Response to Mike Winger's Train Wreck on Polygamy and Divorce

[NBTX11]

Respectfully, not speaking about you at all. But I don't give a fig what translators think. Therefore I don't care particularly what several translations say. Lots of "officials" can repeat a lie and it doesn't become truth.

My point was God made flesh used a plural word for marriage, "marriages". The translators decided to change His words into their idea of what God should have said and perverted the words to seemingly support the doctrine of devils known as monogamy only.

Who cares if the NLT says bridesmaids? What words did Jesus actually speak and did that word mean "bridesmaid" or simply "virgin". Because He said one word and not the other.


I'll illustrate it like this.
Let's say you were pulled over, the officer said you were speeding, you said you weren't and he wrote you a ticket anyways. His report said you were speeding and intoxicated to boot, the report also said you resisted arrest and assaulted the officer. He took you to jail, you demanded a blood test that showed 0. You also had a monitoring device installed that recorded your speed and any signaling, as well as video and audio recording of the interior and exterior.

You show up in court with records of your speed, lack of any BAC, and a video showing you were polite, respectful, and complied with the orders of the officer. As well as records of a past conflict you had with the officer where he swore he would make you pay one day.

It turns out the officer had an agenda, and he falsified your words on his report. He changed the story to suit his narrative and lied in the process. You could prove it because you have documentation of what exactly transpired.

Who cares what his report says, or what his commentary is on the day's confrontation. He's a liar and the truth is not in him. Would he be trustworthy?

We have Greek manuscripts that show conclusively that Jesus did not say "bridesmaid", and he didn't say "marriage", He said "virgins, and "marriages".
Those older documents prove the translators are EITHER mistaken in their translation and it's an innocent mistake. Or they are liars perpetrating a perversion of God's Word upon unsuspecting innocents. And when the vast majority of their changes to what was actually said support monogamy only, and suppress the truth that Jesus spoke words promoting polygyny.... Well I can only assume they are liars and the truth is not in them.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools...

They are professing to be wise, perverting the Word of God to support the doctrines of men they uphold as higher than what God has commanded.

Matthew 15:6-9 And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”

I agree with everything you just said. I just asked why it is so. You have made a strong argument. I’ve studied translations for 20 years and translators work and almost all of them are Godly honest men. They just are. Therefore I would not assign malicious intent to most of them. I’ve looked at manuscript evidence for years although not particularly at this passage. Possibly they’ve been blinded by modern scholarship and that clouds their thoughts when translating but I truly do not believe most translators have malicious intent. I’ve read many biographies and video testimonies of translators and most love and respect Gods word and the manuscript evidence.

That said, I agree the NLT got it wrong. I was just digging into the why’s.

 

[steve]

Therefore I would not assign malicious intent to most of them.

I think that “malicious intent” is a bridge too far. You are assigning a mindset that is over-the-top, and then judging their actions according to your straw man mindset.
A bias that colors one’s understanding is in no way malicious, it is merely a bias.
“Everybody knows” is a powerful persuader that people don’t even recognize as being part of the equation.

 

[NBTX11]

I think that “malicious intent” is a bridge too far. You are assigning a mindset that is over-the-top, and then judging their actions according to your straw man mindset.
A bias that colors one’s understanding is in no way malicious, it is merely a bias.
“Everybody knows” is a powerful persuader that people don’t even recognize as being part of the equation.

Agreed. Good point.

 

[MemeFan]

I think that “malicious intent” is a bridge too far. You are assigning a mindset that is over-the-top, and then judging their actions according to your straw man mindset.
A bias that colors one’s understanding is in no way malicious, it is merely a bias.
“Everybody knows” is a powerful persuader that people don’t even recognize as being part of the equation.

Regarding translators.

Error of omissions are possible, like checking older manuscripts. Translators shouldn't be "forgiven" easily such mistake, but problems with omissions is that such mistakes are harder to prove.

 

[NickF]

I agree with everything you just said. I just asked why it is so. You have made a strong argument. I’ve studied translations for 20 years and translators work and almost all of them are Godly honest men. They just are.

I believe the vast majority have genuine earnest desire to be honorable, honest and Godly.

Therefore I would not assign malicious intent to most of them.

