K
kristie
Guest
This is a post I did and I felt I should save a copy of it here, as I ended up doing a teaching on the bible in this thread.
We are starting with a look at different bible versions writings and then going from there about the truth of God.
King James Version: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Good News Bible: 1Co 7:15 However, if the one who is not a believer wishes to leave the Christian partner, let it be so. In such cases the Christian partner, whether husband or wife, is free to act. God has called you to live in peace.
Bible in Basic English: 1Co 7:15 But if the one who is not a Christian has a desire to go away, let it be so: the brother or the sister in such a position is not forced to do one thing or the other: but it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another.
American Standard Version: 1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
Literal Translation Version: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace.
Okay so we have leave, depart, desire to go away, separate, and all these terms mean to me in plain English that they just leave, separate, move out.
Then you get to this bible and look at the word used....
Contempory English Version: 1Co 7:15 If your husband or wife isn't a follower of the Lord and decides to divorce you, then you should agree to it. You are no longer bound to that person. After all, God chose you and wants you to live at peace.
Do the words leave, depart, desire to go away, separate mean the same thing as divorce to any of you?
Now this next verse in the same order.
KJV: 1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
GNB: 1Co 7:16 How can you be sure, Christian wife, that you will not save your husband? Or how can you be sure, Christian husband, that you will not save your wife?
BBE: 1Co 7:16 For how may you be certain, O wife, that you will not be the cause of salvation to your husband? or you, O husband, that you may not do the same for your wife?
ASV: 1Co 7:16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
LITV: 1Co 7:16 For what do you know, wife, whether you will save the husband? Or what do you know, husband, whether you will save the wife?
CEV: 1Co 7:16 And besides, how do you know if you will be able to save your husband or wife who isn't a follower?
Theresa and I have discussed this verse before, as she believed the way the KJV read that it was saying what the CEV was saying, that you should let them depart because how can you know that you will save them-negative emphasis on saving them. Or in other words, do not hold onto them to save them, because you might not. And she got this understanding of it because of the verse it followed, saying to let them go. I disagreed, it is not how my spirit interpreted the verse, I was getting the flip on it, that it was saying that we could be the one who leads them to Christ, and it was more in context to the verse before the last it followed, in context to the entire passage on the subject, not just the preceeding verse. But I just now looked up the verse, for the first time, in the scholars translation in my study bible; and it says:
Marriage to a nobeliever is not grounds for divorce. Such marriage leads to Christian influence for the children and hopes of leading the unbeliever to salvation in Christ. Such a marriage is acceptable in Gods eyes.
So that reaffirms to me that even the KJV is reading as, how can we know that we will not lead them to Christ, not vice versa. I can see the misunderstanding in the verse in KJV, because it leaves out the 'not' before save, but for me when it followed the point of we are to stay with a unbeliever because it makes our children holy, that had more emphasis to me, the positive emphasis, then the unbeliever wanting to leave and letting them. Overall, how it reads to me is that God does not want the marriage separated and is instructing His child not to do such a thing, not take accountability for such a thing, and is just saying if the unbeliever does such a thing, then to be at peace and He will not hold you accountable or bound, so you can be at peace...as we are to be as His children, non strifeful or participating in strife.
The Contempary English Version really twists the words though, I found that interesting. I am going to see how it reads on a couple of other things, I bet it uses the word divorce instead of fornication in the Matthew and Mark verses on marriage and divorce.
ISV, GNB and CEV have all changed the word fornication to adultery. But anyway, just a little biblical study information for those interested.
The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from' which all the translations have been derives. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations. There are 1,300 languages and dialects into which the Holy Bible, in its entirety or in portions, has been translated. Translations of the Bible are very necessary, but are not sufficient for formulating dogmas and doctrines of the Church, which requires reference to the original languages. The translations depend upon the genius and-knowledge of the translator in the selection of the proper words and phrases to render meaning as close as possible to the text of the original language. It is well-known that a new translation is more or less a new interpretation. This is obvious when the Bible is translated in the same language, but in different expressions and words. For instance, in the English language there are many translations and renderings with different words and phrases, which imply that one translation differs from the other.
