Printer-Friendly          E-mail this page

Translation Difficulties
(From Forerunner Commentary)

Genesis 6:9  (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up) The first of this verse's two problems is that the KJV translates two different Hebrew words as "generations"! The first occurrence—"These are the generations"—is rendered from toledoth (Strong's #8435; note that it is plural), meaning "descent," "history," or "genealogy." The NKJV corrects this first error by using the word "genealogy"—"This is the genealogy of Noah"—although this is still a singular word. Other translations read: » "the records of the generations" [New American Standard Bible (NASB)] » "the account" [New International Version (NIV)] » "the story" [Revised English Bible (REB)] » "the descendants" [Moffatt translation (MOF)] » "births" (Young's Literal Version) » "the family records" [Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)] The second occurrence of "generations"—in the phrase "perfect in his generations"—is from the Hebrew word dôr (Strong's #1755), which means "properly, a revolution of time, i.e., an age or generation." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) adds: Generation. By a thoroughly understandable figure, a man's lifetime beginning with the womb of earth and returning thereto (Gen 3:19) is a dôr; likewise from the conception and birth of a man to the conception and birth of his offspring is a dôr. A special use . . . is to mean simply "contemporaries," . . . cf. Gen 6:9 . . . "in his own generation and those immediately contiguous." In Isaiah 53:8, this word, dôr, is used similarly to Genesis 6:9: [My Servant, Jesus] was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken. This is better rendered, as in the English Standard Version: ". . . and as for His generation [or, contemporaries], who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?" Generation (dôr) simply means a period of time, in the same way we use the phrases "the life and times of Ronald Reagan" or "the Age of Napoleon." The Hebrew implies the context or milieu of a person's life, the situations and events that occurred during his lifetime, including, as TWOT shows, his "contemporaries." Thus, many modern translations have rendered in his generations as: » "in his time" (NASB) » "at that time" (The Living Bible) » "of his time" (Today's English Version; REB) » "among the people of his time" (NIV) » "among his fellow-men (The Modern Language Bible) » "among his contemporaries" (HCSB) » "among the men of his day" (MOF) The two generations in Genesis 6:9 are quite different words and should be translated to distinguish them and to rule out misunderstanding.   Richard T. Ritenbaugh 'Perfect In His Generations'

Matthew 28:1  (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up) Matthew 28:1 provides additional proof of two Sabbaths occurring that week. However, the Bible's translators, confused by the Greek wording of this verse, have consistently mistranslated it. Matthew writes, "Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn . . . ." The wording of the original text, though, reads, "after the Sabbaths"—plural! Richard T. Ritenbaugh 'After Three Days'

