Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Do Modern Bible Versions Intentionally Mistranslate 1 Timothy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- The RUclips channel known as “abide in the Word” has recently made a video claiming that modern Bible versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) have “willfully, flagrantly, knowingly adulterated the word of God” through their translation of 1 Timothy 6:19. The reason he makes this claim is that modern versions have the English word “truly,” while older versions have the English word “eternal.”
This might seem like a trivial issue. After all, when you read it in context (cf. 1 Tim 6:12), the meaning of the verse isn’t really affected either way. However, the claim made in this video raises a serious accusation against the trustworthiness of modern translations of the Scriptures.
Are modern Bible translators really trying to mislead us, or has the creator of this video missed something? We explore this question in this short video.
Subscribe to my newsletter: davidwilber.su...
Check out more of my content on:
Personal website: davidwilber.com/
Facebook: / davidwilberblog
Amazon author page: amazon.com/aut...
Twitter: / davidwilberblog
Instagram: / davidwilberblog
Hey everyone. I hope you'll consider subscribing to my newsletter so you'll never miss an update about new articles, videos, etc. Subscribe here: davidwilber.substack.com/subscribe
Hi, David. This is a fantastic response. Let me just share that this is the fourth year in my walk in the faith. In the first two years i had never before picked up a bible, and I was sceptical about what version rendered the scriptures accurately. I followed many opinions, especially church based conspiracy theories about how translators are changing the scripture to "control the masses"... O fell into that mindset until I descided to look for myself. I discovered that although there are a few very bad translations out there, you will get the message intended from any version that works with your reading abilities. Personally, I use several versions ranging from Hebraic roots versions to the Nkjv. And since i don't read greek or Hebrew, i trust The Holy Spirit to guide me. We should be careful with how quickly we condemn, especially without careful examination, and by examining we should examine ourselves. And yes, I say that shaking a finger at myself first😂
I can't believe that in 2024 we still have KJ only! SMH
Agreed. 📖 I appreciate, often, David's thorough investigation and considerate manner in the video presentations he publishes.
Very good video David. 👍
Good video bro, your manners and conciseness are much appreciated. If only people would take the time to search into this stuff before boldly coming out with such an accusation. Also, Yah’s hand is not too short to work through all translations, and we’re blessed to even have a whole Bible at our fingertips, let alone a wide spread of preferred translations. Maybe if an ESV was all people had, they wouldn’t be so quick to judge it like that. Shalom and Chag HaMatzot! Be blessed!
Appreciate your response to this David. Good insights.
To think that Gods Spirit is not able to move in someone because they don’t only read the KJV Is absolute foolishness. Gods arm is not too short to save in any of the translations, though I do believe some translations are better than others.
So grateful for your insights David. Shalom Brother!
Father YHVH I pray for those that lost all they had in the tornadoes in the past few days. I pray for comfort and healing in the Name of Yeshua HaMeshiac
I'm a TR guy, but I really like this video. Very simple and well put.
The real question is whether to use the critical text or the textus receptus.
What an egregious accusation he made. And sadly it was all on the grounds of textual ignorance.
1 Timothy 6:19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (NASB)
To be honest, earlier doesn't always mean better.
That is a fine argument to make, but don't blame it on a conspiracy.
Regardless of translation, 1 Timothy 6:19 still follow the context. this still led us on Paul told Timothy to instructs Christians to be a truly Christians like focusing to nurture in the teachings of scriptures, warning the dangers of trusting in our riches and pride, to implementing the life full of God's grace by sharing our riches with others because God did so to us, and the benefits for the world to come. (i'm not english speaker so apologize if this probably misunderstood you)
Well appreciate Mr. Wilber. Thanks for the reaction and your insights. Shalom
My perception is many want to argue a word here or there and condemn others usually have beam in their eyes. When we can find fault with others we usually are not putting ourselves under the same scrutiny. Our goal should be doing the Word, it is very clear what we are to do and for that matter not do. This camp that carries this sacred KJV text which God clearly can and has used can also create a cult around it. Archeology and history are subservient to this holy grail. Example when the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah was discovered and there are hundreds of different variants and for instance Isaiah 53: 11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light[1] and be satisfied.
