Bible Translations: Manuscripts, Methods, and Meaning | Let's Talk Biblical | Episode 3

Transcript imported from the captions supplied for this teaching.

Kind: captions
Language: en
if you love talking about the Bible as
much as I do then I think you really
enjoy this show Welcome to list talk
biblical the podcast where we dig deep
into the heart of scripture explore
Timeless truths and have real
conversations about what the Bible says
and how it applies to us my name is Lex
and I want to thank you for joining me
on today's episode so grab your bible
get comfortable and let's talk
biblical today we're going to unravel
one of the most intriguing aspects of
scripture Bible translations why do some
translations differ so much from others
how do Scholars determine what the
original text said and what should we
know about the ancient manuscripts that
form the foundation of our modern Bibles
we'll examine the process translators
use to bring the Bible into English look
at Key textual variants that have
sparked debate Ates and compare popular
translations like the King James version
NIV and ESV by the end of this episode I
hope you'll have a deeper appreciation
for the Bible you hold in your hands now
let's dive into the interesting history
of Bible translations how do we know the
Bible we have today is the same as the
original texts that were written almost
2,000 years ago the simple answer is
that God has preserved his word for us
Yeshua made an amazing prophecy
concerning the preservation of scripture
saying Heaven and Earth will pass away
but my words will by no means pass away
way Matthew 24:35 Yeshua also made it
clear that nothing from the Old
Testament would pass away saying do not
think that I came to destroy the law or
the prophets I did not come to destroy
but to fulfill for surely I say to you
till Heaven and Earth pass away one jot
or one tit will by no means pass from
the law till all is fulfilled Matthew
5:1 17-19 likewise the prophet Isaiah
said the grass withers the flower Fades
but the word of our God stands forever
Isaiah 40:8 it could be argued that the
preservation of scripture is part of
God's Redemptive plan man for mankind if
the scriptures were not preserved how
would we know about Sin and salvation if
we didn't have the Torah we wouldn't
know what sin is because Paul says for
by the law is the knowledge of sin
Romans 3:20 and I would not have known
sin except through the law for I would
not have known covetousness unless the
Lord said You shall not covet Romans 7:7
how would we know about salvation apart
from the revelation of Christ in the New
Testament because in him you also
trusted after you heard the word of
Truth The Gospel of your salvation
Ephesians 1:13 the revelation of our
Salvation is only known by the holy
scriptures which are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus 2 Timothy 3:15 so we
see that the preservation of God's word
is vital for us to come to a saving
faith in Yeshua the preservation of
scripture is important for the gospel of
the Kingdom to be preached in all the
world as a witness to All Nations
Matthew 24:14 the doctrine of scripture
preservation means that God has kept his
word intact and we can trust that the
biblical text we have today are truthful
copies of the original text therefore we
can trust the Bible to be accurate and
truthful in its message and teaching
preservation simply means that we can
trust the scriptures because God has
sovereignly overseen the process of its
transmission over the centuries the
Hebrew scribes were meticulous about
copying each letter exactly as they were
written they would even count the number
of letters in a passage to make certain
they didn't miss even one in their copy
the New Testament writers were not
trained scribes so we do find more cop
errors such as spelling and grammar
mistakes but these errors do not affect
the message or meaning of the text in
any significant way we sometimes find
that the person who copied the text
accidentally copied the same line twice
or left out a word occasionally other
textual variants include using pronouns
instead of proper names spelling
mistakes and different word order but
none of these variants change the
message or meaning of the text however
in spite of these types of variants
Scholars have been able to reconstruct
the original text with great accuracy
because of the vast number of
manuscripts available to us they're able
to compare thousands of copies to find
out where the mistakes were made and
reproduce a trustworthy copy of the
original this method of comparing
manuscripts is called textual criticism
we can see how the scriptures have been
preserved by simply comparing the number
of manuscripts we have of the Bible with
other ancient writings available to us
we can also compare how much time has
pass between the original writing of the
earliest copy we have to help us
determine How likely they are to be
accurate here are some of the best
examples of what are considered to be
reliable copies of ancient texts ranked
in order from the fewest texts to the
most copies available each of these
texts is considered to be very reliable
and accurate according to most Scholars
Plato has seven copies the earliest is
1200 years from the original Aristotle
has 49 copies the earliest is400 years
from the original Homer's Iliad has 643
copies the earliest is 500 years from
the original the New Testament has 5,600
Greek copies and over 19,000 copies in
syc Latin Coptic and Aramaic over 24,000
total manuscripts the earliest is less
than 100 years from the original these
writings are all considered to be
reliable based on the number of texts
and how close they are to when the
original was written the ilad is
considered to be one of the best and
most reliable texts of antiquity because
it has so many copies dating so closely
to the original however as you can see
by comparison the biblical text is
unequaled in both number of copies and
close proximity to the original writings
there are thousands more Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament in
existence than any other ancient text
likewise the copy we have of the New
Testament date closer to the original
than any other ancient text ever found
this means that it's easier to verify
the accuracy of the New Testament than
any other document of antiquity because
of the wealth of manuscripts available
to us biblical Scholars have been able
to compare all of them and determine
with 99% certainty what the original
text actually said even biblical critics
such as Bart ER have acknowledged that
we are able to reconstruct the original
text accurately based on the
overwhelming number of manuscripts
available ER lik to point out the number
of discrepancies that exist between
different manuscripts but even he admits
that those variants don't affect our
ability to reconstruct the original text
if one of the leading critics of the
Bible must admit that we have accurately
reconstructed the New Testament then we
should have no reason to doubt that the
text we have today is both reliable and
accurate what is textual criticism and
why does it matter for Christians in
1516 a Dutch Theologian and Greek
scholar named arasmus published the
first printed edition of the Greek New
Testament this was the first attempt to
compile and compare Greek manuscripts
into a single book this was
revolutionary because it provided
Scholars direct access to the Greek New
Testament arasmus believ that direct
access to the scriptures was essential
for genuine Christian faith at the time
the Latin Vulgate translated by Drome in
the late 4th century was the
authoritative Bible of the Roman
Catholic Church however arasmus noticed
errors and inconsistencies in the
Vulgate which motivated him to produce a
more accurate and faithful addition
based on the Greek manuscripts his goal
was not only to correct the Latin but
also to make the Greek text widely
available to Scholars Paving the way for
