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

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