnesses to Him. The purpose of this passage of Scripture, as determined by context, is to demonstrate the foundation of belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God the Son, and has nothing at all to do with the substantive unity of the Triune God.
Further, the grammatical evidence that is provided must always be weighed with the fact that (a) the original text could have perhaps been in the neuter gender; (b) grammar is a guideline and not an absolute; and (c) it is extremely difficult if not impossible to "prove" that a text should be included or not based on the gender of a participle. The problems of internal unity and cohesion of the passage negate any form of grammatical circumstantial evidence.
- The conclusion of this article demonstrates the doctrinal position that is being affirmed, based on a desire to justify the Comma and not as an objective analyzation of all the facts. There are no established Greek texts in ancient times that have the Comma; the Vulgate did not include the Comma until after the eighth century; and contextually the Comma does not fit within the text. When we then realize that the prevalence of the Comma only comes during the major theological controversies regarding the unity of the Trinity, it becomes evident that some well-intentioned soul attempted to justify the Trinity by inserting a clear definition within the New Testament.
In conclusion, I must say that the inclusion of the Comma does not negate the truth contained in the KJV, nor will I say or teach that the KJV is a false version. It certainly is a piece of evidence that exposes a weakness in the KJV not present in other versions, but I affirm as I always have that any formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation is valid and can be used without fear of condemnation. I also will not deny that the statement made in the Comma is true; I certainly believe that it is true, but the truth of the New Testament ought to be established by what the text says and not by an insert intended to clarify after the fact. It is my hope that the discussion of the Comma will cease to be tainted with the desire to justify the KJV as the only true Bible version and that the issue can be discussed with objective viewpoints.
Q: I have heard a lot of talk about Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. I have been all through this web site and have found it to be one of the more reliable ones. So, my question is: What do YOU think of them? I am rather new to this KJV only debate and feel that there is an awful lot of "mudslinging" (for lack of better term). Why can't I find anything that just represents the facts and opinions of the debate WITHOUT all the namecalling, profanity, attacking, etc.? All I have been able to find is someone telling me "if you don't believe as I do you are wrong" and if everyone is wrong according to every one else, who is right?
A: You are correct; there is a lot of mudslinging going on over the issue of Bible versions and many hold steadfastly to their beliefs and declare that all other beliefs are wrong.
It is my opinion that there is value to any translation of the Scriptures that is a "formal equivalency" translation (otherwise known as "word-for-word," i.e. KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, etc.). I would not necessarily condemn someone for using a "dynamic equivalency" translation (otherwise known as "thought-for-thought," i.e. NIV, NLT, GNT), I would not recommend one, either. The truth of the will of God may be found expressed in any formal equivalency translation. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses-- but all still contain the same message.
The problem with the arguments that are often given is that they have little if anything to do with the Scriptures themselves but with the form of their translation, and therefore have really nothing to do with the message of the Scriptures itself. How can someone say that one must use the KJV when the KJV was authored 1,600 years after Christ walked the Earth? Furthermore, how can someone declare it sinful to use a NASB, for instance, when the NASB came about more than 1,900 years after Christ died on the cross? The difficulty is that an issue has been made where there is no issue in the Biblical text.
Should we be concerned about the fidelity of the translation we use? Absolutely-- we must each decide what is best for us and what is the best guide for our path to Heaven. This issue, however, is not one of sin and righteousness as much as preference. Everyone will be much better off when this is realized.
Q: Can you tell me in Latin what Jesus said when He was on the cross?
A: I am assuming that you are referring to the statement made by Jesus in Matthew 27:46:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
If this is the line you refer to, the Latin Vulgate (the Latin version of the Scriptures) renders the verse in the following way:
Et circa horam nonam clamavit Iesus voce magna dicens "Heli, Heli, lema sabacthani?" Hoc est "Deus meus Deus meus ut quid dereliquisti me."
Of which the phrase "Deus meus Deus meus ut quid dereliquisti me" is the line you are seeking.
Q: Which of Paul's letters are frauds and what in them made us see them as false?
A: I, personally, do not believe that any letter bearing the name of Paul in the New Testament (Romans, 1/2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1/2 Thessalonians, 1/2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) are fraudulent.
There are many in the modern scholastic community who cast strong aspersions on 1/2 Timothy and Titus, and cast doubt upon Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. They do this not on the basis of any physical evidence, because there is no physical evidence that denies that Paul wrote any of the letters ascribed to him. They do it on the basis of their literary criticism, believing that the message and language are different between the "authentic" and the "pseudonymus" letters. A strong difficulty in this matter is that literary criticism is based on the preconceived notions of those engaging in the craft, and many times people want to see differences. Another difficulty is that difference in language need not require a difference of author: the same author could learn more later in life, develop later in life, etc., and therefore use different language, or could consciously choose to speak differently. The subject matter of the letters could also have easily changed over time, and that does not require that there is a different author.
Finally, and most importantly, believing some of the letters to be fradulent denies the inspiration of those texts and the ability of the Holy Spirit to communicate the message of God. There is no compelling reason to do any such thing.
Response/Feedback
Do you have a question or comment about anything you have read here? Please feel free to contact me through the form below.
Please click here to return to the Bible Questions and Answers main page. Thanks!