The translation of the Bible into the English language coincided with the invention of the printing press and the period of Reformation (15th -16th centuries). Before this time the use of Bible in the West was forbidden in any language other than Latin. The Latin translation, from the original Hebrew and Greek, was made by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It became the authoritative Bible for the Western Church and was 'known as the Vulgate. The reading of the Bible, even in the Latin, was forbidden the lay people without permission. This denial by the authorities of the Western Church was one of the main reasons for the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, the first act of the first reformer, Martin Luther, was the translation of the Bible into German in 1522, which translation was the main factor in the establishment of the German language. Before the Reformation and the printing press, various parts of the Bible had been translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. The Western Church was very strict in the use of Latin not only for the Bible, but also for the ritual worship of the Church, which was incomprehensible to the people. It should be noted that before the Reformation there was no complete translation of the Bible in English. The only translation in English from the Latin and not the original Greek language, covering only the New Testament and some parts of the Old, was that attributed to John Wycliffe of England. Despite the fact it was made with the knowledge of the authorities of the Church, its use was forbidden without special permission, according to the decision of the Synod of Oxford of 1407. The first translation of the Bible into English from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, and the first which was printed was that of William Tyndale in c.1523. Before this translation the only printings of the Bible were the Vulgate (first printing, 1456), the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (1488), the text of the New Testament Greek by Erasmus (1516), with four revisions through 1535 and the literal translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin (1528). The translation of the New Testament into English from the original Greek text depended on the initiative of Tyndale (c. 1523), without the sponsorship or permission of the Bishop of London. Tyndale was denounced and forced to flee to Germany, where he probably met Martin Luther. Tyndale started to print the New Testament in English in Cologne, but was again forced to flee to another city, Worms.
In Worms he finally completed the printing of the English translation of the New Testament, in its entirety. This translation was reprinted many times in Holland. Copies of this translation reached England, where it aroused the anger of his enemies. Nevertheless, Tyndale continued his work and undertook to translate and print the books of the Old Testament. He first printed the five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, in Antwerp in 1529-30. Over the next few years he printed the other books of the Old Testament. Tyndale later printed the New Testament and the Pentateuch together with marginal notes reflecting the Protestant views. This further incensed his enemies, who had him condemned as a heretic. He was burned at the stake in Holland in 1536. Tyndale's translation especially that of the New Testament from the original Greek, marked the beginning of many other English translations from the original Greek, using Tyndale's translation as a guide. Unfortunately, the original Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus in 1516, which was used by Tyndale for his English translation, contained many mistakes. Still, Tyndale's English translation of the Bible was a pioneer work and an independent effort. Much of his translation is used in the King James Version of 1611. Tyndale's English translation of the entire Bible was the basis for the many other English translations that followed. The subsequent English versions are Coverdale's Bible, 1535; Thomas Mathew's Bible, 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560, and the Bishop's Bible, 1568. Also the Rheims-Duae's in 1582 was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Within approximately 50 years from the time of Tyndale's first printed translations the above six translations were made. It must be noted, however, that none of these English translations was accepted as an authorized English version, because of general dissatisfaction with them and the many mistakes found in them. Therefore, after 30 years another attempt to translate the Bible anew into English was made by a conference in England, where a new version of the Bible was suggested to King James. King James was convinced of the need of a new English translation of the Bible. He appointed 54 scholars to undertake the task. These scholars used the Bishop's Bible of 1568 as a basis, but earlier English versions were also, taken into consideration, especially Tyndale's.
These 54 scholars, appointed to translate a new, original English version, failed because they used the earlier English translation which had many mistakes. Thus theirs was a new revision not a new translation. Regardless, this new version was received with great enthusiasm and happiness, and within a generation it displaced all other English translations. This new version became known as the King James Version, or the Authorized Version. This King James Version was printed in 1611, and has become the familiar form of the Bible for many English-speaking generations. The King James Version was the only version, that bore the royal authority and was "appointed to be read in churches." It is characterized as "the noblest monument of English prose.", The King James Version has played a prominent role in forming the personal character of the church and institutions of the English-speaking people.
Yet, even this King James Version was not well-received nor free of criticism by some. Nevertheless, it has prevailed through the centuries and is stiff held in great esteem today, both by preachers and lay people, despite its defects, which were, noted more clearly in the mid-nineteenth century, and more so today. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible possessed today were unknown to the 54 scholars of the King James Version. The manuscripts of the Bible which were found later pointed out more clearly the serious defects of the King James Version. This fact convinced the Church of England in 1870 to make a revision of the King James translation. This revision was published in 1881 (N.T.), 1885 (O.T.) and was known as the English Revised, Version of the Bible, which included the Apocrypha printed in 1895,. However, to its detriment, this committee of revisers included only Anglican scholars. This version was not accepted by the vast majority of local churches and people, who. cherished the King James Version.