deeper theological study and reform
arasmus had access to only a small
number of Greek manuscripts only about
six or seven at the time most of which
were from the Byzantine text type and
relatively late in date 10th to 15th
centuries for certain portions of the
New Testament including the Book of
Revelation arasmus like complete
manuscripts to overcome this arasmus
reconstructed missing portions of the
text by translating the final verses of
Revelation backward from the Latin
Vulgate into Greek but but despite his
limitations this was groundbreaking work
in the world of Bible scholarship and we
should be very grateful for the work
arasmus did arasmus is Greek New
Testament later referred to as the Texas
receptus or received text had a profound
impact on Christianity it provided the
foundation for many translations
including Martin Luther's German Bible
William tindale's English New Testament
and eventually the King James version
nearly a century after arasmus published
his Greek New Testament the King James
Bible was commissioned in 16004 by King
James I of Eng the translation team made
up of 47 of the best biblical Scholars
and linguists of the time relied on
several sources including the Texas
receptus consisting of arasmus as Greek
new testament which was revised and
expanded by later editors such as
stephanus and bza formed the primary
Greek basis for the New Testament of the
King James Bible and the Hebrew mtic
text was used for translating the Old
Testament erasmus's work catalyzed the
Protestant Reformation by emphasizing a
return to the scriptures in their
original languages encouraging Scholars
and L people alike to engage with the
Bible directly his Greek New Testament
paved the way for Bible translators to
make Bibles available to us in our own
languages today the text used by Rasmus
to form the texus receptus come from a
family of texts known as the Byzantine
text type and they make up what is known
as the majority text the majority text
represents readings found in the
majority of surviving Greek manuscripts
of the New Testament these manuscripts
are primarily of the Byzantine text type
A family of texts that became dominant
in the Eastern Roman Empire and were
preserved and copied extens intensively
by scribes from the 4th Century onward
Greek remained the dominant language in
the Eastern Church allowing the
Byzantine text type to flourish while
the western church transitioned to Latin
producing The Vulgate these texts are
the result of Byzantine monks and
scribes who specialized in meticulously
copying and preserving Greek manuscripts
the Byzantine Empire preserved many
Greek manuscripts and the majority of
surviving New Testament manuscripts in
existence today approximately 85 to 90%
reflect the Byzantine tradition this is
why it's referred to as is the majority
text because it accounts for the
majority of Greek manuscripts we have
access to since most surviving Greek New
Testament manuscripts are Byzantine the
majority text reflects the readings that
were most widely accepted and preserved
in the church over centuries it's also
important to note that the majority of
texts in other languages such as the
aric bashid Armenian and Gothic align
with the Byzantine text type meaning
they reflect the same readings found in
the majority of Greek manuscripts
considered to be Byzantine in nature so
the Byzantine text type represents the
majority of all biblical manuscripts not
just those in Greek Advocates of the
majority text argue that the text
widespread preservation indicates Divine
Providence while critics note that
majority does not necessarily mean
original these critics often look to the
older manuscripts as being closer to the
original the critical text emerged in
the 18th and 19th centuries during a
period of growth interest in textual
criticism and manuscript Discovery
unlike the majority text which reflects
the readings of the majority of Greek
manuscripts the critical text gives
priority to the oldest manuscript
scripts specifically codex catticus and
codex viticus and disregards the
majority texts when they disagree codex
caticus was discovered in 1844 by
constantinian Von Tish andorf at St
Katherine's Monastery in the Sinai
Peninsula and is dated to around 350 ad
kodex vaticanus was found in the Vatican
library and it dates to around 350 ad
also both of these texts represent the
alexandrian text type which differs from
the Byzantine text type of the majority
text sinicus includes some unique
readings that differ from other
alexandrian manuscripts and is known for
having a greater number of Corrections
and scribal interventions it was written
on highquality Vellum which is animal
skin and is written in four columns per
page which is unusual for Greek
manuscripts and it was written in unisal
script all capital letters which is also
very different from other Greek
manuscripts it also contains over 23,000
corrections made by several different
scribes over time suggesting extensive
revisions codex fanus was also written
on Vellum using three columns of text
per page also unique for Bible
manuscript It Was Written in unisil
script but with fewer scribal
Corrections Vellum was a more expensive
material which indicates these texts
might have been commissioned by a
wealthy donor typically at the time most
writings were done on Papyrus it was a
plant-based material that was not very
durable Vellum was animal skin so it was
much more durable which is why we have
these texts preserved for us today being
written in unisols instead of minuscules
also sets these two texts apart from the
majority of manuscripts we have
available to us
however despite their common textual
tradition there are numerous textual
variant between them these differences
include omissions additions word order
spelling and other Minor Details these
factors make me suspicious about codex
catticus and vaticanus while the
Byzantine text type known as the
majority text makes up the largest
number of manuscripts available to us it
also makes up the fewest number of
Modern English translations the
Byzantine text type is used in certain
English translations such as the King
James Bible the new King James the world
English Bible and the English majority
text however the critical text on the
other hand which is based primarily on
two manuscripts catticus and vaticanus
represents the majority of Modern
English translations we have available
today the critical text is the basis for
the NIV ESV nasb nrsv Christian Standard
Bible good news translation New Living
cev Amplified and many more there are
two primary ways of looking at why
certain words or verses are missing from
certain texts what is to say they were
intentionally added by scribes later and
the others to say they were accidentally
omitted by scribes in certain texts the
first Theory implies that scribes were
not handling the text with care and they
were adding things as they saw fit the
second implies that scribes simply made
a copying error I tend to believe the
second to be most likely I think if
there is missing text in certain
manuscripts but it exists in majority of
manuscripts then it was probably an
accidental Omission by a scribe I don't
believe that Christians were
intentionally adding new words and
verses to the text as they saw fit
that's why I lean towards the majority
text readings I believe if it's in the
majority of the manuscripts then it was
probably more likely to have come from
the original however those on the
textual criticism side of the argument
simply rely on the older manuscripts as
being more reliable even though it's
obvious that these texts have gone
through major revisions and alterations
over time they tend to think that if a
verse is missing from an older text then
it was probably not in the original and
was added later by a scribe that's why
they favor the older text even though
they differ significantly from the
majority of manuscripts we have
available to us that way of thinking