My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
This was not found in One scroll but 3 ancient scrolls found in Qumran
The NIV translators capture the accurate translation which is so powerful because Jesus is the Light, Let there be Light. He will see the Light, The Father sees the Light and is satisfied, It is finished!
David Wilbur is the best and I’m saying this not as someone who claims to be his biggest fan or as he’s my 100% go-to, no questions asked. He’s in my top10, no doubt and I say that as a tier, not a ranking system where I have a #1 or #6.
There are some minor Biblical opinions and interpretations I actually disagree with David but it’s not a case for me to say he’s never been 100% about truth and accuracy.
and I can’t think of very few who have a grasp of Hebrew and Greek language, grammar, syntax and all those other words to describe understanding the correct, proper and best way to translate to English.
Fighting over ‘eternal’ versus ‘truly’ is pretty silly bc either way you will get the exact same message from the Bible when read in its entirety. and I know David Wilbur understands that as well but rightfully felt it was important enough to address this accusation head-on
Textus Receptus is the more relaible source. Sinaticus Vaticanus is correupted by it's gnosticism
Praise the Lord for eyes to see. 🙌🏻
I think you could make a case that Hebrews 8:13 and the addition of the word "covenant" is an intentional twisting of the passage as Theological confirmation bias but this is just silly.
Me too
The word is usually italicized to indicate that it is an addition, although I notice some versions do not italicize it.
The scriptures do talk about people who want 2 twist it 2 their advantage. God made d 1st thing perfect, why change. ❤
I agree with you, David, that making the accusation of a vast Bible translation conspiracy requires a high threshold for proof and you appear to demonstrate that that burden of proof has not yet been met in this case. That's not to say that all debate on which translation is correct should be closed, but I think that you firmly put to rest (in my mind, at least) the idea that Bible translators are all gathered together somewhere to corrupt God's Word.
I must admit, however, that I do have some serious questions about how Bible translation is performed on the whole. Several years ago I was introduced to the Young's Literal Translation (YLT). According to the author, Robert Young, his goal was to translate the Bible as best as he was able with little care given to writing good prose. While most English translations appear to want to make the text readable for an English-speaking audience, the sentences in the YLT are often halting and do not flow well. The goal of these translations has been said to be to make the Bible more "accessible" to a general audience. But the YLT's approach does much, I believe, to reveal the character of God. For example, nearly every translation of the Bible makes a pretty good case that it is God's will that determines who is saved and who is not. Yet many people point to John 3:16 and it's "whosoever believeth in Him" language as the basis for arguing that it is a person's own responsibility to chose God to receive eternal life. And this makes a lot of sense from an English perspective. "Whosoever believeth" makes the person doing the believing the primary actor in salvation. The English language prefers the active tense like this because it flows more smoothly when written. But that same phrase in the YLT is translated as "every one who is believing in Him". As a passive phrase, this opens the door that God is the primary actor, so John 3:16 no longer generates a conflict within the pages of the Bible with all of the passages that use terms like "elect" and "predestined".
So while I'm not willing to make conspiratorial claims about Bible translators like the author of the RUclips video that you reviewed did, I'm not ready to let them off the hook quite yet either. It's a bit like the discussion on the Sabbath day. Virtually every Christian that I know believes that the Sabbath is the first day of the week, much as I did until just a few years ago. But once I began to question the veracity of the things that I had been taught, asking for deeper evidence of the teaching, there were things that did not hold up to Biblical scrutiny.
"Whosoever believeth" in no way makes the believer the "primary actor" because the offer of salvation can only be made by the One who has been wronged. The one who believes the offer is valid and accepts it is only the recipient of the grace offered, and is in no way moved to the first position in the exchange.
How did I know he was a KJ ONLY cultist right off the bat?
A KJ Cultist accusing other translations of changing the scripture is a riot. KJV takes far moe liberties than NASB.
How do is normies access better textual witnesses? I did long realize BLB used textus
Check out the two books I mentioned in the video. But also, BLB allows you to select the majority text. It is the primary option when you search using a Bible version other than the KJV or NKJV.