The dissatisfaction with the new English Revised Version led scholars in America to once again attempt to issue another English translation based on this English Revised Version. The American scholars, who cooperated with the English revisers, made amendments into the English Revised Version and published it in 1901., calling it the American Standard Version. Numerous other new English translations were published over the years. Among, those worthy of mention are: The New Testament by R. F. Weymouth, 1902; The New Testament, 1913, and The Old Testament, 1924, by J. Moffatt (complete Bible revised in 1935); The American Translation of the New Testament, by E. G. Goodspeed, 1923; the Old Testament by J. M. Powis Smith, 1935, the Apocrypha by Goodspeed, 1938; The Westminster Version of the Holy Scriptures by the Catholic Church, 1935; a Revised Catholic Version by R. A. Knox (New Testament, 1945, Old Testament, 1949), and The Basic English by S. H. Hooke (N. T.) 1945, O.T., 1949), and The New Translation of the Bible in Modern English, by the Church of Scotland (including only Protestant churches), 1947.
Between 1881 and 1901, when the English Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901), there was an unhappy lack of agreement on an English translation acceptable to all. Therefore, the task of a new English translation was again undertaken by the International Council of Religious Education in 1937. This Council appointed a committee of scholars to study The American Standard Version for further revision. The committee studied this question for two years and concluded that there was need for a thorough revision of the American Version of 1901, using the Tyndale Version as well as the King James Version in light of today's knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning, and also using present understanding of the English language. The Council thereupon authorized an English revision of the Bible.
A committee of 32 scholars was appointed to make the new revision in cooperation with an advisory board of 50 representatives of all the denominations which had agreed to its need. The committee was then divided into two groups, one for the Old Testament and the other for the New. Each group submitted its work for the scrutiny of the other, with each change being made by two-thirds vote of the entire committee. The work of the committee covered approximately 10 years. The new revision was unanimously adopted by the advisory board and participating Protestant denominations. The result of this great effort is the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV). The New Testament was first printed in 1946. The complete Bible, Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America in 1951.
FINDING OF ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS OF ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
The Greek text of the New Testament used for the King James Version was that of Beza in 1589. Beza had two Greek manuscripts of great value of the fifth and sixth centuries, but he did not use them, because they were different from the Greek text made by Erasmus (1516-1535). The manuscripts used by Erasmus were from the tenth century on, and he made little use of them. The discovery of many ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, especially after 1931, provided the committee of scholars with important new sources, including the information which recent discoveries have provided for a better understanding of the vocabulary and idioms of the Greek New Testament language. Since 1870, when the official undertaking of the revision of the King James Version took place, an enormous number of papyri have been unearthed in Egypt, containing private letters, official reports, petitions, business accounts and various other records of the activities of the first centuries. These findings were thoroughly studied by Adolf Deissmann, and his results were published in 1895. His study proved that many of the Greek words of the New Testament were used in the everyday life of the people of the first centuries and were not special words which belonged to what was considered Biblical Greek. These discoveries provided the committee of scholars of the Revised Standard Version with valuable material not available to previous translators. Another factor promoting the decision to revise the King James Version was that its archaic form of expression of English was not clearly understood by contemporary people. The use of such words as "thou", "thee", "thy" and "thine" and the verb endings, "est", edst", "eth" and "th", made it difficult for most people to understand it. More than 300 words in the King James Version are misleading in light of today's understanding. This was one of the reasons that led the Council to revise the King James Version. It must be noted that the Revised Standard Version is not a new translation, nor is it a paraphrase of the English language; it is a revision of the King James Version.
The study of the original languages is imperative for the correct understanding of the meaning of the Bible. The knowledge of the original languages is also imperative, in order to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular. The knowledge of the original language is especially necessary for the doctrinal teaching of the Bible. The individual Christian is urged to read the Bible in his own language for his spiritual enrichment, but not to use the translation in arriving at personal conclusions. It is not the Bible itself that divides Christianity, but its interpretation based on personal premises. That is the weakness of the human element. This weakness of the human element is reflected in claims that the Holy Spirit has inspired the individual to interpret the Bible according to his own premise. This is where the fallacy lies - the claim that the Holy Spirit is the author of his own personal interpretation, a claim that all make. The mistake is even greater when the interpretation of the Bible depends upon the translations instead of the original Hebrew, and especially the New Testament Greek text.