just doesn't make sense to me though
most of the variants between manuscripts
are considered to be minor and
insignificant things such as word order
personal names or pronoun use or
different spelling of words some areas
can be easily accounted for as scribal
errors such as copying a line twice or
accidentally omitting a line when
considering there are over 24,000 total
manuscripts in various languages these
minor variations seem pretty
insignificant however there are three
significant variants worth mentioning
that everyone should be aware of which
include the long ending of Mark 16 the
adult woman in John 7 and 8 and the
trinitarian statement in 1 John 5 and
there's one more less significant
variant that I think is worth mentioning
found in the book of Acts first let's
look at the ending of Mark the gospel of
Mark has two alternate endings the
longer ending which includes verses 9-2
and the shorter ending that stops at
verse eight the longer ending is
included in many manuscripts while it's
missing from specific texts such as
caticus and vaticanus kodex vaticanus
omits the verses while codex caticus
also omits these verses but leaves a
blank space suggesting knowledge of the
longer ending this indicates the longer
ending was likely in the text originally
but it was omitted by The Scribe who
copied codc cicus now let's look at the
short ending now when the Sabbath was
passed Mary Magdalene Mary than mother
James and salom bought spices that they
might come and anoint him very early in
the morning on the first day of the week
they came to the tomb when the sun had
risen and they said among themselves who
will roll away the Stone from the door
of the Tomb for us but when they looked
up they saw that the stone had been
rolled away for it was very large and
entering the tomb they saw a young man
clothed in a long white robe sitting on
the right side and they were alarmed but
he said to themo not be alarmed you seek
Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified he
is risen he is not here see the place
where they laid him but go tell the
disciples and Peter that he is going
before you into Galilee there you will
see him as he said to you so they went
quickly and fled from the tomb for they
trembled and were amazed and they said
nothing to anyone for they were afraid
Mark 16 1-8 this is where the short
ending stops it seems incomplete and
abrupt they were told to go tell his
disciples that he is risen and going to
Galilee and you will see him there but
it ends abruptly with them fleeing and
being afraid and nothing more it ends in
a very negative and strange way stopping
at the words they were afraid there's no
mention of the disciples seeing the
resurrected Lord or his Ascension which
makes this seem like a very unlikely
place for Mark to have ended his gospel
now listen to The Long ending of Mark
that's found in the majority of
manuscripts now when he rose early on
the first day of the week he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene out of whom he
had cast seven demons she went and told
those who had been with him as they
mourned and wept and when they heard
that he was alive and had been seen by
her they did not believe after that he
appeared in another form to two of them
as they walked and went in the country
and they went and told it to the rest
but they did not believe them either
later he appeared to the 11 as they sat
at the table and he rebuked their
unbelief and Hardness of Heart because
they did not believe those who had seen
him after he had risen and he said to
them go into all the world and preach
the gospel to Every Creature he who
believes and his bapt will be saved but
he who does not believe will be
condemned and these signs will follow
those who believe in my name they will
cast out demons they will speak with new
tongues and they will take up serpents
and if they drink anything deadly it
will by no means hurt them they will lay
hands on the sick and they will recover
so then after the Lord had spoken to
them he was received up into heaven and
he sat down at the right hand of God and
they went out and preached everywhere
the Lord working with them and
confirming the word through the
accompanying signs amen Mark 16 9-20
this seems like the more accurate ending
of Mark because it completes the context
of the first eight verses the angel told
the women to go tell the disciples about
the resurrection and in the long ending
we see that they did exactly what they
were told we also see that Yeshua
appeared to the disciples as the angel
said he would and more importantly we
have the final words of Yeshua giving
the Great Commission to his followers to
preach the gospel and their obedience to
that commission I personally have no
doubt that the long ending of Mark is
the original ending and the fact that
Kodak sanus leaves a blank space for
that ending indicates to me that it was
supposed to be there the next major
textual variant is the story of the
woman caught in adultery found in John
753 through 811 this is a questionable
passage that has been the subject of
debate over the years did the Apostle
John write this story or was it added
later by scribes this passage is missing
from the critical text while the
majority of the Greek manuscripts
include this passage however it is
regarded as a text seeking a home
because it appears in different
locations in different manuscripts some
manuscripts put the perpe adulter after
John 7 6 While others place it after
John 21:25 and some even place it in the
Gospel of Luke this leads Scholars to
believe that this particular passage was
probably a true event that was well
known among Christians but not
originally included in the Gospels it
was probably inserted into different
places because they believed it should
be included somewhere but they weren't
sure where to put it when you read John
78 without the passage about the
adulterous woman it actually reads more
smoothly as if that was how it was
originally written the inclusion of the
adulterous woman passage seems to break
the flow of thought and feels out of
place Scholars also notice that the
wording used in this passage about the
adulterous woman is very different from
everything else written in the Gospel of
John in fact there are 13 Greek words
used in this short passage that do not
appear anywhere else in John's gospel
all of these factors are considered in
textual criticism and because of that
this passage is considered to be a later
addition to the text and not part of the
original Gospel of John however this
passage is such a beloved story that
most Bibles include it in their
translation anyway the third major text
variant is found in 1 John 57 and is
known as the K yanim this verse is not
found in any Greek manuscript dating
before arasmus arasmus couldn't find any
Greek text to support it so he didn't
include it originally but he was
pressured to put it in his Greek text so
he backwards translated it from the
Latin it's a verse that seems to
originate from the Latin text but it
started being included in the Greek text
after arasmus this is the text in
question for there are three that bear
witness in heaven the Father the word
and the Holy Spirit and these three are
one 1 John 5:7 there's nothing wrong
with this verse and there are no
Christians who would be upset about its
inclusion in the text but there's little
doubt that this verse was not originally
in the text we know arasmus added it
from the Latin because it wasn't in the
Greek and no older Greek texts have been
found that include it so this is an
example of a variant that probably never
should have been in the Bible now I want
to point out my particular textual
variant that stands out to me as
significant it doesn't typically make
the list of significant verses but it's
significant to me I'm referring to acts
8:37 this is one of the variants that is
excluded by the critical text because
it's not found in the two oldest
