Dave wrote:This is a major flaw with the concept of a holy bible, there are so many different translations. Both in this example, are stating something fundamentally different. I don't understand how both can be the word of God? You seem to have chosen the most palatable version.
The KJV was originally translated in the early 17th Century using the earliest texts available
at that time. Two things have changed since then.
Firstly earlier original texts have been found which offer a more accurate translation. It should be considered however that differences between different early texts are minimal and no essential doctrine of the faith is compromised or denied by these. Thousands of texts from the first century onward have been found (usually incomplete) but in each of these, any variation is minimal - possibly a spelling error, or changing order of words (eg
Christ Jesus and
Jesus Christ). Such errors do not nullify the meaning of these texts. Indeed the number of documents found over the centuries tends to confirm the meaning of the original autographs by the sheer number and relative conformity from one text to another. Remember too that these passages were deeply revered by those who copied and translated them and for the first centuries, copying was by hand by educated people only not an automated printing methodology. It was common practice to destroy any and all copies which were found to have any error from the original being copied, and that might be for as little as getting one letter or word wrong or out of place. Of course some errors did get through, but as stated, no essential doctrine of the faith is compromised or denied by these. One exception which amusingly is known about and the error clear was the "Wicked Bible" or "Adulterous Bible" printed in 1631 which omitted the word "
not" from the commandment "
thou shalt not commit adultery". The error was spotted before all copies were printed and distributed, so most were destroyed but a few did make it into circulation and are in existence today and are valuable simply for their historical and novelty value. (The printer, BTW, lost his right to print the Bible thereafter).
Secondly, all language changes and evolves over time. Some of the words used in the 17th century have changed their meaning now.Sometimes this is obvious even today, but sometimes if not known, it can radically change the meaning of a certain passage. For instance, in King James’ day the word ‘
prevent’ could mean ‘
come before’ but not necessarily in a hindering way. So the translators in that day translated 1 Thes. 4:15, ‘
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.’ Today the word ‘prevent’ has lost that earlier meaning (come before), so it must be translated differently to convey the proper meaning: ‘
According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not ‘precede’ those who have fallen asleep’ (NIV). ...To keep the translation of God’s Word living it must be kept in the language the people are still using.”
Dunno if this answers your query, but maybe it helps a little???