Can a Bible translation be a work of the Devil??

[franklinmonroe]

Huh? The NWT says that Jesus was "a" god. Is that a lie? ...

Maybe not? The KJV also says that "for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God" (Exodus 20:5). And it implies that there are other gods by stating "have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3); an individual god would be "a god" among the "other" collective gods.

Also see "a God" in Genesis 17:7, 1 Samuel 2:3, Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm 5:4, Isaiah 30:18, Jermiah 23:23, Ezekiel 28:2, Daniel 2:47, Luke 20:38, many others etc.

 

[Rippon]

I would have no problem sharing the gospel using the New World Translation. It is a terrible agenda driven translation, but the gospel is there.

Agreed. Not only is it twisted but the English is horrible.Yet the NWT wasn't able to root out some orthodox Christian doctrines despite manfuuly trying to do so.

I have had my copy of the NWT for years and I have gone through the New Testament and highlighted places where they weren't completely successful in stamping out biblical truths. You'll have to pass by some shabby work,but the truth is still present.

Acts 4:10-12 :"...let it be known to all of YOU and to all the people of Israel,that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz-a-rene,whom you impaled but whom God raised up from the dead,by this one does this man stand here sound in front of YOU.This is 'the stone that was treated by YOU builders as of no account that has become the head of the corner.' Furthermore,there is no salvation in anyone else,for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved."

Philippians 2:9c,10,11: God...gave him the name that is above every other name,so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground,and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Titus 2:13 : while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us,Christ Jesus

1 John 2:12 : I am writing YOU,little children,because YOUR sins have been forgiven YOU for the sake of his name.

[Whose name? In verse one,even in this bad translation: "...we have a helper with the Father,Jesus Christ,a righteous one." I know,it should be "the",not "a".But still...]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If Satan himself were behind a translation I think he is subtle and sneaky enough to do a much better job than the sorry excuse for a translation that the NWT is.

 

[Thermodynamics]

"Can a Bible translation be a work of the Devil??"

I think it can in an indirect way. Satan is behind all false teachings, so any translation that includes an intentional false teaching could be said to have Satan behind it.

Having said that, I am not sure why he would go to the trouble. Haven't false teachers often used sound translations out of context to teach their heresy?

To be honest I see a greater threat in the KJVO heresy, those who push it cause many to doubt the accuracy of any version of the Bible or to put complete faith in their pet translation. Some KJVO people go so far as to teach that the King James Bible is a living thing and/or make it an object of worship.

The best advice on this subject comes from the translators of the King James Bible when they praised the use of several translations. They were well aware that their work was not without errors of it's own and I am sure would look in horror at the KJVO movement.

 

[Askjo]

Nope. They actually were saved in reading the Scriptures. There's enough true even in the NWT that they read the Gospel and were saved. Of course they did not get sucked into the JW cult but instead quickly found good Bible teaching churches. It was just that the NWT was the only Bible they had.

When the people are educated by JW teachers, their mind is locked by their false teachers because they controlled the people’s mind. How could they be saved when they read the NWT since their mind is locked with JW’s belief?

 

[Askjo]

Ok then, when does an error in a translation amount to a lie? And how many "lies" should we allow in a translation before we determine it is from the Devil?

Then there is this- the KJV has "lies" in it also, yet it remains the Word of God, does it not?

Do you mean that the Bible has "lies" in it?

 

[Mexdeaf]

(Re-posted for Stilllearning, perhaps it got buried and missed.)

SL, thanks for your responses. I do pray that your wife is doing better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilllearning

It all depends upon who is doing the translating.

Any scholar or Bible translator, who is not born again or not living for the Lord, is a prime target for Satan to use, to “change” the Bible by creating a bad version.

Hmm, that leaves a lot of latitude for US to determine who is "born again" or who is "living for the Lord" and thus to judge their motives for translating the Bible.

I daresay the most godly of the KJV translators would not be welcome in your church today because they held to, and did many things that are not welcome in IFB churches today.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Satan has already revealed to us, how he plans to work in this area.....
Matthew 4:6
“And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written,
He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.”

When the Bible actually says
Psalms 91:11-12
V.11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
V.12 They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Now the “changes” Satan made here to God’s Word, are hauntingly reminiscent to the “changes” made in most MV’s.

And the only question that we have been programed to ask is, “Do the changes effect any major doctrine?”

I contend that any deliberate changes, are part of Satan’s planned attack upon God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------

How about "not deliberate changes" to God's word, such as additions or deletions made by the scribes- are they from Satan or God?

Quote:
Remember, all Satan has to do, is to get us to “doubt” that what we are reading is God’s perfectly preserved Word; If he can do that, than he has won the war of our minds....
Romans 12:2
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

This renewing of our mind, can only be done by God, as our faith in Him and His Word grows.
But if our faith is diminished, we will stop being transformed.
--------------------------------------------------

I have read the Bible from cover to cover in at least five different translations, in both English and Spanish. Each translation had some differences but they NEVER have led me to doubt that what I was reading was God's perfectly preserved Word. Preservation rests in the original manuscripts. God's Word does not change. However, language DOES change. God knew that- that is why He had the NT written in Greek instead of sticking with the 'tried and true' Hebrew.

Quote:
About 30 years ago, I decided never to buy or use a Bible, that would simultaneously be attacking my faith, while I was reading it.

Therefore I stopped buying Bibles that had footnotes that said.....
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”

This is the most blatant attack upon our faith, that Satan ever devised.

