Adventist Online

Some zealous members within Seventh Day Adventism hold that the King James version is the only reliable Bible, and that all other Bible versions have been corrupted by the agents of the Devil. These same people frequently endorse Ellen White as one of God’s spokes-people.

.

Yet it may be of interest to note that Mrs. White used Bibles other than the KJV.
In her Book, Ministry of Healing, for example, at least 45 instances can be found where Mrs. White employs the American Revised Version. This version, along with other Bible versions, relied a great deal [in its New Testament books] on the “infamous” work of Westcott and Hort.

.

And yet, literally thousands of Bible verses quoted in Mrs. White’s writings are drawn from the so-called corrupted Bibles. Did Ellen White not know any better? Which ever view we might hold on this matter, it is clear that God did not stay her hand in that work. Will He stay ours? I think not.

Views: 2831

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't believe that the kjv is the only reliable bible. I recall many places where she used the revised standard edition. She actually said that it was a good translation if I am not mistaken. With that being said I personnally believe that there are versions are bad, for example I will never use the Niv. Many verses have been removed, something we are Warned not to do.

other translations are not all bad like  Ezra here has pointed out but when u change the meaning like  N, I . V = NEW INTERNATION VERSION AND  N.E.W -= NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND  N  , A  S   B=   NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLEI   Thes all change the original meanings and leave things out that are needed..

 Anytime u translate the bible into a new language  though something going to be left out for  some words  do not have proper  meaning in the language it being translated in .    When u compare dilegently though itnot that big of  a problem.

Stewart

 

You question reminds me of a story that was told around the campus at Andrews when I was there.  And I can readily see it happening at a little church I once attended, not to far from Andrews. 

A young intern had graduated from Andrews with a degree in biblical languages.  On one of the first sabbaths that he spoke in the church he had been assigned to, he quoted from a modern translation.  When he did so, an elderly lady stood up and told  him: "Sonny, we do not want any of these fancy translations read in our church.  We only want the actual words of Paul presented from the pulpit." and she sat down. 

So, dutifully, the next Sabbath, when he spoke and was using a quotation from Paul, he quoted it in Greek.  There were no more complaints about using a modern translation.

Yes, I have run into this mindset more than once.  Usually, it is the one who is the least literate in the Bible that makes those statements.  However, in fact, the King James Bible, while a good translation, is a translation of a translation, which is never the best.  The King James is translated from the translation of Greek and Hebrew into Latin Vulgate version of the Bible.

While in contrast, many, many much older manuscripts of the Bible have surfaced and share information that is 100's of years closer to the original autographs.  Also, scholars have found more accurate meanings for original language words then were even available in the days of King James.  Most, if not all of the more modern translations, translate directly from the Greek Manuscripts rather then the Vulgate that the KJV was translated from.

Actually the ARV, American Revised Version, you referenced, that Ellen White used and was popular in her day and for some years following, was considered the very best translaiton available.  The NASB, New American Standard Bible, first released in 1960, has followed in that tradition and have stood the tests of over 50 years.  Of more recent date, since the year 2000, the English Standard Version has come on the market and it too has proven to be a very good translation. 

It is of interest that the NIV, New International Vesion of the Bible, 1973is in fact one of the poorest of the translations avaialable today, yet it has had the most aggressive marketing of any Bible ever translated.  I went in to a Book and Bible house just before Christmas to purchase a Bible for a young friend.  Everywhere I looked in the Bible department, all I could find was the NIV.  Finally I asked a clerk and she showed me a small section where all of the other Versions were displayed.  Less then 10% of the display area.  Yet, the NIV has more translation problems then almost any other readily available version.

Personally, I have serveral translations that I use and explore when I am doing research.  Probaly close to two dozen and maybe even more.  In some cases the NASB gives the best translation, in other places the ESV and in others even the KJV.  So, it has always been my advice that we check several translations if a passage is not clear.  With the new electronic Bible programs, one can often find access to both the Greek and Hebrew through those programs and can check to see just what the original langugae the prophet wrote in really meant for the words they used.

 

Maranatha :)
Ray

We need to look at why these zealous members hold that view and further is there any proof to back their claims, statements or concerns?  Additionally, is that so wrong? dangerous or perhaps unwise?

I for one, have slowly over the past 2 years stopped relying on all other Bible versions except the KJV and the NKJV. Lately as a result of even further evidence from reliable sources; that even the NKJV has been deliberately corrupted (including horses mouth) I use it and double check what the KJV says. I also have the Greek/Hebrew direct translation to English.

Have experienced first hand how twisted the new translations have become even when presented in my mother tongue - Zulu.  God's word is precious and is to be pure and uncorrupted.  Dr Hort and Westcott's influence and roles in the translation of these new versions leaves a lot to be desired. Their intent when they corrupted the translation of the Bible was not to grow our faith in Christ (again from their own submission).  At our own risk we use them.  Have heard of the argument that the new versions are easier to understand? What does that say about the Waldenses, ALL very educated and so they could use them better that we can?

Mrs White use of the American Revised Version does not make that version the best or better than the KJV.  May the good Lord guide us and help us discern the truth. God bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNv-zzpIwBs&list=PL53479F5FEC66D...

Fallow the link and watch this video, as well as the one after it in reference to this.

Couldn't different translations be considered something like different dialects?   Even here in the USA someone can speak with a Southern accent, like a New York, California, Alaska; Black people generally have a different way of talking, American Indians have a different way of talking, people from other Countries or Over-seas often have a different accent.  

What is precious to ME is that God loves people from all Nations, tribes and languages... <3  He calls them from all parts of the earth.  And people from every part of the earth will be a part of His kingdom no matter whether the language they speak is clearly distinct or so slight one hardly notices a difference of a mother tongue.  

@Quacinda

"Couldn't different translations be considered something like different dialects? "

No they can not, because different translations can change doctrine entirely... For example the KJV is the only one that correctly states that Christ went in to the Holy place after He ascended to heaven.. While every other version says He entered the Most Holy place.. This would change the entire doctrine of when the judgment started... Another good example is how the NIV and petty much every other version say "a seventh day" not "the seventh day" which has in and of it self lead millions astray on the Sabbath issue.

Heck the NIV is actually missing full verses... I discovered this while reading with my husband when I first converted... I was still using my NIV, and he had a KJV... As he read I realized there were full verses missing in different spots.. I haven't used an NIV ever since...

Then add in the fact that everything but the KJV, and NKJV is translated from the Alexandrian scrolls as apposed to the received text.. Alexandria was the world center of occultism at that time, and still is today.. The people there made the aforementioned changes and then some... Even the NKJV is missing over 2000 words..

God actually made it a point in scripture to say that if anyone attempts to add or take away form His word they are in hot water, so those 2000 words are pretty important..

Did you watch the video or just glance at it for a few min. and turn it off?

Precisely.  This is why we need the Spirit to guide us..

If that version is ok then how come it is missing words? Look at your Bible and it will say two things that can lead a person away from God's remnant fold.

1.) It says "a seventh day" not "the seventh day" which could easily lead a person to think keeping one day out of seven is fine no matter what day it is...

2.) In the book of Revelation where it speaks of Christ entering the Holy Place after He ascended to heaven, all Bibles from the same strand as the NRSV (that is all that were translated from the Alexandrian scrolls.) say that He entered the "Most Holy Place" instead of the "Holy Place" which would totally do away with the 1844 judgment.

If they were saying there was an issue with any of these Bibles in that area it would not have been the KJV, because that is the only one that agrees with our doctrines..

Though they may have been referring to the NKJV that one is missing over 2,000 words!

Not to mention that Westcott and Hort (The men who translated the Alexandrian scrolls, which everything but KJV, and NKJV come from) stated them selves that they intended on intentionally changing it, and if you are wondering why they would do that here is a quote from one of their published personal letters

1860 Oct. 15th Hort to Westcott

He refers to the fact that Christ died for our sins as "a immoral, & material counterfeit."

Westcott and Hort the men who translated the scrolls that the NRSV Bible comes from where cultists, and if I remember right I think it was Hort that was deeply involved with the institute that specialized in spiritism (primarily ghosts, and physic study).. So basically one has to put their trust in the hands of a back door cultist, involving ancient documents from Alexandria (which is still this day one of the main seats of cultism in the world) that when found were in an equally ancient waste paper basket (they were pretty serious about making copies back then so if they made a mistake they tossed it, and not only had it been tossed, but it had been visibly rubbed out several times before it was tossed), knowing that they admitted to changing it, because they didn't like the doctrine of Christ, and toss out the only Bible that had been known to man for a few thousand years or so before that...

It just seems like a little much to swallow for me..

@Teresa

1.) "The right translation, according to the original words is not "Holy Place" singular, but "Holy Places" plural.  That is true of any manuscript.  I already told you that my NRSV accurately translated Hebrews texts in question, at least according to what the pioneers say, so I would suggest you borrow a copy and check for yourself."

Sorry, but I go off of hard facts not "at least that's what the pioneers say".

2.) "In checking my bible software on 9:12 there are some versions that translate it "most holy place" and some that don't.  It depends on the interpreter's understanding, and possibly bias."

There may have been some revisions since my copies of those versions were printed.. None the less we can not ignore that they are from the Alexandrian text, and not the Received text..

3.) " Read them for yourself and you will see how often they had to give the correct reading of any particular word."

Again, I am not referring to the way the words are translated, but the text they are taken from....

4.) "Etc.  Don't just believe what people say, actually check it out please."

I was referring to the NT, they all say it in the OT, but not the NT in more than one spot. Which makes it dangerous.

The only place you will find it in the NT in these Bibles is Hebrews 4:4 I just double checked with the online Bibles...

5.) "And our pioneers never, ever felt that the KJV was the  "only one that agrees with our doctrines."  Read them for yourself and you will see how often they had to give the correct reading of any particular word."

I don't base my beliefs off of the convictions of other men, but on solid evidence, and the leading of the Spirit.. I will never believe something, just because someone says so... I believe what I read, and see with my own eyes and discern for my self as God has called us to do.

@Teresa

" Your "hard facts" come from Walter Veith."

And you are making this assumption how? Just because you think that anyone who disagrees with you and knows their history must have been brainless enough to have to rely on another mans resources??

Also our "pioneers" started the church in the early 1800's.. So when God opened the scripture to His people it was the Received text He opened, because the Alexandrian scrolls had not even begun to be translated until the early 1900's.. So how anyone could even think to say that the KJV doesn't contain every ounce of our doctrine, considering that is the Bible our doctrines came from I can not imagine...

"There may have been some revisions since my copies of those versions were printed."

Yes I am serious... I have had some of these Bibles since I was 6 and some of them (we have a whole book shelf of different versions) are I am pretty sure older than I am... There is no copy writes on the Bible revisions can be made any time someone gets the fancy... I do know that many of them including the NIV I used from ages 6 to 20 says "a seventh day"... This was one of my fist discoveries when I came in to the Adventist church... I remember, because I was so bothered by it I went and showed my husband and then pulled out several other versions and opened them to the same place to see what they said, and the ones I had there were messed up too... I would tell you the exact verse, but considering I made that little discovery almost 6 years ago it is hard for me to remember now...

P.S. I always hove honest discussions.. Though I am sorry if I seam a bit strange in my communication today.. I am on a lot of pain medication, and have lost a lot of blood in the past few days, but I am hanging in there the best I can.. Bear with me sister.... Sorry if it's been any inconvenience..

@Teresa

All I can tell you is what I have seen with my own eyes, and as much blood as I have lost in addition to the pain meds, I just cant talk any more.. I can scarcely sit up. So I wanted to let you know that I am not bailing on the conversation, but have to leave it alone for now, because my body just wont let me..

It's been a good debate (kind of nice for a change) I wish I could do more, but sure it will be much more fruitful when I am well enough to continue it. Hope you had a good Sabbath. :0)

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service