@@DavidWilberBlog thank you, I’m just now seeing I didn’t proof read my comment before sending 🤣. Thanks for deciphering and answering my question. I guess I missed the book recs, will go back and listen again.
*Omitted verses from modern-day corrupted bibles*
(As to think to have a works based gospel.)
• Matthew 17:21
• Matthew 18:11
• Matthew 23:14
• Mark 7:16
• Mark 9:44 and 9:46
• Mark 11:26
• Mark 15:28
• Mark 16:9-20
• Luke 17:36
• John 5:3-4
• Acts 8:37
• Acts 15:44
• Acts 24:6-8
• Acts 28:29
• Romans 16:24
• 1 John 5:7-8
Partially, and other omitted verses
• Matthew 20:16b
• Mark 6:11b
• Luke 4:8b
• Luke 9:55-56
• Luke 23:17 (preserved in Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6)
• Acts 9:5-6
• Acts 13:42
• Acts 23:9b
• Titus 2:13b
Yes, modern versions do not have those verses in the main text of their translation but usually put them in brackets or footnotes. It is not a conspiracy to "corrupt" God's word. I explain why in this video: ruclips.net/video/t_mMUuvDQKk/видео.html
Yes
Eternal Life is the True, Real, Certain Life Indeed. They are one in the same.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 6:19 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ἀποθησαυρίζοντας ἑαυτοῖς θεμέλιον καλὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς αἰωνιόυ ζωῆς
αἰωνιόυ eternal [life]
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 6:19 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
ἀποθησαυρίζοντας ἑαυτοῖς θεμέλιον καλὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον, ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς.
ὄντως true, real [life]
Actually I am surprised there is not more of these types of insignificant variances in the Greek texts. Just another word that refers to the same thing.
So l, I did two videos on the Hebrew Roots movement and one video on Sabbath-keeping, and this is the video you chose to refute - some random video having nothing to do with your Torah-keeping theology. Interesting. That really says a lot. I know you know about at least one Hebrew roots challenge I did because someone said they sent it to you, so either you were too afraid to refute them or you realized that you didn’t have a leg to stand on - which explains why you would chose to do a video on Bible translations instead. Deal with the videos on your twisted Torah-keeping ideology and quit playing games.
Thanks for the comment. Why did you claim that the word "truly" was not in the Greek, when you can literally see it in the Greek right next to your face on your own screen? Were you ignorant about the differences between the Greek sources used by modern translations vs. the KJV/NKJV, or were you purposely misleading your audience? In any case, will you now remove your video in which you made these demonstrably false statements and publicly apologize for teaching falsehoods?
Regarding your videos on Torah and Sabbath keeping, I only watched a little bit of one of them. Frankly, I just didn't find it interesting. I already have several videos and articles (and a book) refuting all the antinomian objections to the Sabbath/Torah, and from what I heard you didn't present anything new that I haven't already dealt with. If you really want me to respond to your objections, perhaps we can plan to do a formal debate on the topic. In the meantime, I hope you will have the integrity to do the right thing and remove your video that I responded to and issue a public apology for misleading your audience.
@@DavidWilberBlog nothing I said was false. You are assuming the translators had good intentions AND that they had good evidence of the manuscripts to make such a change to the Bible. Those are your assumptions. But I’m afraid they aren’t accurate. You have proved absolutely nothing, except you are a slanderer. You didn’t refute anything I said. You simply disagreed with my conclusion. That’s not grounds for removing a video. I stand behind it. Even if the translators found additional texts, you are the one assuming they decided correctly. Thats a lot of assuming on your part.
Now, the reason I stand behind that video is because if your assumptions are correct, the translators would be introducing an ENTIRELY new phrase into the Bible - the phrase “true life”. Look it up, it’s not in your Bible ANYWHERE else in the New Testament. Search high and low - but it’s not there. So you’re assuming the translators were correct in stumbling upon an entirely new phrase that not a single one of the NT writers used, and you expect people to believe it simply because you disagree with me? Imagine that!