A critical examination of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries many words were added or omitted. This was especially so before the printing press, and there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians. The simple purpose of the Bible is to be read and known by all the peoples of the world in their own languages in its pure and true form in its original languages and in its many translations. (This is why I always look to the Scholarly study of the original languages and have that on hand).
The Bible, the inspired word of God, is a living monument in that it goes above and beyond being just an historical document or just a classic piece of literature. It is the Revelation of God Himself and His Will. The Bible is a divine account of God's Design for the salvation of man; it is an account of the Incarnation of the Logos in the Person of Jesus Christ Who became flesh and dwelt among man. It was written to be read with reverence and faith. The Revelation and Message of the Bible should not be hidden or altered by words and phrases that have lost or changed their meaning over the years. The Bible was given to man so he might know the True God and His Revealed Truths, for without the Bible Christ would be unknown to man. God speaks to man through the Bible. Therefore, the written word in its original context is indispensable for belief in Christ and for living His Commandments.
But back to the Matthew scripture and the word fornication and adultery, the word used in the original Greek writing was (and I typically spell this wrong myself, which I should not do, because the definition of pornio is "monger" which is male prostitute, but that is the way I seen it spelled long ago by another minister, so I will use the correct spelling here) porneiva and translated into English, porneia, pronounced por-ni'-ah. Definition: fornication, Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."
Here is Matthew 19:9 in Greek symbol translated into English:
legw de umin oti oV an apolush thn gunaika autou mh epi porneia kai gamhsh allhn moicatai
Malachi alone tells us Gods direct and clear stand on divorce, period. So God does not want anyone to divorce period, even believers with unbelievers, and I am sure even unbelievers with unbelievers, no one. Divorce is of the devil, period, and we do not entertain nor acknowledge the devil. That is the nature of God, and I think people have to know the nature of God and consider the nature of God when interpreting the word as well. God does not contradict Himself ever, so when you get such a clear word as Malachi, you cannot justify in Matthew that you can do what He hates in Malachi. The discussion was about Moses, and what Moses allowed, and why Moses allowed it, and Jesus makes the comment that it was not always so, meaning God did not allow it for any reason, but Moses did back in Deut., because of fornication. Back in Deut., Moses law on divorce was a bride that was accused of not being a virgin by the new husband. A written letter of divorce was allowed because the bride was guaranteed by the father to be pure and a dowry was paid by the family of the bride. If she was truly not pure, then the dowry was forfeited (the husband got to keep it), but if he gave false witness against her, it had to be returned. The elders made the determination if she was pure or unpure and other laws fell into place then. Anyone who committed adultery was put to death in Deut. per the laws of Moses. So to say that adultery is cause in Matthew, that Moses allowed it for adultery, is a pure lie, Moses allowed it for the bride not being a virgin and because of the dowry settlement...because the husband hardened his heart and the family dowry was at stake. If the word adultery came into the Matthew scripture in anyway referenced to what Moses did or did not do, it would have to include that the adulterer was stoned to death. The word does not even fit into the Matthew context.
RSV Matthew scripture:
9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."
I had to dig deeper into this one as we have yet another new word used in RSV bible.
Meriam Webster definition of unchastity was: not chaste : lacking in chastity, so I looked up chastity then returning: 1: the quality or state of being chaste: as a: abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse b: abstention from all sexual intercourse c: purity in conduct and intention d: restraint and simplicity in design or expression 2: personal integrity
and a further referral to Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia encyclopedia:
Chastity, in many religious and cultural contexts, is a virtue concerning the state of purity of the mind and body. The term is most often associated with refraining from sexual intimacy, especially outside of marriage. Chastity is often taken to be synonymous with virginity or abstention from all sexual activity; however, some consider sexually active married couples to be chaste if they have relations only with each other.
Due to the prohibitions of sexual intimacy outside of marriage in Abrahamic religions deriving from the Ten Commandments and Mosaic law, the term has become closely associated with premarital sexual abstinence in Western culture; however, in the context of religion, the term remains applicable to persons in all states, single or married, clerical or lay, and has implications beyond sexual temperance.
Chastity is one of the Seven holy virtues of Catholic teaching, opposing the deadly sin of lust.
Just for our other comparison:
RSV 1 Cor scripture:
15: But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
16: Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
Remember RSV bible is supposed to be the most correct version in accordance with the original Hebrew and Greek bible.
We are starting with a look at different bible versions writings and then going from there about the truth of God.
King James Version: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Good News Bible: 1Co 7:15 However, if the one who is not a believer wishes to leave the Christian partner, let it be so. In such cases the Christian partner, whether husband or wife, is free to act. God has called you to live in peace.
Bible in Basic English: 1Co 7:15 But if the one who is not a Christian has a desire to go away, let it be so: the brother or the sister in such a position is not forced to do one thing or the other: but it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another.
American Standard Version: 1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
Literal Translation Version: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace.
Okay so we have leave, depart, desire to go away, separate, and all these terms mean to me in plain English that they just leave, separate, move out.
Then you get to this bible and look at the word used....
Contempory English Version: 1Co 7:15 If your husband or wife isn't a follower of the Lord and decides to divorce you, then you should agree to it. You are no longer bound to that person. After all, God chose you and wants you to live at peace.
Do the words leave, depart, desire to go away, separate mean the same thing as divorce to any of you?
Now this next verse in the same order.
KJV: 1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
GNB: 1Co 7:16 How can you be sure, Christian wife, that you will not save your husband? Or how can you be sure, Christian husband, that you will not save your wife?
BBE: 1Co 7:16 For how may you be certain, O wife, that you will not be the cause of salvation to your husband? or you, O husband, that you may not do the same for your wife?
ASV: 1Co 7:16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
LITV: 1Co 7:16 For what do you know, wife, whether you will save the husband? Or what do you know, husband, whether you will save the wife?
CEV: 1Co 7:16 And besides, how do you know if you will be able to save your husband or wife who isn't a follower?
Theresa and I have discussed this verse before, as she believed the way the KJV read that it was saying what the CEV was saying, that you should let them depart because how can you know that you will save them-negative emphasis on saving them. Or in other words, do not hold onto them to save them, because you might not. And she got this understanding of it because of the verse it followed, saying to let them go. I disagreed, it is not how my spirit interpreted the verse, I was getting the flip on it, that it was saying that we could be the one who leads them to Christ, and it was more in context to the verse before the last it followed, in context to the entire passage on the subject, not just the preceeding verse. But I just now looked up the verse, for the first time, in the scholars translation in my study bible; and it says:
Marriage to a nobeliever is not grounds for divorce. Such marriage leads to Christian influence for the children and hopes of leading the unbeliever to salvation in Christ. Such a marriage is acceptable in Gods eyes.
So that reaffirms to me that even the KJV is reading as, how can we know that we will not lead them to Christ, not vice versa. I can see the misunderstanding in the verse in KJV, because it leaves out the 'not' before save, but for me when it followed the point of we are to stay with a unbeliever because it makes our children holy, that had more emphasis to me, the positive emphasis, then the unbeliever wanting to leave and letting them. Overall, how it reads to me is that God does not want the marriage separated and is instructing His child not to do such a thing, not take accountability for such a thing, and is just saying if the unbeliever does such a thing, then to be at peace and He will not hold you accountable or bound, so you can be at peace...as we are to be as His children, non strifeful or participating in strife.
The Contempary English Version really twists the words though, I found that interesting. I am going to see how it reads on a couple of other things, I bet it uses the word divorce instead of fornication in the Matthew and Mark verses on marriage and divorce.
ISV, GNB and CEV have all changed the word fornication to adultery. But anyway, just a little biblical study information for those interested.
The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from' which all the translations have been derives. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations. There are 1,300 languages and dialects into which the Holy Bible, in its entirety or in portions, has been translated. Translations of the Bible are very necessary, but are not sufficient for formulating dogmas and doctrines of the Church, which requires reference to the original languages. The translations depend upon the genius and-knowledge of the translator in the selection of the proper words and phrases to render meaning as close as possible to the text of the original language. It is well-known that a new translation is more or less a new interpretation. This is obvious when the Bible is translated in the same language, but in different expressions and words. For instance, in the English language there are many translations and renderings with different words and phrases, which imply that one translation differs from the other.