manuscripts however it exists in the
majority text now the reason I want to
point it out is because I believe it has
doctrinal significance let's compare the
reading of Acts 8:36 through 38 with and
without this verse the ESV based on the
critical text says and as they were
going along the road they came to some
water and the unic said see here is
water what prevents me from being
baptized and he commanded the Chariot to
stop and they both went down into the
water Philip and the unic and he
baptized him acts 8:36 through 38 in the
ESV now listen to the new King James
based on the majority text now as they
went down the road they came to some
water and the unic said see here's water
what hinders me from being baptized then
Philip said if you believe with all your
heart you may and he answered and said I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God so he commanded the Chariot to stand
still and both Philip and the unic went
down into the water and he baptized him
acts 8:36 through 38 in the new King
James in the ESV there is no confession
of faith on the part of the unic but in
the new King James we see the unic made
a confession of Faith saying that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God I personally
believe this is important which is why
I'm not a fan of the critical text there
are numerous other examples like this
but I chose this one as my favorite
example one final thing I want to
consider today is translation
methodologies there are three primary
methods of translating scripture these
are known as formal equivalents Dynamic
equivalence and paraphrase a formal
equivalence translation is known as a
word for word translation this approach
seeks to translate the original text as
literally as possible preserving the
exact wording of the text some examples
of word for word include King James new
King James nasb nrsv and ESV this method
maintains the Integrity of the original
text and is ideal for indepth study
however some people complain that it can
feel rigid or archaic making it harder
to understand for modern readers that's
why there's some translations that are
called a dynamic equivalence which is
known as a thought forth thought
translation this method focuses on
conveying the meaning of the phrases or
sentences rather than individual words
examples of a dynamic equivalence
include translations such as the NIV NLT
cev and the good news translation one of
its strengths is that it can be easier
for contemporary readers to understand
but the consequence is that it might
lose some of the original Nuance or
theological depth that you find in a
word for word translation a paraphrase
is really not a translation at all but
it's simply putting the text in your own
words a paraphrase seeks to restate the
original text in modern language that is
more accessible to its audience examples
of paraphrases include the message and
the living Bible these Bibles come
across as easily readable and engaging
and while they might be good for
devotional use they tend to stray far
from the original text and introduce
numerous interpretive biases I always
prefer a word for word formal
equivalence translation but if you find
those difficult to read the next best
thing is a dynamic equivalence
translation my personal opinion is to
just avoid paraphrases altogether they
tend to be most likely to lead people
astray my personal favorite is the new
King James version because it's based on
the majority text and it uses a word
forword translation method it's written
in the style of the King James so
retains the poetic Beauty and Cadence
found in the King James but with updated
language to be more readable and easier
for study and memorization it also
includes extensive footnotes to explain
variants and texts the new King James
also seems to avoid interpreted bias
found in other modern translations
striving to remain neutral and faithful
to the original text its combination of
textual transparency formally
equivalence and doctrinal faithfulness
makes it a superior choice in my opinion
which is why I use it as the primary
translation for everything I
teach hey friends if you've been
enjoying the show and you want to help
keep the conversation going then we'd
love your support let's talk biblical is
a listener supported podcast and we
couldn't do this without you your
support helps keep this show running for
more information about how you can
support this ministry visit unlearn
theel lies.com and thank you so much for
being a part of let's talk biblical
now that we've explored the depths of
today's topic it's time to hear from you
welcome to the Q&A portion of the show
where you can ask questions about
today's topic so post your questions in
the chat and let's talk
biblical all right um so before we get
started with questions I want to go
ahead and just add something real quick
um I I know that
I I I questioned and challenged the
critical text and basically said that I
you know I have some concerns but I I
want to assure you that um I still
believe that Bibles translated from the
critical text contain everything
necessary um I don't think they're
missing anything
significant um I don't think there's a
grand conspiracy going on um I I do
think that uh an ESV or a um nrsv or a
tree of life I I think those are good
translations and and I think there's
quite a few Bibles that are I would
consider good
translations um I just wanted to point
out some of the
common oh common variants some of the
common variants that that are noticeable
um there are others that are much less
significant and not even really worth
mentioning um and many of them you'll
find that if it's missing in Matthew it
appears in Luke or Mark and things like
that so it may be um like for example in
in Matthew it says this kind comes out
by prayer and fasting oh this kind comes
out only by prayer and fasting um and
that same passage appears in either Mark
or Luke I don't remember which one and
but it does contain prayer and fasting
but in certain
translations based on the critical text
it takes out the word fasting so it just
says this kind comes out only by prayer
and doesn't have prayer and fasting in
Matthew but it appears in the other
gospel Mark or Luke whichever one it is
um and so many of those variants are
that way that they they appear in um the
same text appears in multiple gospels
but it's missing from one of them in
some manuscripts because uh the s s
casanus may not have it in theirs and so
they say well it was probably not in the
original and that's why they don't
included in the modern
translations um most of those kinds of
things are not significant uh none of
them have any bearing on
Doctrine um most of them add you know
some extra detail that may or may not be
significant um one particular one
in uh
uh I can't remember exactly where it's
at but it's talking about the uh the
Water being stirred and I think it's in
I think it's a Matthew but I'm not 100%
sure on this um it's talking about the
water being stirred by an
Angel um and that that little section
there is really kind of a strange
section of scripture anyway and it's
like why is this in there um doesn't
seem to be relevant and most likely it
was it was a later addition um most
modern translations don't have it uh you
will find that in in the King James new
King James and some of the older
translations uh that are not based on uh
the critical text um and so there are
some strange ones like that that are
like well this is this is one that
probably makes sense not to be there um
the reason I pointed out the one in Acts
837 and I actually want to pull that up
real
quick um
so let's go to acts
8 and 37 so this one and and this
actually goes with Tracy's question so
let me go a and look at Tracy's question
says what scriptures are missing from
the Tree of Life and so the tree of life
is one of those translations that is
based on the critical text and so the
same ones that are missing from the NIV
the nrsv the ESV
nasb uh um you know any translations
based on the critical text is going to
be missing the same same verses or parts
of verses um and so this this is the
only actually the only one that I
actually have concerns about out of all
all the
discrepancies um that people make a fuss
about um this is the only one that I
actually see as important or valid
and prefer that it would be in the text
um is acts 8:37 that's why I mentioned
it earlier it says then Philip said if
you believe with all your heart you may
and he answered and said I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and so in
this one we have the unic uh making a
confession of
faith and this is the like I said this
is the only one out of all of the
um textual variance this is the only one
that I I actually
think probably should have been in the
in the text that they have um relegated
as uh probably not in the original um I
don't know for sure if it was in the
original or not but it makes sense and
it probably should have been um making
note of his confession of faith and it
may have been left out of the original I
think that's very possible uh and
somebody said hey you know what that's
important we should include that as well
and they later it that is very likely uh
but I do think it's something that
should be there because having a
confession of Faith before baptism I
think is very important and I think we
see that in other places as well um but
it's not absolutely NE necessary for
Doctrine and
um so you know if if you have a Bible
that doesn't have it I wouldn't stress
about it too much um like I said this is
the only one that I have any concern
about um I mentioned the other three
there was uh the long ending of Mark
which I think is is probably legit and
many of the modern Bibles don't have it
um but most of that is available in
Matthew um the adulterous woman story is
probably not original but it's a great
story and um most Bibles have it in
there anyway even if it doesn't appear
in the oldest translations and so that's
kind of a strange one that you know that
it's not in the oldest translations but
they stick it in there anyway because
everybody loves that story so much
um and then uh first John where it talks
about these three agree in heaven and um
those three are the three
major um
discrepancies that everybody is aware of
and all the rest of them are pretty
minor and insignificant and really don't
make any difference doctrinally and like
I said most most of the variants have to
do with a proper name versus a pronoun
so in some verses they say Jesus and
other verses they say
he um that is really not that
significant it's you
know what does it matter if they used
his proper name or a pronoun that's not
significant to the text um you know
sometimes it it affects how you read it
um you know he said to him well that's
kind of awkward so Jesus said to him or
he said to Jesus you know like that that
clarifies it and so that could be uh
some of the issues that you find in
translations is they just try to break
Clarity um and then you know sometimes
word orders different or spellings
different those are absolutely
insignificant 100% there's no no bearing
what whatsoever on the text with those
kinds of variants um and so all in all I
I think that we can trust most modern
Bible
translations um as long as you're not
going with a paraphrase honestly uh
avoid paraphrases because they are they
do a bad job um they they translate
things really weird and they have a lot
of translator bias so just avoid a
paraphrase if you stick with something
that is a dynamic equivalent or a um
word for word you know if you stick with
one of those two word for word or
thought for Thought um you're going to
be you're going to be fine but the
paraphrases are the ones that are going
to give you the most problems and so I
would just say avoid
paraphrases um they they're easier to
read but um ultimately they are are the
most problematic types of translations
they don't convey the text very clearly
they don't convey the concepts very
clearly and often times they have a bias
so I I I know I said a lot of that
already but I just wanted to reemphasize
that and I wanted to make sure you
understood that um modern B Bible
translations are are all good um I don't
think there's any of them that I would
say avoid that one that one's evil that
one's wrong that one's bad um even you
know I know a lot of people pick on the
NIV um and I used to I used to pick on
the NIV and people call it the not
inspired version or the nearly inspired
version um but even even the NIV I think
is it
contains the the truth of scripture and
everything necessary that we need to
know um there are things there are
issues in some of those translations
that I'm not fond of
um you know like some of them like for
example um was it Mark 7 where it talks
about the uh eating bread with unwashed
hands um it'll say things
like uh thus he he purified all
foods uh that's that's actually not a
good translation of that text it it says
thus purging all meats or th thus
purging all foods is actually what the
Greek says um and so some translations
don't do a great job Translating that
that's where translator bias comes in um
but all in all the like I said the new
King James is my absolute favorite um it
still has issues there's still things in
the new King James that I'm I'm not fond
of I you know I wish they translate some
things differently um I don't think
there's such thing as a perfect
translation and often times what I'll do
is is I'll you know I'll read from the
king the new King James but I'll go back
and I'll look at the original Greek and
I'll look at the words that are used
there or I'll compare different texts
and so look at the new King James and
the NIV and the
ESV and the
nrsv and you know different
ones and just see if if I like the
reading of one over another and they're
actually sometimes when I prefer the NIV
over others and how they rendered it
because I think it does a really good
job but most of the time the the new
King James is the one that I prefer um
but uh anyway so just to answer your
question um there's really nothing
significant missing from any of them
Tracy um there are minor things that are
missing uh like I said prayer and
fasting you know fasting is left out U
uh Matthew
181 he says um he seeks he comes to seek
and save that which was lost is missing
from Matthew 18 but in it appears in the
parallel gospel
of uh Mark or Luke I don't remember
which one um and so you know things like
that most of the time if it's missing
from one you'll find it in one of the
others and so it's not completely
missing from the text so for example in
uh
Matthew the uh The Lord's Prayer uh you
have a full you have a longer version of
The Lord's Prayer in Matthew uh you have
a condensed version of The Lord's Prayer
in
Luke well why is Luke different than
Matthew did he say two different times
no he didn't say two different way way
um it's just Matthew recorded it
differently than Luke did and um it's
not that one is right and what is wrong
it's just uh from two two different
perspectives and so um you know you may
have a preference on which version of
the The Lord's Prayer you you memorize
most people memorize the one in Matthew
um but uh you know the one in Luke is is
um it's not faulty or damaged in any way
um and I actually used to have a
different opinion on that and uh The
more I've I've studied um Bible
translations and textual
criticism and the process of of
examining manuscripts the uh the more
confidence I have in the Bibles that are
available to us and I I feel like all of
them do a good job um some are you know
they they're all a little bit different
some are better than others and and one
thing we have to consider that I I had
mentioned before is that for a Bible
translation to have a copyright they
have to show 5% difference from all
other translations and so because
there's so many English
translations it it really limits them