The Bible says we are to do good and give to the poor to reap ETERNAL life in many places as I stated in the video - Galatians 6, Romans 2, as well as several other places. This is the language the Bible uses. Not true life. Yes, while you could say eternal life is “true” life, it still stands that not a single one of the NT writers ever used this phrase when referring to doing good to reap life. Not even Paul ever used this wording. So again, you’re assuming the translators translated correctly, and in so doing introduced an entirely foreign phrase into the Bible. Do you really expect people to buy that? That they stumbled upon a completely new phrasing in the Bible?
Now, I have further evidence to support my claim. Paul uses the word for “true” several times in the previous chapter when referring to those who are “truly” widows. Then, we come to chapter 6 where Paul starts using this phrase “eternal life”. It appears the most obvious explanation for this there was a copyist error at some point (even if it was early on) in some manuscripts where they erroneously copied the word for truly since that word was used several times in chapter 5. The flow of chapter 6 also backs up my position as well. Paul is using the phrase “eternal life” three times in the surrounding text, so it’s only natural to assume this is what Paul meant. There is absolutely no reason to believe some translators (who stand to profit off of peddling God’s word by the way) chose the correct manuscripts when they ushered in a completely and totally foreign phrasing into the Bible. This would be quite the coincidence.
So no, it doesn’t match Paul’s writing style, it doesn’t line up with the phrasing the other New Testament authors give, it doesn’t match the immediately context nor the immediate usage of the phrase eternal life, nor does it match the way Jesus talked about eternal life.
Your video was simply slander. And you simply didn’t understand my position, but slandered me anyways. I have very good, solid reasons for this conclusion as I believe I have proved using several different sources of evidence. Repent of your slander against me.
@@abideintheWord Nice attempt at shifting the goalposts. In regard to the translation of "truly," you literally said in your video, and I quote, "This is found absolutely nowhere in the Greek!" That statement is demonstrably false, as I showed you. It DOES appear in the Greek, just not in the TR (hence not in the KJV/NKJV). You can see it in the Greek on your own screen in your own video. Your false statement about this term being "nowhere found in the Greek" was your basis for condemning numerous English translators (many of them Christians). I showed you how their choice of "truly" was not arbitrary but rather based on the manuscript data. You can disagree with their decision and argue that they got it wrong based on context or whatever, but that isn't the argument you made in your video. Why are you deceitfully shifting the goalposts instead of having integrity and just admitting that you were wrong about it not being in the Greek?
@@DavidWilberBlog I LITERALLY said they had in the Greek in my last post (which by the way isn’t showing up for some reason). Yet again, more flagrant outright slander. As I said they did indeed claim to have found manuscripts which have the word for “truly” in them. I never once said they didn’t. In fact I said they did. My issue wasn’t whether or not they found them in the Greek. My contention was that they willfully chose to use the wrong manuscripts, and the evidence I gave in my last post I believe adequately proved that using several sources. You just outright lie against me in the same way the Judiazers lied about Paul because you hate my message.
@@DavidWilberBlog here was my last post. Hopefully it will show up -
Nothing I said was false. You are assuming the translators had good intentions AND that they had good evidence of the manuscripts to make such a change to the Bible. You have proved absolutely nothing, except you are a slanderer. You didn’t refute anything I said. You simply disagreed with my conclusion. That’s not grounds for removing a video. I stand behind it. Even if the translators found additional texts, you are the one assuming they decided correctly. Thats a lot of assuming you’re doing on your part.
Now, the reason I stand behind that video is because if your assumptions are correct, the translators would be introducing an ENTIRELY new phrase into the Bible - the phrase “true life”. Look it up, it’s not in your Bible anywhere else in the New Testament. Search high and low it’s not there. So you’re assuming the translators were correct in stumbling upon an entirely new phrase that not a single one of the NT writers used, and you expect people to believe it simply because you disagree with me? Come on now.
The Bible says we are to do good to reap ETERNAL life in many places as I stated in the video - Galatians 6, Romans 2, as well as several other places. This is the language the Bible uses. Not true life. Yes, while you say eternal life is true life, it still stands that not a single one of the NT writers ever spoke this when referring to eternal life. Not even Paul ever used this wording. So again, you’re assuming the translators translated correctly, and in so doing introduced an entirely foreign phrase into the Bible. Do you really expect people to buy that? That they stumbled upon a completely new phrasing that no-one else used?