The translation of the Bible into the English language coincided with the invention of the printing press and the period of Reformation (15th -16th centuries). Before this time the use of Bible in the West was forbidden in any language other than Latin. The Latin translation, from the original Hebrew and Greek, was made by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It became the authoritative Bible for the Western Church and was 'known as the Vulgate. The reading of the Bible, even in the Latin, was forbidden the lay people without permission. This denial by the authorities of the Western Church was one of the main reasons for the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, the first act of the first reformer, Martin Luther, was the translation of the Bible into German in 1522, which translation was the main factor in the establishment of the German language. Before the Reformation and the printing press, various parts of the Bible had been translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. The Western Church was very strict in the use of Latin not only for the Bible, but also for the ritual worship of the Church, which was incomprehensible to the people. It should be noted that before the Reformation there was no complete translation of the Bible in English. The only translation in English from the Latin and not the original Greek language, covering only the New Testament and some parts of the Old, was that attributed to John Wycliffe of England. Despite the fact it was made with the knowledge of the authorities of the Church, its use was forbidden without special permission, according to the decision of the Synod of Oxford of 1407. The first translation of the Bible into English from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, and the first which was printed was that of William Tyndale in c.1523. Before this translation the only printings of the Bible were the Vulgate (first printing, 1456), the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (1488), the text of the New Testament Greek by Erasmus (1516), with four revisions through 1535 and the literal translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin (1528). The translation of the New Testament into English from the original Greek text depended on the initiative of Tyndale (c. 1523), without the sponsorship or permission of the Bishop of London. Tyndale was denounced and forced to flee to Germany, where he probably met Martin Luther. Tyndale started to print the New Testament in English in Cologne, but was again forced to flee to another city, Worms.
In Worms he finally completed the printing of the English translation of the New Testament, in its entirety. This translation was reprinted many times in Holland. Copies of this translation reached England, where it aroused the anger of his enemies. Nevertheless, Tyndale continued his work and undertook to translate and print the books of the Old Testament. He first printed the five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, in Antwerp in 1529-30. Over the next few years he printed the other books of the Old Testament. Tyndale later printed the New Testament and the Pentateuch together with marginal notes reflecting the Protestant views. This further incensed his enemies, who had him condemned as a heretic. He was burned at the stake in Holland in 1536. Tyndale's translation especially that of the New Testament from the original Greek, marked the beginning of many other English translations from the original Greek, using Tyndale's translation as a guide. Unfortunately, the original Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus in 1516, which was used by Tyndale for his English translation, contained many mistakes. Still, Tyndale's English translation of the Bible was a pioneer work and an independent effort. Much of his translation is used in the King James Version of 1611. Tyndale's English translation of the entire Bible was the basis for the many other English translations that followed. The subsequent English versions are Coverdale's Bible, 1535; Thomas Mathew's Bible, 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560, and the Bishop's Bible, 1568. Also the Rheims-Duae's in 1582 was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Within approximately 50 years from the time of Tyndale's first printed translations the above six translations were made. It must be noted, however, that none of these English translations was accepted as an authorized English version, because of general dissatisfaction with them and the many mistakes found in them. Therefore, after 30 years another attempt to translate the Bible anew into English was made by a conference in England, where a new version of the Bible was suggested to King James. King James was convinced of the need of a new English translation of the Bible. He appointed 54 scholars to undertake the task. These scholars used the Bishop's Bible of 1568 as a basis, but earlier English versions were also, taken into consideration, especially Tyndale's.
These 54 scholars, appointed to translate a new, original English version, failed because they used the earlier English translation which had many mistakes. Thus theirs was a new revision not a new translation. Regardless, this new version was received with great enthusiasm and happiness, and within a generation it displaced all other English translations. This new version became known as the King James Version, or the Authorized Version. This King James Version was printed in 1611, and has become the familiar form of the Bible for many English-speaking generations. The King James Version was the only version, that bore the royal authority and was "appointed to be read in churches." It is characterized as "the noblest monument of English prose.", The King James Version has played a prominent role in forming the personal character of the church and institutions of the English-speaking people.
Yet, even this King James Version was not well-received nor free of criticism by some. Nevertheless, it has prevailed through the centuries and is stiff held in great esteem today, both by preachers and lay people, despite its defects, which were, noted more clearly in the mid-nineteenth century, and more so today. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible possessed today were unknown to the 54 scholars of the King James Version. The manuscripts of the Bible which were found later pointed out more clearly the serious defects of the King James Version. This fact convinced the Church of England in 1870 to make a revision of the King James translation. This revision was published in 1881 (N.T.), 1885 (O.T.) and was known as the English Revised, Version of the Bible, which included the Apocrypha printed in 1895,. However, to its detriment, this committee of revisers included only Anglican scholars. This version was not accepted by the vast majority of local churches and people, who. cherished the King James Version.
The dissatisfaction with the new English Revised Version led scholars in America to once again attempt to issue another English translation based on this English Revised Version. The American scholars, who cooperated with the English revisers, made amendments into the English Revised Version and published it in 1901., calling it the American Standard Version. Numerous other new English translations were published over the years. Among, those worthy of mention are: The New Testament by R. F. Weymouth, 1902; The New Testament, 1913, and The Old Testament, 1924, by J. Moffatt (complete Bible revised in 1935); The American Translation of the New Testament, by E. G. Goodspeed, 1923; the Old Testament by J. M. Powis Smith, 1935, the Apocrypha by Goodspeed, 1938; The Westminster Version of the Holy Scriptures by the Catholic Church, 1935; a Revised Catholic Version by R. A. Knox (New Testament, 1945, Old Testament, 1949), and The Basic English by S. H. Hooke (N. T.) 1945, O.T., 1949), and The New Translation of the Bible in Modern English, by the Church of Scotland (including only Protestant churches), 1947.
Between 1881 and 1901, when the English Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901), there was an unhappy lack of agreement on an English translation acceptable to all. Therefore, the task of a new English translation was again undertaken by the International Council of Religious Education in 1937. This Council appointed a committee of scholars to study The American Standard Version for further revision. The committee studied this question for two years and concluded that there was need for a thorough revision of the American Version of 1901, using the Tyndale Version as well as the King James Version in light of today's knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning, and also using present understanding of the English language. The Council thereupon authorized an English revision of the Bible.
A committee of 32 scholars was appointed to make the new revision in cooperation with an advisory board of 50 representatives of all the denominations which had agreed to its need. The committee was then divided into two groups, one for the Old Testament and the other for the New. Each group submitted its work for the scrutiny of the other, with each change being made by two-thirds vote of the entire committee. The work of the committee covered approximately 10 years. The new revision was unanimously adopted by the advisory board and participating Protestant denominations. The result of this great effort is the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV). The New Testament was first printed in 1946. The complete Bible, Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America in 1951.
FINDING OF ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS OF ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
The Greek text of the New Testament used for the King James Version was that of Beza in 1589. Beza had two Greek manuscripts of great value of the fifth and sixth centuries, but he did not use them, because they were different from the Greek text made by Erasmus (1516-1535). The manuscripts used by Erasmus were from the tenth century on, and he made little use of them. The discovery of many ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, especially after 1931, provided the committee of scholars with important new sources, including the information which recent discoveries have provided for a better understanding of the vocabulary and idioms of the Greek New Testament language. Since 1870, when the official undertaking of the revision of the King James Version took place, an enormous number of papyri have been unearthed in Egypt, containing private letters, official reports, petitions, business accounts and various other records of the activities of the first centuries. These findings were thoroughly studied by Adolf Deissmann, and his results were published in 1895. His study proved that many of the Greek words of the New Testament were used in the everyday life of the people of the first centuries and were not special words which belonged to what was considered Biblical Greek. These discoveries provided the committee of scholars of the Revised Standard Version with valuable material not available to previous translators. Another factor promoting the decision to revise the King James Version was that its archaic form of expression of English was not clearly understood by contemporary people. The use of such words as "thou", "thee", "thy" and "thine" and the verb endings, "est", edst", "eth" and "th", made it difficult for most people to understand it. More than 300 words in the King James Version are misleading in light of today's understanding. This was one of the reasons that led the Council to revise the King James Version. It must be noted that the Revised Standard Version is not a new translation, nor is it a paraphrase of the English language; it is a revision of the King James Version.
The study of the original languages is imperative for the correct understanding of the meaning of the Bible. The knowledge of the original languages is also imperative, in order to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular. The knowledge of the original language is especially necessary for the doctrinal teaching of the Bible. The individual Christian is urged to read the Bible in his own language for his spiritual enrichment, but not to use the translation in arriving at personal conclusions. It is not the Bible itself that divides Christianity, but its interpretation based on personal premises. That is the weakness of the human element. This weakness of the human element is reflected in claims that the Holy Spirit has inspired the individual to interpret the Bible according to his own premise. This is where the fallacy lies - the claim that the Holy Spirit is the author of his own personal interpretation, a claim that all make. The mistake is even greater when the interpretation of the Bible depends upon the translations instead of the original Hebrew, and especially the New Testament Greek text.