on uh how they can translate and so they
have to
translate uh certain words differently
than other people have translated it
just so they can have a copyright now
they try to get words that are
compatible or synonymous and so um so
you'll find some different wordings but
they typically mean the same thing
they're they're usually synonymous words
uh they just had to choose a different
word in order to uh maintain a copyright
which I think is unfortunate that they
have to do that um but it does give us
the ability to have some different
readings that might help bring some more
clarity U by seeing the same word
translated two or three different ways
we get a better idea of what that word
means just by looking at English
translations and so uh people who don't
know the original Greek and Hebrew um
You can compare multiple
translations and uh get a better idea of
what that verse says or means what that
word even says or means just by looking
at multiple translations because they're
going to be slightly different and they
give a different nuance and different
perspective but all in all I I I would
say
um I trust the majority of modern Bible
translations there are some that I like
better than others but I would be fine
with any of them and I would not tell
you to throw any of them in the garbage
um except for some of the um paraphrases
and some of the Hebrew Roots
translations like the ATR uh last week I
told you that one needs to go in the
garbage because it does um translations
when they want to uh willy-nilly add
things into their Bible and throw in new
books and things like that that were
never part of the the Canon um that's
when I have
issues and so Bibles like the at sephr
or the um the Hallelujah scriptures uh
some of those types of of Bibles I have
issues with because they have really
butchered um the text and they have
added and subtracted
things in a
um disrespectful way to the word of God
um I I believe that most the majority of
scholarly Bible
manuscripts do a good job of respecting
the word of God and so I would stick
with a a scholarly
mainstream uh legitimate translation not
one of those translations made by some
guy in his basement um because he wanted
to have a translation that said yahusha
instead of Jesus or something like that
you know so um be you know be be careful
with with some of
those um the tree of life I I think is a
great translation um it is it was
translated by a uh a group of uh
well-known Bible scholars uh people who
are well versed in Bible languages and
uh I think they did a great job with it
I like the Tree of Life um again my my
only complaint is acts
8:37 if if they would put that in the
tree of life or the ESV or the nrsv I'd
be fine with one of those um but you
know because it it's not in those that's
why I lean more towards the new King
James honestly that's that's the biggest
biggest reason is that that one
verse um so anyway uh Josie says
question opinion on the scriptures
version aside from the wording not being
being as reader friendly it seems like
not a terrible hebri friendly version um
the scriptures uh it was I think former
formerly known as the
ISR uh 98 or something like that um is a
decent translation um there's there's
some things in there that I'm not fond
of the wording um I've got a copy of it
and I've read good chunks of it I
haven't read the whole thing uh but I've
read good chunks of it and I some of the
wording I like some of the wording I
don't like
um and I'm not sure why they chose
certain wordings that they did
um but you know all in all it's it's
decent it's not it's not awful um I like
Tree of Life a lot better than
scriptures um but as far as
um if you if you're looking for a Bible
translation that has the name Yeshua in
it I would say over for Tree of Life
tree of life I is my favorite of the
ones that have the name Yeshua in it um
if that's all you're looking for is just
a a version that says Yeshua instead of
Jesus go a tree of life um the
restoration Study Bible is based on the
King James if you like King James that
one's fine um but they have in their
footnotes and in their
endnotes um they have some weird stuff
that they put in there um with their
Theology and so I would be cautious of
that and really with any Bible
translation be cautious of footnotes and
endnotes and understand those are um
commentary they're not
scripture
um
but the uh the hallu scriptures I
thought was awful somebody sent me a
copy of that and I I Tried reading it
and I thought it was terrible um
I borrowed somebody's at sephr one time
just to look over it and read through
some of it it was
awful
um the the ISR scriptures that you
mentioned is is decent it's not terrible
but it's not my favorite um I'm trying
to think of some of the other Messianic
translations that I'm aware
of
um the the Messianic
Jewish
Bible is that it's called missing Jewish
Bible by uh David Stern it's not bad
um as far as Messi translation goes I
like the tree of life better but it's
probably my second favorite at this
point
um Messianic is it Messianic Jewish I
think it's messian Jewish Bible is what
it's called I
think
um but anyway those are those are some
of the Messianic Bibles that that I my
opinions on some of those um so
anyway uh let's see next
question
Marshall is there any way is there any
evidence to suggest that the alexandrian
text of kodex catticus codex
fanis and codex alexandrias are Gnostic
since gnosticism was prevalent in
Alexandria um I don't think so I I've
seen that theory that um that those
texts from coming from Alexandria may
have had Gnostic influence um I don't
see that in the text and so the Gnostic
influence I think would be more
prevalent if that was the
case
um
the the the thing we see with the
Gnostic text is often times like for
example um when marcian decided to make
his own New Testament or his own Bible
he basically he threw out the entire Old
Testament and then he threw out good
chunks in the New Testament and he kept
um Luke but he modified it
tremendously um and he threw out uh a
good chunk of the New
Testament and uh he liked Luke and Paul
basically but he rewarded a lot of stuff
in Luke and Paul and kind of made his
own his own new version of the
Bible and that's the kind of thing we
see with with gnostic influence is
really really butchering the
text
um what we see with the alexandrian text
is that they just vary slightly from the
Byzantine
text and uh those variants aren't
major uh honestly they're pretty minor
pretty insignificant and
um nothing that that really affects any
Doctrine and nothing that affects any um
reading of the text in any significant
way so I I'm really not too worried
about those
things um i i t to prefer the majority
text over the critical text uh again
just because I think if it's in the
majority of Bibles it's to me it just
seems more likely that it came from an
original Source somewhere um if it's
only appears in one or two texts that's
when I would say well it's probably
added it was probably something that
didn't originally begun uh belong in
there and it was somehow found its way
in there along the way and sometimes we
see that as like translators putting a a
note in the margins and then that note
gets kind of stuck into the text as some
point
um sometimes that happens um but you
know wasn't they were trying to
intentionally add something to the text
but they just put a footnote in there or
a side note in the margin and somebody
later on saw the side note and they said
hey I think that's supposed to be in
there and they stuck it in there
thinking it was supposed to be there
when it maybe wasn't um so
anyway uh all right Nick says do you
know if Genesis
38 was one of those chapters that was
kind of just thrown in it seems like an
odd break in Joseph's story to tell a
Side Story um I am not aware of anything
in the Old Testament text that is
questionable uh especially in
Genesis um I think when we're looking
at
the uh the Old Testament
especially you know when you look at the
Torah you think well that was written by
Moses 3,000 years ago 4 th000 years ago
however long ago it was
um a lot has happened over that time and
it's possible that maybe it was inserted
at some point along the way but we have
no way of
knowing um the
oldest the oldest
Torah text that I'm aware of that we
have is the subagent um the oldest Old
Testament that I'm aware of that we have
is a subt tuent even I think even the
text in the Dead Sea
Scrolls may not date as old as the
subagent maybe a couple of them do um
like the Isaiah scroll might be older
than
subagent um but there's
there's a
major time Gap um that we have to think
about between Moses and the earliest
manuscript or the yeah the earliest
manuscript we have um and so you know
it's just the text didn't survive uh you
have to think the the materials they
wrote on weren't durable um they took
good care of them but time just
eventually deteriorates them and we just
don't have them anymore they just don't
exist and some of the stuff that was
preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls is um
it's in pretty poor shape you know most
of its fragments most of it is is barely
readable and uh so the ones that are
readable it's it's pretty pretty
significant that we have parts that we
can read even though they're not entire
books in in most cases they're just
fragments um but they they do validate
that hey this text is much older and we
have a
source uh showing that it is much older
than what we
have currently available so like for
example we have uh the
subagent the entire Old Testament is
subagent but we we don't have the entire
Old Testament in a single Hebrew
document Hebrew scroll uh but there are
found in the DC Scrolls fragments of
many of those those books in Hebrew um
and some of them even larger portions
like I think there was an entire Scroll
of Isaiah that was found um and so uh
the the larger texts that are found it's
it's like oh this this definitely gives
some validity and and verification that
these texts
are ancient and we see that they when
they compare those older texts to the
ones we have they're very similar very
little
differences uh that's really where I
would say is the significance of the
Dead C Scrolls is just that they bring
some validity to the text we do have in
order to compare them to older documents
uh or pieces of older documents so um
but you know Genesis
38 um was it kind of thrown in there I
have no idea um there's nothing that I'm
aware of that would suggest that
so
um yeah Marshall says have you examined
the New Jerusalem version not to be
confused with the New Jerusalem
bible
um I I'm not sure I'm aware of the two
which ones with which the I know the New
Jerusalem I'm pretty sure the New
Jerusalem bible is a Catholic
translation um I don't know if I know of
a New Jerusalem
version or I may have those I may have
those mixed up but I know there is a New
Jerusalem bible or a New Jerusalem
version whichever that's a Catholic
Bible and I would avoid that um because
uh I'm pretty sure it's based on the
Latin Vulgate and I'm not 100% sure but
I think so and but I know it's it's got
some Catholic um slanting some Catholic
bias to it the other one I'm not aware
of and so if there is a difference I
don't
know
um and let's see all right on fire for
the Lord says question when it says the
sea will be no more is this uh this is
not literal correct um I don't think
it's literal I don't think it's saying
the sea will cease to
exist um but I do think what it's it's a
poetic type of
wording and so you know the Bible talks
about the the stars fall falling from
the sky I don't think it's necessarily
saying all the stars are going to fall
out of the sky um it says that the the
heavens roll up like a scroll I don't
think they're literally going to roll
like a scroll I don't think that's what
it's saying I think I think those are
metaphorical poetic types of statements
um they have theological significance
but not literal significance um and
that's one thing we have uh we have to
consider when we're looking at the Bible
is that some things are meant to be
taken literally some things are meant to
be taken metaphorically some things are
meant to be poetic um and so uh some
things are
Parables um you know so there's
different parts of the Bible that we
have to treat differently and so like
for example when um when Yeshua
says uh pluck out your
eye uh if your eye caused you to sin
pluck it out I I don't think we need to
take that literally and say okay I'm
going to pluck my eye out I don't think
that's what he intended I don't think he
wants us to walk up plucking our eyes
out um I think what he's saying is if if
something is causing you to sin take
Extreme Measures to prevent prent that
Sin from from taking hold in your life
and I don't think it necessarily means
you need to literally cut your hand off
and literally pluck your eye out I think
he's saying just take extreme precaution
um you know if if your T if your
phone is a distraction for you if it's
causing you to sin if it's causing you
to do stuff you know if that's something
that that is drawing excuse me drawing
you into sin get rid of your
phone um
or get a get a phone that doesn't have
internet access if if you're
um you know if your your television is
causing your sin get rid of your
TV um or stop you know stop subscribing
to the channels that uh have content on
it that you shouldn't be watching or
whatever you know um but take
precautions to try to safegard your eyes
and your
mind from walking into sin
so but understanding how
to uh certain verses should be taken
literally and other verses may not
necessarily be intended to be literal
and and understanding the difference is
I think valid and important
um and we're going to talk about uh
Bible interpretation next week and and
I'll I'll talk about that here in a
minute but uh that's something that
we're going to get into next week is is
how to interpret the Bible and so if you
haven't noticed I kind of I'm following
a a plan here and so I'm talking you
know I talked about um the inspiration
of can of scripture and I'm talking
about um the Bible text we have and uh
translations and I'm going to be talking
about uh Bible interpretation and you
know so I'm going through and I'm kind
of laying groundwork and I'm I'm talking
about things in a certain order and I'm
laying groundwork so that um to help
help you guys to build a better
foundation so that as we progress on
into other topics we have this
Foundation laid and so we have a a
common understanding of what is
scripture we have a common understanding
of uh how to how the Bible is is
translated and that we can trust the
verses in the Bible we have we have a
common understanding on how to interpret
the scriptures and what is considered
proper interpretation what is considered
uh improper interpretation and so we're
going to go through all of these
different things in order to to to
better educate you and to lay a found
Foundation or groundwork so that
um as you're looking at these things as
you're looking at the Bible text you
have a better understanding and you can
uh do some of this on your own and um
you can you can read the text and you
can better understand them for yourself
and and that's really my goal is I I
want to I want to help I want to teach
in a way that people um things that
people need to know so that they can be
better equipped in how to properly
handle the the scriptures and so
hopefully that's um hopefully that's
what this will do hopefully this will
help
uh rising up fire has another question
says in the new heaven will
we only be eating from the Tree of
fruits or I think you meant the Tree of
Life um or maybe you mean fruit trees I
don't know um I I it's a good question
I've heard people
argue if you're if you're asking about
are we going to eat meat or just
vegetables and fruits um I've heard
people argue that that well there's not
going to be any death and so there's not
going to be any animal meat uh that
we're not going to eat animals but
there's also other verses that see to
imply that there may be animal
sacrifices potentially possibly taking
place in the kingdom and so um I think
we've got to be careful how we think
about those things that if there is
animal sacrifices then that means there
is a type of death but it's not human
death um and if there's animal
sacrifices then that means that there's
potentially animal meat to be eating
um but you know there's other people
that argue that know that those animals
sacrif IES will not be taking place in
the kingdom and I you know I I'm not
really sure I think some verses make it
seem like that it will and other verses
make it seem like it may not and so I
think we've got to be careful not to be
too dogmatic on those things um and the
people who want to say that we'll only
be eating fruits and
vegetables um I think that they're some
of the ones that are pretty dogmatic on
it and they usually have an agenda um
they're usually pushing for veganism or
vegetarianism
and uh so they they try to
argue that um eating meat is somehow bad
or that God um God doesn't actually want
us eat him meat but if if you look at
all the Bible as a whole we see that
there are places where we're commanded
to eat meat so like for example at
Passover we are commanded to eat the
Passover Lamb if if God doesn't want us
eating meat why does he command them to
eat the Passover Lamb that doesn't make
sense if he says well I don't want them
to eat meat but I'm going to let them do
it anyway then why would he come along
and say you have to eat lamb at Passover
uh that doesn't make sense um if God is
opposed to us eating meat then why did
Yeshua eat meat uh why did he ate fish
that was a type of meat and uh he ate
lamb at Passover um so if he's opposed
to us eating meat then why did he do it
so there's uh a lot of questions like
that
um I think very I I think they
challenged the idea that people are uh
that vegans vegetarians are trying to
push that the Bible is um saying that we
should be vegans or vegetarians because
I absolutely disagree that the Bible
does not say that um will we be only
eating from the Tree of Life if that's
your question on the converse side cuz
if you if you meant fruit trees that was
my answer if you mean Tree of Life um no
that's not going to be the only tree
that we eat of um the the eating from
the Tree of Life I don't even think I
don't even know if that's literal um I
don't know if we have to actually go eat
from the Tree of Life to have eternal
life or if that just means that we will
have eternal life um and that's what
eating from the tree of life means is
that we have eternal life within us um
that's I think that's a good question
and I don't think that that is um one
that can be easily answered I think that
literally yes we we could eat from the
tree of life but I think also it could
be a theological way of saying that we
have eternal life not necessarily
meaning that it has to be a literal
physical tree but it might be and I'm
not opposed to it being a literal
physical tree um and do we have to eat
from that tree all the time do we have
to eat from it daily uh do we eat from
it once and we're done um those are
other questions that I don't think the
Bible has answers for
um but I do think that
um eating from the Tree of
Life does indicate having eternal life
and having eternal life is something
that we will all have after the
resurrection in the Kingdom uh we will
have new created bodies and we will uh
not die and we will not get sick as the
Bible says
so uh let's see
try to do one more question if I can
find one
here
handyman handyman Hansley says what are
your thoughts on the a NT by Andrew
Gabriel
Roth um the Aramaic English New
Testament
is um is not bad I actually have a copy
of it um I'm not fond of some of the
things Roth puts in his footnotes and
endnotes but I feel that way about most
translations I'm not a big fan of
footnotes and endnotes in in Bibles um
other than just uh footnotes and end
notes that have to do with
specific um translators notes and why
they chose to translate something other
than something else or why a verse was
left out or missing or why uh
you know things like that that you know
parallel verses you know this verse is a
quote from this verse you know Paul is
quoting from Isaiah or Paul's quoting
from Amos or whatever you know like that
that kind of footnote I love um but the
ones where they just give commentary on
stuff I'm not a big fan of um and so
like I I think that the uh Aramaic
English New Testament is fine it's not
my favorite but um there was a time when
I really liked it and uh but I've kind
of got to where I'm not as big a fan as
I used to
be um
but uh I'm not a big fan of his comments
in the footnotes and
endnotes and Marshall what evidence can
you provide uh provide against the
documentary hyp documentary
hypothesis uh not even sure what the
documentary hypothesis is
I'm not sure what you're referring to
sorry
um any thoughts on the fragments of the
book of milisic I've never heard of a
book of
milisic
um skim through here real quick see if
there's any others that I
missed I thought there was
one earlier that I didn't I was going to
click and didn't get skipped over it or
something
accidentally uh let's
see what do you think of the complete
Jewish Bible oh that's the one that's
the David Stern one complete Jewish
Bible um yeah that that's the one I
mentioned earlier I said Messi in Jewish
Bible but I meant complete Jewish Bible
um but yeah I think that one's uh not
bad uh it's it's probably my second
favorite in the Messianic type of Bible
translations tree of life would be my
first and then uh complete Jewish would
be my second
pick
[Music]
um oh here's I think this bit do you
think it's commin that the de Sea
Scrolls would rediscovered and brought
to light around the time Israel became a
state more like God God coincidence God
Co incidence
um no I I don't really know that it's
coincidence I think it's makes sense
that they would um discover more
archaeology as people are more active in
that area looking for archaeology um and
so no I don't think it's a
coincidence um I think it just makes
sense that they would find more stuff as
they continue looking for it
so all right I
think is there any more let me look one
more time real
quick oh stay far away from the passion
translation feminist blasphemy
translation um yeah that's that's one of
those that I would consider not a
translation um and I've not read it but
I've heard some really awful things
about it from people who have read it
and I was still clear that one as well
um and like I said the message is
terrible it's
paraphrase um the new living is a
paraphrase and so you know uh there's
another one it
was word on the street it's like a
gangster hipop Bible and it's like Jesus
grabbed his gat and threw down on him
kind of stuff it's it's stupid uh you
know and that's the kind of stuff just
stay clear of that stuff um if you stick
with a
legitimate reputable translation I think
it'd be fine so all right uh next week
are you interpreting the Bible correctly
on next week's episode of list talk
biblical we'll uncover the secrets to
understanding scripture as it was meant
to be understood Bible interpretation is
at the heart of how we apply God's word
to our lives yet many Believers struggle
to discern its true meaning join us as
we explore the principles of sound
biblical interpretation tackle common
misconceptions and provide practical
tools to help you dig deeper into God's
word you won't want to miss this episode
tune in next week and list talk biblical
thank you for joining me on list talk
biblical if you enjoyed this episode
then share it with your friends and keep
the conversation going be sure to
subscribe so you don't miss anything and
I look forward to chatting with you
again next week until next time keep
talking biblical shalom