Mark 16:9-20  (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up) A highly controversial point in religious circles is whether Mark 16:9-20 is actually part of Scripture. Although it appears in the King James and New King James versions, many other translations either label this section as an appendix or leave it in the footnotes, as does the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The Moffatt translation, together with the Goodspeed translation and others, not only has the long ending found in the King James Version, but it also has another shorter ending. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1971), Bruce Metzger, a noted authority on textual matters, writes: The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written ad 897 and ad 913). Yet, he also notes, "The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus [Received Text], is present in the vast number of witnesses" (our emphasis). Despite this, he concludes that the longer ending is "secondary," meaning "that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century." To bolster his conclusion, he cites "internal evidence": non-Markan vocabulary and style within the section and the "awkward" connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20. Contrary to this, the longer ending to Mark's gospel is quoted extremely early in church history as Markan. Between AD 182 and 188, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, quotes Mark 16:19 as a part of Mark's account (Against Heresies iii.10.6). There are allusions to these disputed verses in even earlier writings, although not as true quotations. Not only did Irenaeus accept it as a part of Mark's gospel when arguing with "heretics," but, says James Hastings: No writer before Eusebius [(c. AD 260-340) court favorite and church historian in the days of the Roman emperor Constantine] is known to have rejected them, and their presence in all later MSS [manuscripts] shows that the successors of Eusebius, in spite of his great authority, did not follow his judgment in the matter. In addition, records of the traditional liturgical calendars of several churches (for instance, the Greek, Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic churches), originating before the fourth century, include these disputed verses without reservation as part of the services. These facts point plainly to the great antiquity of the longer ending as preserved in the common English versions. In his exhaustive study, "'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Objectors and Established" (1871), Dean John William Burgon evaluates these verses on stylistic and historical grounds and comes to the exact opposite conclusion to Metzger. He finds that the claim of their non-authenticity rests on shoddy scholarship and an over-reliance on the Western texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which, though early, are at variance with most other biblical manuscripts. He even asserts that Vaticanus contains a blank column where Mark 16:9-20 should be, left there by a scribe to show that it had intentionally been excluded. If these last verses of Mark's gospel were left out, the book would not come to an orderly conclusion, as does every other book of the Bible. In fact, it would end on notes of fear and failure: "And they [the women who visited Jesus' tomb] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mark 16:8)?hardly a fitting ending for an account of hope and salvation. Further, no Christian doctrine rests on the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Every point in Mark 16:9-20 ?except for "if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them"?has scriptural backup elsewhere in the New Testament, and even the exception parallels the spirit of the surrounding promises to the disciples. Therefore, even if this concluding section were a later addition, no Christian doctrine is in any way affected. As for the vocabulary and style differences, in the end they turn out to be highly inflated guesses. Several words are used for the first time in the book, and a few others are used differently than elsewhere. However, these variations are no worse than the style and vocabulary differences between, for example, Paul's Pastoral Epistles and his other letters, John's writing in Revelation and his gospel and epistles, or Peter's two epistles. Authors are not bound to what scholars assume to be the limit of their vocabularies and styles. Even with all of this proof, the decision comes down to the faithfulness of God. Is God able to preserve His Word or not? Human writings are filled with error, but the Bible is complete, inspired, and wholly preserved through the power of God. We can trust that these verses are an inspired part of the Word of God. Richard T. Ritenbaugh Should Christians Handle Snakes?

Luke 17:21  (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up) "Within" is translated from entos, used only twice in the New Testament. Its primary meaning is "inside," as it is rendered in Matthew 23:26: "Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also." However, when used in conjunction with a plural noun, entos means "among" or "in the midst of." In Luke 17:21, entos is used with "you," and from the context, we can see that Jesus was speaking to a crowd of Pharisees, who had come to question Him about the Kingdom of God (verse 20). "You," then, is plural. "The kingdom of God is among you" is best. Most modern translations have recognized this grammatical error and translate entos as "among" or "in the midst of." Some texts, like the New King James and the New International versions, persist in using "within," though they note in the margin that "among" is an alternative. Even without this technical knowledge of Greek, we could have easily understood that "within" is a poor and misleading translation. Christ was answering a question posed by the Pharisees, and He replied directly to them: "He answered them and said, . . . 'For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.'" But how could the Kingdom of God be within His most bitter enemies? How many times did He reveal them to be hyprocritical and misleading the people? Theologically, it is quite impossible to think that His Kingdom would be in the Pharisees. It is only after He had made this remark that He turned to His disciples (verse 22) and explained what He meant. The subject of the entire section (verses 20-37) is stated most explicitly in verse 30: "Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed." All along, He had been explaining His second coming! When He returns, He will set up His Kingdom on earth (Zechariah 14:9). If the Kingdom is still future, how could He say that "the kingdom of God is among you"? To answer this, we must return to the four common traits of a kingdom: a king, who rules by law over a number of subjects who live within a certain territory. The primary trait is that a kingdom must be ruled by a king; otherwise, the country has some other form of government. A king of any nation is the chief representative of that nation. And the King of the Kingdom of God is none other than the living Jesus Christ! Pilate specifically asked Jesus, "'Are You a king then?' Jesus answered, 'You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth'" (John 18:37). So as the King of God's Kingdom, He could truly tell the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God was among them. Richard T. Ritenbaugh Is the Kingdom of God Within You?