A critical examination of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries many words were added or omitted. This was especially so before the printing press, and there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians. The simple purpose of the Bible is to be read and known by all the peoples of the world in their own languages in its pure and true form in its original languages and in its many translations. (This is why I always look to the Scholarly study of the original languages and have that on hand).
The Bible, the inspired word of God, is a living monument in that it goes above and beyond being just an historical document or just a classic piece of literature. It is the Revelation of God Himself and His Will. The Bible is a divine account of God's Design for the salvation of man; it is an account of the Incarnation of the Logos in the Person of Jesus Christ Who became flesh and dwelt among man. It was written to be read with reverence and faith. The Revelation and Message of the Bible should not be hidden or altered by words and phrases that have lost or changed their meaning over the years. The Bible was given to man so he might know the True God and His Revealed Truths, for without the Bible Christ would be unknown to man. God speaks to man through the Bible. Therefore, the written word in its original context is indispensable for belief in Christ and for living His Commandments.
But back to the Matthew scripture and the word fornication and adultery, the word used in the original Greek writing was (and I typically spell this wrong myself, which I should not do, because the definition of pornio is "monger" which is male prostitute, but that is the way I seen it spelled long ago by another minister, so I will use the correct spelling here) porneiva and translated into English, porneia, pronounced por-ni'-ah. Definition: fornication, Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."
Here is Matthew 19:9 in Greek symbol translated into English:
legw de umin oti oV an apolush thn gunaika autou mh epi porneia kai gamhsh allhn moicatai
Malachi alone tells us Gods direct and clear stand on divorce, period. So God does not want anyone to divorce period, even believers with unbelievers, and I am sure even unbelievers with unbelievers, no one. Divorce is of the devil, period, and we do not entertain nor acknowledge the devil. That is the nature of God, and I think people have to know the nature of God and consider the nature of God when interpreting the word as well. God does not contradict Himself ever, so when you get such a clear word as Malachi, you cannot justify in Matthew that you can do what He hates in Malachi. The discussion was about Moses, and what Moses allowed, and why Moses allowed it, and Jesus makes the comment that it was not always so, meaning God did not allow it for any reason, but Moses did back in Deut., because of fornication. Back in Deut., Moses law on divorce was a bride that was accused of not being a virgin by the new husband. A written letter of divorce was allowed because the bride was guaranteed by the father to be pure and a dowry was paid by the family of the bride. If she was truly not pure, then the dowry was forfeited (the husband got to keep it), but if he gave false witness against her, it had to be returned. The elders made the determination if she was pure or unpure and other laws fell into place then. Anyone who committed adultery was put to death in Deut. per the laws of Moses. So to say that adultery is cause in Matthew, that Moses allowed it for adultery, is a pure lie, Moses allowed it for the bride not being a virgin and because of the dowry settlement...because the husband hardened his heart and the family dowry was at stake. If the word adultery came into the Matthew scripture in anyway referenced to what Moses did or did not do, it would have to include that the adulterer was stoned to death. The word does not even fit into the Matthew context.
RSV Matthew scripture:
9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."
I had to dig deeper into this one as we have yet another new word used in RSV bible.
Meriam Webster definition of unchastity was: not chaste : lacking in chastity, so I looked up chastity then returning: 1: the quality or state of being chaste: as a: abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse b: abstention from all sexual intercourse c: purity in conduct and intention d: restraint and simplicity in design or expression 2: personal integrity
and a further referral to Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia encyclopedia:
Chastity, in many religious and cultural contexts, is a virtue concerning the state of purity of the mind and body. The term is most often associated with refraining from sexual intimacy, especially outside of marriage. Chastity is often taken to be synonymous with virginity or abstention from all sexual activity; however, some consider sexually active married couples to be chaste if they have relations only with each other.
Due to the prohibitions of sexual intimacy outside of marriage in Abrahamic religions deriving from the Ten Commandments and Mosaic law, the term has become closely associated with premarital sexual abstinence in Western culture; however, in the context of religion, the term remains applicable to persons in all states, single or married, clerical or lay, and has implications beyond sexual temperance.
Chastity is one of the Seven holy virtues of Catholic teaching, opposing the deadly sin of lust.
Just for our other comparison:
RSV 1 Cor scripture:
15: But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
16: Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
Remember RSV bible is supposed to be the most correct version in accordance with the original Hebrew and Greek bible.
Last edited:
