In several instances we have a few sentences translated as “if” when clearly what is being said is not conditional and the word if is a clear mistranslation. I’ll give you a few examples and would like experts in Greek to give us the corrected accurate translation. Let’s start with Jesus Christ prayers in the garden of Gethsemane: In both Mark 14:36 Jesus outright says that all things are possible with His Father: > “Abba, Father,” He said, ***“all things are possible for You.*** There’s no if, ands or buts, Jesus is clear, all things are possible. However Matthew 26:39 it’s translated - > “My Father, ***if*** it is possible” It’s impossible for the text to say “if it is possible, as that contradicts the account in Mark as well as Jesus numerous teachings that with God all things are possible, a teaching Jesus stressed multiple times throughout the entire Old and New Testament. Another example would be Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians 4. In 1 Corinthians 4:18-21 ***Paul says with 100% certainty that he is coming to the Corinthians.*** > Some of you have become arrogant, ***as if I were not coming to you. > But I will come to you shortly,*** if the Lord is willing, and then I > will find out not only what these arrogant people are saying, but what > power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of > power. Which do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love > and with a gentle spirit? It would make absolutely zero sense for Paul to say he is 100% coming, even saying condemning anyone who says he isn’t coming as arrogant in verse 18, to then say “if God wills”, the word cannot be if, because he’s saying clearly that he is coming, even in the same verse/sentence that proceeds the if he reiterates that he is coming. Further it would make no sense for Paul to even say “if God wills” because that would assume he doesn’t know God’s will, which is impossible, the Apostles knew God’s will. So even the notion of them even saying “if” is impossible. I think the word should be translated as Since. When you replace the word “if” with since, the text makes sense, it aligns with doctrine. Father since it is possible. I will come to you shortly, since God wills/desires, and then I will find out..

There some Christians who consider, for various reasons, the KJV to be the only legitimate translation of the Bible.**I am wondering if there are any movements like that surrounding another translation, whether to English or some other language.** To be specific, I'm not asking about the *textus receptus* but rather the translation specifically, as some "KJV-only" people defend it for no other reason than that it is a translation of the *textus receptus* and would accept other translations of TR (at least theoretically). I am also not asking whether any of these people or movements are correct.

Each Gospel has an account were Jesus references Isaiah 6:9-10. Paul also references those verses in Acts 28:26. >*9 And he replied: Go! Say to these people: Keep listening, but do not understand; keep looking, but do not perceive. 10 Make the minds[c] of these people dull; deafen their ears and blind their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their minds, turn back, and be healed.* John 12:40 appears to be the only account that clearly says that God does the hardening (Every Bible on BibleGateway has translated it in this manner). >*He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts….* But I noticed that the original Greek does not have “God”, or the pronoun “He”.….they’ve been added in translation. The translation of Acts 28:27 does not attribute the hardening to God….it says that “they” have shut their eyes. >*For the hearts of these people have grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes* Again, the original Greek does not have a pronoun “they”, yet every Bible translates it in that manner. It doesn’t even appear that Isaiah Ch 6 clearly attributes the hardening to God. Verse 10 says *“make the minds of these people dull”*. Who/What makes them dull? Verse 9 could answer that question. It says people that listen, but do not understand….and people that look, but do not perceive. (Makes me think of fellow Christians that just go through the motions. I know….I used to be one). So I guess it’s a 2-part question. I do not study or understand Greek, beyond clicking on a verse and viewing the word for word translation. So, what is it about the original Greek that translators unanimously agree to add “God” or “He” to John 12:40, and add “they” to Acts 28:27? What is causing the hardening, God….or our own actions? The above translations imply both, yet they both reference the same verses in Isaiah. Shouldn’t the understanding be one or the other, based upon the understanding of the verses in Isaiah?

I have the 2012 edition of the New American Bible published by Catholic Bible Press. It's rather interesting in that there are no quotation marks when God speaks, but there are quotation marks for human speech. For instance Genesis 1:3 says > Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. whereas Exodus 3:11 reads > But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" The juxtaposition is especially striking in passages such as Exodus 3 wherein there is a dialogue between God and a man. I'm curious what the reason for this is. In the New Testament however they do include quotation marks, for instance in John 12:28 > ...Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it and will glorify it again."

There is a new United Bible Society Greek New Testament coming out in June. Someone I follow posted something that implied the translation committee may include atheists, unbelievers, and Resurrection-deniers. I cannot for the life of me find out who is on that committee to verify if that is true or not. Does anyone here know? Thank you.

