Guest Post: How Reliable is the Bible?
Forward: Hi guys and thanks for stopping by yet again! I decided to get an expert in for this next post, let me introduce Stephen he is a good friend of ours and has over the past 3 years been translating the New Testament from the oldest known Greek manuscripts that we have into an amplified English translation that is available free at his website, I will let him tell you more about that. The reason that I wanted to start here is because a lot of what Christianity believes is based on the bible, if its not then I don’t know where people are getting their bases from lol. I wanted to illustrate to you a little just how reliable our current translations are. Of course this is an extremely short overview, and Stephen has done great work condensing something he has enough material to write a few books on now! Anyway that said, here is Stephen!
Greetings one and all, and welcome to this guest blog on Rob MacKay’s “Posterous”. May as well start with who I am, and why I’m writing this. The name’s Stephen, I’m in my early 20’s, I live in Manchester, England, UK; I’m a Computer Technician (that means I fix computers and computer equipment), I was a Christian for 5 years until I was finally “asked” to “leave” my Church; and finally, for the past 2 years and 6 months, I’ve been working on an Amplified Translation of what’s commonly known as the New Testament, aka, the “2nd half” of the “Bible”. This is probably the reason Rob has asked me to do this guest blog. But don’t be completely fooled by the title, I’m not here to discuss the historical reliability of the “Bible” - there’s numerous books on that, and even though Rob has asked if I’d possibly do a snippet, a “snippet” on the historical reliability of the “Bible” is nigh on impossible, so it’s best that I don’t waste too much time dwelling on that. No, the main point that Rob has asked me to discuss is this: How reliable are our English translations of the “Bible”? I have to stress English Translations as I can’t really speak for those in other languages, but saying that, I’m more or less willing to bet that there wouldn’t be too much of a difference with the answer for English Translations as there would be for those into other languages. Anyway, that’s the introduction: let’s get started eh?
First of all, I despise using the word “Bible” to refer to God’s Scriptures. Why? Because Bible is derived from the Greek word byblos, which comes from the Egyptian Byblis, the name of a polytheistic female Sun-deity. Funnily enough, the fact that God constantly talks against religions and their gods, I doubt he’s all that pleased that we’re breaking the following instruction: Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let them be heard on your lips (Exodus 23:13). So what do we do? We mention the name of another god every time we reference God’s own Scriptures! Obviously, someone was off their head when they decided to call Yahuweh’s collective Scriptures “the Bible”. Well, that wasn’t really a “translation” issue, but an important explanation none-the-less.
Right, I’m going to answer the question asked above (how reliable etc), and then proceed to explain my answer.
No. English translations of Scripture are not reliable.
There you go. I’ve said it. They’re about as reliable as Jelly/Jello is to build the Empire State Building on, whilst being held by 20 shall children, who are in turn jumping up and down on a trampoline. English translations of Scripture are so gosh damn bad, we may as well use The idiot’s guide to Web Design as our written source for God’s words.
Let’s use an example here. Revelation 13:16, from the New International Version (NIV): He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead. The context surrounding this verse is a prophecy regarding the “End times”, and this verse is talking about the “false prophet” who, according to the NIV translation, “forces” people “to receive a mark” on their right hand or forehead. Problem is, for the NIV, this is NOT what the Greek says at all! Not one bit! I may as well have been reading a Swahili translation of Revelation in order to understand it. This is such a badly “translated” verse from the Greek; it should make every translator shudder with anger and disgust. Firstly, the word translated as “forced”, from the Greek ποιεω/poieo, does not mean “forced”. Strike number 1. Secondly, there is no Greek word for “to receive”, in the Greek text of this verse. Strike number 2. Thirdly, there is no “his” in the Greek text of this verse. The word is actually αυτων/auton, which is plural and so means their, incorporating the plurality of everyone who has been mentioned previously. Strike number 3 and 4 (as they did it twice). Fourthly, they have missed out translating 11 different Greek words that are there in the Greek text of Revelation. That brings the total up to 15 strikes against this highly popular English “translation”. There are only 25 words in their translated verse! The Greek has 35 words in total. So the NIV, not only missed 29% of the words, they added one that wasn’t needed, and mistranslated 4 more of them! The NIV, then, has only given English readers 57% of what the Greek verse of Revelation 13:16 actually says! Can you imagine what they’ve done with the rest of Scripture? Well, I actually chose this verse, as it’s one of the better ones.
So, what is the Greek text of Revelation 13:16 and what does it actually say? Well, the NIV has turned the false prophet into a tyrant, who forces people to do his will. Problem is, the false prophet, whilst actually being a tyrant, sure as heck won’t appear as one! The verse is as follows:
Greek: και ποιει πάντας, τους μικρους και τους μεγάλους, και τους πλουσίους και τους πτωχούς, και τους ελευθέρους και τους δούλους, ινα δωσιν αυτοις χάραγμα επι της χειρος αυτων της δεξιας η επι το μέτωπον αυτων
English translation: And he causes everyone, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the enslaved, with the result that they give themselves an inscription upon their right hand, or upon their forehead.
English translation with Greek in between: “And (και) he causes (ποιει) everyone (πάντας), the (τους) small (μικρους) and (και) the (τους) great (μεγάλους), and (και) the (τους) rich (πλουσίους) and (και) the (τους) poor (πτωχούς), and (και) the (τους) free (ελευθέρους) and (και) the (τους) enslaved (δούλους), with the result that (ινα) they give (δωσιν) themselves (αυτοις) an inscription (χάραγμα) upon (επι) their (αυτων) right hand (της χειρος της δεξιας (literally “the hand, the right” aka “right hand”)) or (η) upon (επι) their (αυτων) forehead (το μέτωπον).”
See the difference? The false prophet doesn’t “force” people to take the mark (from the false prophet himself, NIV?), but he “causes” everyone to give themselves the mark. The false prophet here is portrayed as a shrewd businessman, a smooth talker, who is so good; he will convince people that taking his “mark” or “inscription” (the Greek χάραγμα/charagma, literally means “to engrave on the skin”) is going to be the best thing for them. He doesn’t “force” them to do it; he just convinces them that it’s a good thing. Is the meaning of this verse given across by the NIV? It sure as hell isn’t. And believe me; no other popular English translation can get this verse right either. The English Standard version, that prides itself on its “literal accuracy”, even though it has one extra word than the NIV, actually misses out 12 words, and adds one, as this image shows.
Now, before I begin translating a book of the New Testament, I engage in some Textual Criticism before I do anything else. This entails a comparison of the oldest manuscripts that we have of the New Testament, with the current “supposed” basis for all English “translations”, commonly known as the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition (NA27), and the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 4th Edition (UBS4), to see if there are any differences between the oldest known manuscripts, and the ones being used for all Scripture “translations” across the world. To aid me in this, I have a Computer Software program known as Logos Bible Software, which allows me to make notes on electronic editions of the NA27 and UBS4 (although I mainly use NA27), so I can compare the manuscripts, make the notes, and then start translating. Whenever I come across anything different, the word, phrase or verse is highlighted in green, and I add a note stating what’s different between the NA27/UBS4, and the oldest know manuscripts. And what I’ve found is quite startling.
Principally, historical accounts, such as “Jesus went down to lake Galilee” and others, there will either be a one word difference, i.e., Jesus was going down, or Jesus went down (one is present continuous tense, the other past tense), or no difference between the oldest known manuscripts and the NA27/UBS4. On the other hand, however, when it comes to theological discussions, such as stuff in Paul’s letters like Galatians, Romans, or Hebrews, there will be a 20 - 75% difference between the oldest known manuscripts, and the NA27/UBS4 Greek NT’s, which are used for today’s Scripture “Translations” (see this image of Jude, remember differences are highlighted in green). That, readers of this blog, is completely abysmal. Not only are English “translations” already 20 - 75% removed from the oldest known manuscripts (those that are less likely to have been changed due to changing theological beliefs), they then proceed to utterly destroy the meaning of the verses that are still intact! Is it any wonder people think there’s something up with “God” and “the Bible” when translations aren’t even based on the oldest manuscripts, and then what’s left they seem inept at translating properly?
Trust me; the Old Testament isn’t any better. Even though most will have heard the statement, “there is only a 6% difference between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew manuscripts used for today’s translations,” I can safely tell you that this is utter bull. There is a lot more than a 6% difference between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew manuscripts used for today’s translations. It’s something more like 60%, not 6%. The most heavily edited book of the Old Testament is Isaiah, more or less due to the fact that Isaiah has a lot of prophecies about the Messiah, of which Rabbi’s throughout history have not liked to refer to a certain man from Nazareth. Example. Isaiah 53:9a, according to today’s translations: “His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death...” This, Christians will tell you, is a prophecy about Jesus. Problem is, Jesus didn’t die with a “rich man”, nor was His tomb/grave with “wicked men”. It was actually the other way around. He died between criminals, “wicked men”, and He was placed in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb/grave, that of “a rich man”. So this can’t be a prophecy regarding Jesus, as then God would have said something wrong, and God can’t be wrong, at all. So, what does the Dead Sea Scrolls “Great Isaiah Scroll” say regarding Isaiah 53:9a? Well, according to an accurate translation of the Hebrew, “His place of dying and death by violent means (maveth) they assigned (nathan) to be with the condemned (rasha'), yet His tomb (qeber) was with a rich man ('ashiyr).” So, was the Messiah’s “place of dying and death” with “the condemned”, aka, criminals? Yes, yes it was. And was His tomb, in that of “a rich man”? Yes, yes it was. So, it is a prophecy regarding the Messiah - problem is, it currently isn’t one in English translations, as they don’t use the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known manuscripts of the Old Testament, as their basis. Again, they are good at what they do best - doing things wrong.
Well, I know I’ve only concentrated on two verses out of hundreds found in Scripture, yet if I did any more, people will probably switch off, as I’ve spent quite a lot of time just explaining what’s wrong with these two in English translations. As always, people are more than welcome to disagree with my conclusions that I’ve mentioned in this guest blog, but I hope that’s because you actually have proof that what I’ve said on here is wrong, and not just because you “don’t like what you’re (I’m) saying” as it doesn’t “fit with my (your) beliefs”. Funnily enough, most of what I’ve said on here didn’t fit with my beliefs before either, but after investing the time to actually investigate what I had been told, I’m afraid that my beliefs just didn’t stand up to logical, rational scrutiny, and the facts that I found after much enquiry.