One can lie accidentally, lie by omission, lie through ignorance be it willful or otherwise. A liar may or may not be lying for malicious intent. Someone can be a stone cold liar and believe earnestly that they are doing right. They may also know about polygyny and believe so strongly that it is heresy and evil, that they will twist scripture and change wording because they believe it is best so as to not confuse the poor laymen who aren't as wise and learned as they. I think that last sentence is the most likely with the majority of them. They think they are doing right by suppressing what is truth (truth that they believe is a lie and evil).

I’ve looked at manuscript evidence for years although not particularly at this passage. Possibly they’ve been blinded by modern scholarship and that clouds their thoughts when translating but I truly do not believe most translators have malicious intent. I’ve read many biographies and video testimonies of translators and most love and respect Gods word and the manuscript evidence.

I agree. I'm simply pointing out that most of the scholars I've met and interacted with, ESPECIALLY religious scholars have enormous levels of pride and self righteousness. They profess to be wise and a lot of them suppress the truth while proclaiming their holy intent. That was my experience with the pastor of the last church I was a member of.

That said, I agree the NLT got it wrong. I was just digging into the why’s.

I think that's great! I too am a seeker after the why behind most things. Don't think I'm castigating you!

 

[NBTX11]

To be fair, the KJV, NKJV, et al. got it mostly right. They say that 5 virgins went into the wedding and say it clearly. The KJV says 5 virgins went with the bridegroom into the marriage. The NKJV says 5 virgins went in with the bridegroom into the wedding. The NIV says 5 virgins went in with the bridegroom into the wedding feast. The NLT is the one that really messed it up. They say the 5 bridesmaids (terrible translation for virgins), went in with the bridegroom into the marriage feast.

It's in the study notes of the "scholars" that put together the KJV study Bible that say the virgins represent bridesmaids. So in that case it was more the people that put together the study notes rather than the 1611 translation of the text. Guess they already had their ideas as to what virgin meant.

 

[Bartato]

... you won't be calling yourself Baptist or any other ist for long if you stay on this path of discovery.

 

[NBTX11]

Dude we eat more potluck dinners than anyone on earth. I just ate one on Sunday.

 

[Bartato]

To be fair, the KJV, NKJV, et al. got it mostly right. They say that 5 virgins went into the wedding and say it clearly. The KJV says 5 virgins went with the bridegroom into the marriage. The NKJV says 5 virgins went in with the bridegroom into the wedding. The NIV says 5 virgins went in with the bridegroom into the wedding feast. The NLT is the one that really messed it up. They say the 5 bridesmaids (terrible translation for virgins), went in with the bridegroom into the marriage feast.

It's in the study notes of the "scholars" that put together the KJV study Bible that say the virgins represent bridesmaids. So in that case it was more the people that put together the study notes rather than the 1611 translation of the text. Guess they already had their ideas as to what virgin meant.

Translators and commentators do have biases that sometimes blind them to obvious truths. I'm sure we all have biases that make it hard to see certain truths.

It's also true that pastors, seminary professors, and theologians would almost certainly be fired and ridiculed if they speak truthfully about Biblical marriage. That is a frightening prospect. Only the fear and/or the love of God will motivate a man to take such a risk.

 

[NBTX11]

It's also true that pastors, seminary professors, and theologians would almost certainly be fired and ridiculed if they speak truthfully about Biblical marriage.

I believe you just hit on the root cause. A pastor or professor may admit to you privately that they can't condemn multiple wives, but if they stated that from a pulpit or college classroom, they would be fired before the day was out.

It's that simple. People value their jobs and will do whatever they need to do to maintain them.

 

[steve]

Dude we eat more potluck dinners than anyone on earth. I just ate one on Sunday.

Don’t forget the old: “Whenever 3 or 4 Baptists are gathered together, there will be coffee and doughnuts”.

 

[Bartato]

Regarding translations, the NLT and NIV are pretty paraphrased. I have them, and sometimes use them, but generally prefer to mainly stick with more literal translations such as NKJV, NASB, ESV, and KJV.

Even these translations can be biased and mess up badly sometimes. For example NASB is totally wrong on 2nd Samuel 12:8.

"I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these".

The word "care" is actually"busom" just like the NASB properly translated above in verse three.

NKJV also gets it wrong when it renders "busom" as "keeping" in verse 8 but not verse 3.

KJV renders it correctly as "busom" in both verses. ESV also renders it accurately as "in his arms" in verse 3 and
"into your arms" in verse 8.

I believe this passage is one of the strongest evidences for polygyny in the Bible and the Hebrew word is exactly the same in verses 3 and 8. There is clearly a parallel. I feel like the NASB and NKJV translators badly obscured this passage.

Thankfully we now have the tools to get to the Greek and Hebrew texts!

 

[Bartato]

I believe you just hit on the root cause. A pastor or professor may admit to your privately that they can't condemn multiple wives, but if they stated that from a pulpit or college classroom, they would be fired before the day was out.

It's that simple. People value their jobs and will do whatever they need to do to maintain them.

It was the same thing with the covid nonsense. Many scientists and medical professionals were blind to the lies. Others knew the truth but went along with the lie to keep their jobs.

 

[Bartato]

I believe you just hit on the root cause. A pastor or professor may admit to your privately that they can't condemn multiple wives, but if they stated that from a pulpit or college classroom, they would be fired before the day was out.

It's that simple. People value their jobs and will do whatever they need to do to maintain them.

If they wilfully despise the Lord and intentionally lie about His Word, they might be unregenerate unbelievers and if so will be fired forever in the lake of

 

[NBTX11]

Regarding translations, the NLT and NIV are pretty paraphrased. I have them, and sometimes use them, but generally prefer to mainly stick with more literal translations such as NKJV, NASB, ESV, and KJV.

Even these translations can be biased and mess up badly sometimes. For example NASB is totally wrong on 2nd Samuel 12:8.

"I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these".

The word "care" is actually"busom" just like the NASB properly translated above in verse three.

NKJV also gets it wrong when it renders "busom" as "keeping" in verse 8 but not verse 3.

KJV renders it correctly as "busom" in both verses. ESV also renders it accurately as "in his arms" in verse 3 and
"into your arms" in verse 8.

I believe this passage is one of the strongest evidences for polygyny in the Bible and the Hebrew word is exactly the same in verses 3 and 8. There is clearly a parallel. I feel like the NASB and NKJV translators badly obscured this passage.

Thankfully we now have the tools to get to the Greek and Hebrew texts!

Yes, I am well aware and well versed in Bible translation theory. I know that the NIV, and especially the NLT are very paraphrastic. They both have their place. I've spent years studying the history of the English Bible. Probably more than any other Bible topic. One of the reasons I did that was because my particular denomination pushed one translation and essentially said all the others were bad, so I wanted to find out if that was true for myself. I knew that was a load of garbage, but I didn't know why. So basically I read every book known to man on Bible translation.

I personally use the NKJV (out of deference to the KJV and it's strong history), because it's basically an understandable KJV. I use that as my "word for word" translation, and the NLT as my thought for thought translation.

I am well aware of the differences in translation philosophies, manuscript tradition, and history of Bible translation.

 

[Bartato]

The Literal Standard Version (LSV 2020) also correctly renders the Matthew passages with the plural wedding feasts.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Don’t forget the old: “Whenever 3 or 4 Baptists are gathered together, there will be coffee and doughnuts”.

I'm not a baptist...but I can make doughnuts.
If your ever around Central Arizona on a Saturday stop in for coffee (or herbal substitute) and sweets.

 

[Bartato]

I'm not a baptist...but I can make doughnuts.
If your ever around Central Arizona on a Saturday stop in for coffee (or herbal substitute) and sweets.

I bet your doughnuts are wonderful

 

[NickF]

They both have their place.

Yes... In a furnace....

 

[NBTX11]

Yes... In a furnace....

I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't make either my primary Bible, but they are good for new Christians, as well as a paraphrase reading of larger portions of scripture to give you a basic understanding.

Would you rather give a teen or young Christian a KJV and say here you go, have at it. I wouldn't. It's like reading Beowulf for new Christians. They would give up.

They are what they are. Paraphrastic translations of the Bible that can give you a general overview, but are not good for in depth or word study.