The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the *Jerusalem Bible*, which uses *Yahweh*, and the *New World Translation*, which uses *Jehovah*, [the traditional rendering in English](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6193) . There are very few translations which [transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65691) in their text. I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do *write* the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is [not to pronounce the Name](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3720) , but the Catholic *Jerusalem Bible* still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?

The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)

**Context:** Many Protestants overstate the claim that the Catholic Church “chained the Bible to the pulpit,” asserting that the Bible was placed on a list of “banned books” after the Council of Trent. In reality, that never happened. However, the Church did enforce severe prohibitions against what it considered dubious translations of Scripture. Historically, from Trent until the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic faithful were encouraged to read the Bible regularly, but only in certain approved translations of the Latin Vulgate (e.g., the Douay-Rheims). Following the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have begun to use a wider variety of translations. Some, such as Ronald L. Conte Jr., have even produced personal translations like the Catholic Public Domain Version. Popular Catholic figures on YouTube, including Matt Fradd, have expressed a preference for translations like the KJV or the Orthodox Study Bible, and others—like Jeff Cavins—have suggested that Catholics should read “whichever translation of the Bible you will actually read.” Despite this apparent openness to different translations, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) still maintains a list of “approved” Bible translations. **Final Question:** Are there still prohibitions within the Catholic Church that would make it sinful for the faithful to print, publish, pray with, or study using any English translation of the Bible not on an approved list?

There are many versions of the Bible, such as the: - King James Bible - NIV - NRSV But which is the "correct" bible for Catholics to read?

What are the relationships between the terms 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Greek Bible', 'King's Bible', 'Torah', 'Tanakh', 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'? Wikipedia seem to have separate articles for each of them and the discussion is pretty convoluted. Which of these are parts of other ones? The term 'Bible' seems to mean different things to different people. Is the Bible a Christian or Jewish scripture? I would appreciate an overview of how these terms are related.

Quoting Biblical text is technically a dicey proposition. While the original manuscripts are obviously public domain, not every translation is. Indeed, the NIV even posts the following [copyright notice](http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/) on BibleGateway: >Copyright Information > >The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. > >When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows: > >THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. > >These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale. Given this, what significant translations of the Bible can I actually quote at length?

While researching for [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/60491/16938) and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek. These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like [a few missing verses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13962/niv-hidden-bible-verses) . I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole. I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

I've been looking specifically for a PDF version of the Martin Luther 1534 translation of the Bible with a Parallel English translation (preferably KJV, but any edition will do). I've been hitting a serious brick wall in finding any such composition. Does such a creature exist? I have a Crossway hard copy edition, but the Martin Luther translation is a revised edition and of course it's physical - I need a PDF for portability and markup purposes (using Liquid Text for markup and note taking): 

Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"? The following Bible verses have "monogenes" in it: Verse KJV NET John 1:14 only begotten the one and only John 1:18 only begotten only one John 3:16 only begotten one and only John 3:18 only begotten one and only 1 John 4:9 only begotten one and only Luke 7:12 only only Luke 8:42 only one only Luke 9:38 only child only child Hebrews 11:17 only begotten only son With only one exception, the King James Version translates it to specify that the only is a child. However, modern translations, such as the New English Translation, use "one and only" most of the time. How was this word understood by the Church Fathers?

I have noticed a consistent bias in English translations of the scriptures, both old and new. Whenever the Greek προσκυνέω or the Hebrew וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ appear (in their various conjugations), if the word is applied to God proper or to "a god," then the word is translated as "worship." However, if the term is applied to your average man then it is translated as the more literal and mundane "to bow down, to prostrate oneself." A great example of this is Exodus 18:7 (NASB) >Then Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and he bowed down and kissed him; and they asked each other about their welfare, and went into the tent. If you review the Hebrew, the word translated here as "bowed down" is וַיִּשְׁתַּ֙חוּ֙. And if we look at the Greek of this verse in the Septuagint, the word is προσεκύνησεν, the 3rd person singular aorist active indicative conjugation of the aforementioned προσκυνέω. But when these words are applied to God, we see they are translated as "worship." For example, 1 Samuel 15:31 (NASB) >So Samuel went back following Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord. The Hebrew word here is again וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ, while the Greek from the Septuagint is again προσεκύνησεν; the exact same as for when Moses "bowed down" to Jethro. As far as I can tell, this distinction is entirely artificial and has been abused by translators to falsely build up the case for the Trinity by selectively translating the Greek word as "worship" when applied to Christ, just as when it is applied to God proper or to "a god," and not translating it in the same manner as when applied to men. For example... Matthew 28:16-17 >**16** But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. **17** And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. The Greek word translated as "they worshiped" is, of course, προσεκύνησαν. This is nearly identical to the word used when Moses "bowed down" to Jethro - only it is 3rd person plural instead of 3rd person singular. On to my question... While it appears to me that the above practice is an abuse by translators to force their biases upon the unsuspecting reader, I want to know if there is in fact a good, objective reason for this practice. Any references you can provide to substantiate your answer would be much appreciated.

An article in the booklet quoted from below causes me to wonder if this, the preferred text of religious Jews and Hebrew Christians, is at any risk of textual changes being made to it, which would not be good changes. The article in question states that Bomberg: > “…produced the first Rabbinic Bible in 1517. This was the first to > present a complete Masorah, and in time it became the ‘textus > receptus’ of the Old Testament. (Endnote: It was known in Hebrew as > the Mikraot Gedelot.) …[one] edition the Ginsburg 1894/1998 was used > as the basis for the Old Testament for many Reformation-era > translations such as the English Authorised Version and the Dutch > Statenvertaling. (Endnote: During the Reformation period it was used > by R.I. Estienne (also known in Latin as Robertus Stephanus, 1503 – > 1559 in his Hebrew Bible of 1544-1546.)” *Quarterly Record* TBS, Issue > No. 649 October-December 2024, pp. 4-6 Bomberg then produced the second edition in 1524, making this year of 2024 the 500th anniversary of the Second Rabbinic Bible. However, my concern arises due to this paragraph: > “Sadly, in our own day the Hebrew Masoretic text preserved for us by > Divine providence is undermined by those who wish to add text outside > of the Masoretic editions. The majority of these look to ancient > translations in other languages.” (Ibid. p.5) **My question is: Does this mean that the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Hebrew scriptures is not entirely reliable?**

There are Luther (German) Bible to English parallels out there, however, the Luther Bible includes the Apocryphal texts and the English parallels do not. What I want to know is if there are any English language bibles, which include the Pseudodeuteronomic and Apochryphal texts in their right place as well? Like maybe an "Extended" Bible version that includes all the official as well as all the lost and or excluded texts all in English?

It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps? > And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: > for he shall save his people from their sins.**Matthew 1:21** > > And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, > and shalt call his name JESUS. **Luke 1:31** It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?

Given that [proponents of *Textus Receptus* Only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) are still influential today and that the majority of Bible translations today are using the [*Nestle-Aland* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) , I wonder whether there are Bible translations that cater to **both** Greek editions by *consistently* providing the original Greek text **as well as** the translation of the variant *not* used in the main text. **CONSISTENTLY** is the operative word here, so that [*Textus-Receptus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) only Bible readers can benefit from non-KJV translations to help them understand Scripture better (by using a modern translation) **while trusting** that the *Textus Receptus* manuscript version is always present to them. It makes sense from the Marketing perspective. Although of course one could consult *Wikipedia* or a list of differences in a [web article](https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs) , or use a tool such as *BibleGateway* to display it side by side, it is a lot more user-friendly to see the variant as a footnote that is available **offline**. My preliminary research shows that alternate manuscript footnotes are sporadic, not consistent. For example, for [Matt 19:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A16-17&version=KJV,YLT,CSB) CSB only shows the *mss* variant in v. 17, but not in v. 16, and *not* show the Greek itself. [*Bible Hub*](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-16.htm) *does* have links to alternate manuscript but it's not indicated in the main text as an alert. Given that such a dual-manuscript translation is not available easily today, what is the easiest way to read the Bible **and be consistently alerted** when a *Textus-Receptus* variant exists? I know I can use tools like the [Logos software](https://www.logos.com/) to do side by side interlinear translations of both CSB and KJV/YLT, but it's not that easy to spot a variant. So I will also accept an answer that can provide a recipe for using a software like this to read a Bible normally but has footnote, color codes, etc. to alert me that a **meaning-altering** *Textus Receptus* variant exists. ----- **NOTE** (after feedback in comments). Of course I wouldn't want any variants that don't make a difference in meaning. My Question has to do with making sure that the 3 text traditions (let's also add the Eastern Orthodox text tradition whose OT is based on Septuagint) are well represented in footnotes that **should include a judgment from within each tradition on how that variant is likely**. Each translation based on a particular text tradition already winnowed out meaningless variants BY THAT tradition, so in my ideal Bible those variants don't need to be mentioned at all. So I just want the 3 tradition text critic (TR, NA, and EO) to do their job well *within their text-tradition*, and the Bible publisher would present their 3 works in a single Bible volume with the main text coming from one of the 3 (the rest is in the footnotes). **So 3 Bible committees consulting their respective text-critic experts, and 1 publisher.**

Of the Byzantine texts that Erasmus had at his disposal, where did he come by them? Also, did the Waldenses provide any either directly or indirectly?