Now, I have further evidence to support my claim. Paul uses the word for “true” several times in the previous chapter when referring to those who are “truly” widows. Then, we come to chapter 6 where Paul starts using this phrase “eternal life”. It appears the most obvious explanation for this there was a copyist error at some point (even if it was early on) in some manuscripts where they erroneously copied the word for truly since that word was used several times in chapter 5. The flow of chapter 6 also backs up my position as well. Paul is using the phrase “eternal life” three times in the surrounding text, so it’s only natural to assume this is what Paul meant. There is absolutely no reason to believe some translators (who stand to profit off of peddling God’s word by the way) chose the correct manuscripts when they ushered in a completely and totally foreign phrasing into the Bible. This would be quite the coincidence.
So no, it doesn’t match Paul’s writing style, it doesn’t line up with the phrasing the other New Testament authors give, it doesn’t match the immediate context nor the immediate usage of the phrase eternal life, nor does it match the way Jesus talked about eternal life.
Your video was simply slander. And you simply didn’t understand my position, but slandered me anyways. I have very good, solid reasons for this conclusion as I believe I have proved using several different sources of evidence. Repent of your slander against me.
Are you serious? Who cares?
Who cares what Paul said? He is the least person on earth.
People who follow the Messiah care what he says. The Messiah himself commissioned Paul. Read the Book of Acts. Hope it helps!
@@DavidWilberBlog Paul says that Christ commissioned him. All we know there was some Light (Lucifer?). Paul himself admitted he had an Angel of Satan in him (if you read NT you know). Also Jesus warned us about the Least on earth who would nullify the smallest commandment. Paulus is the least in latin. Smoking gun.
Who do you trust? Christ or Sheol?
@@DavidWilberBlog He saw some light in the desert where Jesus warned he would NOT appear... he admits later he has an angel of satan in him. Where does that light come from, I wonder? We know one angel who is usually identified as "the angel of light". Christ also warned us about the Least. Paulus (as a given name) means the least. I can go on but there's been a lot said about Paul/Sheol being the false prophet steering the christianity into worshipping Jesus IN FRONT of God. Look for more.
@@nazorean Paul did not write Acts. Luke did. Peter similarly endorses Paul. None of your objections against Paul are any good and have all already been addressed in previous articles and videos. Just do a quick search on my website. I trust the Messiah and the apostles over some RUclips commenter. 🤷
Newer translations use corrupted manuscripts. The KJV stays true to the vast majority of manuscripts.
Modem scholarship really does pervert the Word of God. And yes, it's intentional via wickedness in high places.
Praise the Lord for eyes to see. 🙌🏻
I will trust that KJV is GOD'S WORD above your words or anyone else's words or your explanations why The Word of GOD is not the pure Word of GOD when the KJV was translated out of the ORIGINAL TONGUES.
If the Serpent can get me to question one sentence in " 1611 KJV ", the Serpent already has a foot hold.
Same thing going on today that was going on in the garden of Eden. " Do I believe every word of GOD, or, do I let someone persuade me by his/her eloquent explanations as to why I should believe him or her persuasions ?
I choose EVERY WORD in the 1611 KJV .......
Peace - Shalom
If I may ask please, what has you convinced that the 1611 KJV is based on original tongues? Is there some specific evidence that you are able to cite? I will be the first to admit that the choice of the available Hebrew and Greek texts used for translation is beyond my knowledge.
A translation could never be "God's word." God’s word is the Bible, whether it be one translation or another.
You make an idol out of the King's English.
The term "scholar" means absolutely nothing to me. Modern accepted scholars have gotten us to the mess we're in. Not that they are responsible for our slackness, only for the corrupt theology they've sold us.
No, modern scholars have not forced you to believe anything. You chose not to study things for yourself. Also, you're reading the wrong scholars if you're finding that they all say the same thing. Do a little more reading. Scholars are not a monolith. Since the 1970's, in particular, there has been a growing movement within scholarship that has taken a more pro-Torah approach to Paul and the rest of the New Testament. See, for instance, the numerous scholars I repeatedly cite in all my videos.