Luke 17:21  (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up) This sadly mistranslated verse has led many sincere people astray. Without even knowing the Greek language, we can see that Jesus could not mean that the Kingdom was some ethereal quality in the hearts of the Pharisees! To the contrary, He castigated them often for their unbelief! Entos, translated "within," should be translated "in the midst of" or "among." Jesus, the coming King of the Kingdom of God, was in their midst or among them! The thrust of His teaching in this section is that unbelievers will not recognize the working of God's Kingdom among them, just as the Pharisees had not recognized their Savior among them. Richard T. Ritenbaugh The True Gospel

Luke 23:42-43  (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up) Jesus said He would be in the grave three days and three nights after His crucifixion. Then could the thief have been with Christ in Paradise that very day? Notice Luke 23:43 carefully. Jesus said that the crucified malefactor would be with Him in Paradise. If we can prove where Jesus went when He died, then we can prove if the malefactor really went to Paradise that day. In I Corinthians 15:3-4. Paul reiterates: "For I delivered to you"—speaking to Christians—"first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." Notice that Jesus was buried—it does not say the body was buried, and that the soul went to Paradise. It reads that He—Jesus, Himself, entirely—was buried. He was dead for three days. He died for our sins. Then He came to life. He arose! John gives us further proof of where Jesus was. "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There"—in the tomb, the grave—"laid they Jesus" (John 19:41-42). It was Jesus who was laid in the tomb, not merely the body of Jesus. Jesus was dead! To make this even plainer, look at Acts 2:31. Speaking of Christ, Peter quotes the prophet David as follows: "He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." This verse, translated in the King James Version, proves that Jesus was not in Paradise, but in hell. The word "hell" ought to be rendered "grave." The original inspired Greek word used by Peter was hades, meaning the "grave." It does not mean a fiery, burning hell. The Bible uses another word for that. Hell or the grave is not Paradise. Since Jesus did not enter Paradise that day—the day of the crucifixion—then neither did the malefactor enter it. Christ has "preeminence" in all things, we read in Colossians 1:18. Therefore the malefactor who repented could not have preceded Christ to Paradise. Whenever the repentant malefactor enters Paradise, Christ will be there too! He said so: "With me shalt thou be in paradise." Since we know where Jesus was when He died, we now need to locate Paradise. Notice II Corinthians 12:1-5. Paul speaks of one whom He knew who had marvelous visions and revelations from the Lord. In a vision he was "caught up to the third heaven"—God's throne! "He was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." Then Paradise is located in the presence of God's throne. Let's continue with the Bible description of Paradise. Turn to Revelation 2:7. "To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God" (American Standard Version). Observe that the tree of life is in the Paradise of God. Next, turn to Revelation 22:1-2. These two verses are referring to "the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21:2, ASV). In this city, which is also a type of the church, we find "a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the midst of the street thereof. And on this side of the river and on that was the tree of life. . . ." (ASV). The New Jerusalem contains the tree of life. In the New Jerusalem is the Paradise of God. Jesus said the repentant malefactor would be with Him in this Paradise. The New Jerusalem is not yet finished. Jesus is still preparing a place for us in it (John 14:2). Not until after the Millennium will it be fully ready (Revelation 20:1-5). Not until then will it descend to earth—not until then will the repentant malefactor enter Paradise! Then what did Jesus mean by saying, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise"? You probably have assumed that Jesus promised the thief that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. Nothing could be further from the truth! Remember the thief had asked earlier, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom" (Luke 23:42). The plain fact is that Jesus has not yet come into His Kingdom (Luke 11:2; 19:11; I Corinthians 11:26; I Thessalonians 4:13-17; I Corinthians 15:23, 49-52). Additionally, proper punctuation helps explain Luke 23:43. Most translations are improperly punctuated in order to make it appear that Jesus would be in Paradise that day. But the Bible proves Jesus was not in Paradise that day. A comma placed before the word "today" is incorrect. The comma should follow it—"Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise." Open your Bible to this controversial verse. Notice the punctuation. Remember that punctuation was not used in the inspired Greek which Luke wrote. It was added into the Greek and English centuries later. The punctuation in this verse was added by men. Here is exactly, word for word, the order in the inspired original Greek, which you can verify at any public library: "Verily I say to thee today, 'With me shalt thou be in the Paradise.'" By using the word "today," Jesus was stressing the time of His promise—not the time He would be in Paradise. The repentant malefactor crucified with Jesus is still dead and buried. Jesus alone is the firstborn from the dead (Romans 8:29; Acts 26:23; I Corinthians 15:23). But the time is coming when this man shall be resurrected also and eventually shall enter the Paradise of God promised to come to this earth. Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986) What Is the Reward of the Saved?

 

XML RSS  feeds available		The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 35,000 subscribers are already receiving each day. Email Address:
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.

Printer-Friendly          E-mail this page