Anyway, I hope you’ve enjoyed this guest blog, and I’m sure comments are welcome, not only on here, but to me or Rob via our email addresses.
As always, in Yahuweh’s love,
Stephen
11 Comments
"According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word bible[4] is from Latin biblia, traced from the same word through Medieval Latin and Late Latin, as used in the phrase biblia sacra ("holy book"—"In the Latin of the Middle Ages, the neuter plural for Biblia (gen. bibliorum) gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae, in which singular form the word has passed into the languages of the Western world.")[5] This stemmed from the Greek term τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια (ta biblia ta hagia), "the holy books", which derived from βιβλίον (biblion),[6] "paper" or "scroll," the ordinary word for "book", which was originally a diminutive of βύβλος (byblos, "Egyptian papyrus"), possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port Byblos from whence Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece."
@Stephen & Any - I must add, named after ONE of their sun-goddess' as well - Them Pagans gotta catch em all!
From the very familiar -- but inaccurate -- translations available today, we can see that we are called to observe certain laws, namely the 10 Commandments. Although some of the churches have twisted the laws, what many claim they say has changed has not really changed at all, especially the first four Commandments. If everyone believes that it is good not to murder, lie, steal or covet because it is written in the Commandments, then why do they not believe the parts about honouring the Creator, His name, and His special days? Men (and women) are so eager to blaspheme the Creator and ignore His rules for healthy living, that they decide to listen to paid clergy for guidance.
So while there is much wrong with today's English translations, it is not just the accuracy of the texts that will pull people back to the Creator, but their hearts and minds. If people are comfortable where they are, and do not seek the Creator -- Yahweh -- then they shall believe all those "experts" who continue to flaunt their twisted knowledge of twisted Scripture, essentially a case of the blind following the blind.
Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be answered, ask and it shall be given to you. But stay in your comfort zone and the price will be very high!
i havent even got through the first paragraph... here is something to rectify about your theory on the word 'bible' for starters:
the word bible[4] is from Latin biblia, traced from the same word through Medieval Latin and Late Latin, as used in the phrase biblia sacra ("holy book"—"In the Latin of the Middle Ages, the neuter plural for Biblia (gen. bibliorum) gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae, in which singular form the word has passed into the languages of the Western world.")[5] This stemmed from the Greek term τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια (ta biblia ta hagia), "the holy books", which derived from βιβλίον (biblion),[6] "paper" or "scroll," the ordinary word for "book", which was originally a diminutive of βύβλος (byblos, "Egyptian papyrus"), possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port Byblos from whence Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece.
Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia ("the books") was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,"[7] and would have referred to the Septuagint.[8] The Online Etymology Dictionary states, "The Christian scripture was referred to in Greek as Ta Biblia as early as c.223
-please do not base your beliefs on negative reactions from being hurt by christians. christians are humans. they make mistakes. they have pride. they hurt people. badly sometimes. but this does not reflect on Christ. it reflects on human nature.
I know that you guys are struggling for truth. I am too. but I have found such a comforter in the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit after He left. and He did, and YHWH can give you peace and grace and mercy and absolute UNCONDITIONAL love, through the Holy Spirit.
Its horrible that your friend got kicked out of church. its so sad when that happens. church is exactly where us misfits, drop outs and raggamuffins belong! no matter how bad our behaviour, God forgives, so we the church, the people of God should forgive too. Thats what Jesus taught.
but yeah, if you guys want to use me to ask the hard questions, please feel free. I have been through so many debates with older christians and bible scholars young and old. I have come out of these debates with a stronger love for YHWH than ever, and a faith that is strong as an ox! I know GODs love, despite all the hard questions I have asked about him.
So yeah, please do use me. my email is ohtimothy@gmail.com
peace and love.
Tim
-important point to leave out of my essay there. haha. sorry.
when people use the word byblos, they meant it how we mean 'book', not the sun goddess.
Thanks for the comments.
I do find it amusing how Christians assume that we have been "hurt" by bad and nasty not very good Christians, when that is not the case. Being kicked out of Church was the best thing that ever happened to us - if anything I'm grateful!
What I am peeved about is how redicuously blind and arrogant I was in thinking I was correct, or had the right path, thought the bible free of error - thought that because I had asked the magical Jebus into my heart everything would be just super. When its not like that, because that's not what Scripture says.
Why isn't bible a good word for Yah's Scriptures? Firstly because He never used the term, and secondly Yah hates anything to do with the religions of man, especially Paganism. They might not have been thinking of the goddess but it all roots to being named after the goddess and that's something Yah would never want near His message.
These are all things Christianity does not know, because of their lack of knowledge for the simple fact that they do not study. Christianity just assumes, grabs on to their free ticket doctrine and dances around on its business and they need waking up, because one day they will be before Him saying "But when did we not do these things?" and they will be told to leave, because "I do not know you."
Leave a Comment