I am not saying that Bible’s with these footnotes, are “Satan’s Bibles”, because they are great Bibles, that give us God’s Word.

But the “idea”, of placing these footnotes is foolish.
First of all, who determines which Greek manuscripts are “the best”?
--------------------------------------------------

Satan has never been interested in honesty, but Bible translators ARE- that is why they use those footnotes, just as the KJV translators did.

Quote:
Let me remind you of my earlier response to this “Satan’s Bible” question......


God has preserved His Word for us.
It’s our job to believe that He has; By rejecting such notions as the Bible should be changed as new discoveries of manuscripts are found. etc.

I really, really would like to have Scriptural support for the bolded notion above.

 

[dcorbett]

Example:

Acts 8:37 KJV "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 8:37 ESV **DELETED**

 

[Mexdeaf]

Example:

Acts 8:37 KJV "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 8:37 ESV **DELETED**

And your point is? That the KJV is a work of the Devil because someone added verse 37? That the ESV is because it did not include the purported revision? Or what?

 

[Andy_S]

This was once said of the New English Bible, wasn't it?

 

[annsni]

Example:

Acts 8:37 KJV "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 8:37 ESV **DELETED**

As Mexdeaf said, this was most likely added - not deleted.

Acts chapters 8 and 9 are also rather expanded in the TR [Textus Receptus] due to material brought over from the Vulgate [Latin Vulgate]. If one looks up Acts 8:37 ("And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," KJV), for example, in the NIV, one will not find such a verse (outside of the textual footnote, that is). The reason is the verse is found in only a very few Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the sixth century, and Erasmus inserted it due to its presence in the Vulgate and in the margin of one Greek manuscript in his possession. We again note that this passage is surely very orthodox, and, in fact, is often laden with emotional attachment as well, making it very easy to "preach" against its "deletion" by modern texts. But, of course, we must overcome our emotionalism to again ask the central question, "What did Luke write at this point?" While the insertion surely speaks the truth, so would inserting the Westminster Confession of Faith between Titus chapters 2 and 3. But no one is going to suggest doing that. We cannot "improve" upon what God has revealed. 51

**the 51 is a footnote that reads "Some have suggested (Hills, p. 201) that this passage was original, but was deleted due to later ecclesiastical practices regarding baptism. The fact, however, that it is found in the Latin Vulgate, which certainly shows as much, if not more, evidence of ecclesiastical "concern" makes this argument somewhat tenuous."

Sorry - This is from the book "The King James Only Controversy" by James White.

 

[Askjo]

And your point is? That the KJV is a work of the Devil because someone added verse 37? That the ESV is because it did not include the purported revision? Or what?

Are you saying that Acts 8:37 (KJV) is wrong because of the false doctrine? If not, ESV translators omitted it not because of manuscript evidence/history, but because of Alexandrian Gnostic's interest.

 

[Askjo]

As Mexdeaf said, this was most likely added - not deleted.

Did the Ethiopian eunuch get saved in Acts 8:37 in ESV?

 

[annsni]

Did the Ethiopian eunuch get saved in Acts 8:37 in ESV?

No - nor is he saved in verse 37 in the KJV. He was saved when he believed. When he stated it, that was after the belief occurred. Without verse 37, we see in verse 38 that the eunuch was baptized so it's obvious he was saved.

 

[Rippon]

From Philip Comfort's book :Essential guide To Bible Versions

If the verse was an original part of Luke's text,there is no good reason for explaining why it would have been omitted in so many early manuscripts. Rather,this verse is a classic example of scribal gap-filling,in that it supplied the apparent gap left by the unanswered question of the previous verse ("The eunuch said,'Look,here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?"').The interpolation puts an answer on Philip's lips that is derived from ancient Christian baptismal practices. Before being baptized,the new believer had to make a confession of his or her faith in Jesus as the Son of God.

There is nothing doctrinally wrong with this interpolation;it affirms belief with the heart (in accordance with verses like Rom. 10:9-10) and elicits the response of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (in accordance with verses like John 20:31). But Luke didn't write it. (p.264)

 

[Rippon]

In Mr.Comfort's other book :New Testament Text And Translation Commentary he says :The NASB and HCSB,with typical sensitivity to the KJV tradition,include the verse,though it is set in brackets. (p.364)

 

[Mexdeaf]

Are you saying that Acts 8:37 (KJV) is wrong because of the false doctrine? If not, ESV translators omitted it not because of manuscript evidence/history, but because of Alexandrian Gnostic's interest.

None of the ESV translators were from Alexandria, as far as I can tell, and the charges of "gnosticism" were proven false on this board two years ago-
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58290

The horse is dead, Askjo.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Did the Ethiopian eunuch get saved in Acts 8:37 in ESV?

He got saved in his chariot. The Bible is clear on that no matter what translation you use.

 

[annsni]

He got saved in his chariot. The Bible is clear on that no matter what translation you use.

Was it really in his chariot? I'd guess it would be hard to read anything in a bouncing chariot. I'd say he stopped and got out.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Was it really in his chariot? I'd guess it would be hard to read anything in a bouncing chariot. I'd say he stopped and got out.

His chariot had shock absorbers.

Actually we do know that he was reading from the Bible- Philip heard him reading, asked him if he understood, joined him in the chariot as they continued the journey, and told him about Jesus. We know that they were traveling because the chariot stopped for the baptism- this is actually the very first "drive-in baptism" in the Bible.:laugh: