Once again Chris, I remind you that you are talking of transla-tions. And yes, almost all are without any merit whatsoever.
Remember also the Mazorets. To them, and later generations, the Holy Scriptures in the plural must be copied meticulously to avoid any further errors. Not even the most blatant and obvious faults may be corrected!
The in-sufficiency and dis-harmony of scripture rules.
Today I have completed work on the sexualization of II Commandment porneía and VII Commandment moixeía in the Swedish tradition from the Parisian Versio vulgata of ca 1200.
It comes in 5 columns: Greek text, Versio vulgata, Swedish 1526, 1917 and 1981/2000. Quotes would be no use, but I can give you the statistics ;=)
In the NT there are 45 porneía in the Greek against 47 “unchas-tity” in the translations…
The extras are Romans 13:13 Koítais; Beds (I suggest you look that one up!), and 2 Peter 2:14 moixalídos; "their (masc.) eyes are full of disloyalty".
Of the 45 remaining, 32 are 2nd century (no less than 14 in Rev).
33 (most 1st century) + 12 pornä refer to the II Commandment = Idolatry,
10 (all 2nd century) refer to the VII Commandment = the House Congregation/the Body of Christ (1 Cor 6:18) as Household.
5 of the 33 II Commandment moixeía refer to the customer into sacral prostitution,
to which comes the 12 pornä; the poor unfortunate women sold to the Temple for this kind of Idolatry (still around in India). Of these 12 pornä, 9 are 2nd century (5 in Rev).
The Versio vulgata (I have used the 1895 online, for simplicity’s sake) renders most porneía as fornicatio (a loanword from the same root: por/per), but 2 as prostitutione/is.
Moreover, it has an added fornicatione (in Romans 1:29).
To which comes 1 porneía rendered as homicidae (Rev 22:15), which gives the ideology away: to 1st Millennium Hellenists little boys will end up in Limbus infantorum whenever Sperm (concei-ved of as seeds ;=) is wasted for non procreative purposes = MURDER! (to the straight edge Gnosticists procreation meant bringing an Angel down forcibly from Bliss near The Highest Being cloaking it in the DUST of the Vale of Tears...).
The Swedish 1526 has 10 ”hor-” (including 5 additional) which formally are from the root per-/por-/forn-/hor. Against this comes 31 bolerij, which is the sexualized Scholastic understan-ding of the Parisian Versio vulgata.
To this come 4 skörheet/skörachtigheet/skörleffnat; madness, and 1 ”icke oäkta födde”; ”not born in bastardy” for the persons in John 8:41 who were not conceived in Cultic prostitution.
4 of the 47 Bible 2000 translations are (accidentally) from the actual root: per-/por-/forn-/hor; horat/horkarl, but still wrong ;=)
Conclusion: the proportions have been inverted.
The 10 porneías (all 2nd century) referring (in some sense) to the VII Commandment and translated as “unchastity” (in some sense), are correct.
But out of the 33 porneía referring to II Commandment Idolatry, not a single translation is correct (all are rendered as “unchasti-ty”), and only 4 are even based on the root per-/por-/forn-/hor (which never referred to Idolatry in Swedish).
Of 31 NT moixeía; disloyalty, all are rendered as “marriage breaking”, except:
2 horkarlar (from por-/per-/forn-/hor),
1 “do it themselves”,
1 “easy women” (this is the “their (masc.) eyes are full of disloyal-ty” of 2 Peter 2:14 ;=),
4 correctly: “disloyal” (Matt 12:39, Matt 16:4, Mark 8:38, Jacob 4:4).
So no, He does not “protect his word”.
And remember, that the Textus receptus (which has its merits being of the General Text) was much manipulated in the early 16th century. Erasmus and the others excised most of the late Byzantine additions, substituting them with the Scholastic additions from the Versio vulgata.
(which, BTW, means that they were fully aware of what they were doing ;=)
Also, à la Luther the NT 1526 puts certain NT deutero-canonicals (Heb, Jacob, Jude, and Rev) in their own section at the back, sta-ting:
“So far we have had the right and sure main books of the New Testament. But these four that here follow have had a different reputation in antiquity…” ;=)
Chris wrote: "... to undo most the Reformation and flies in the face of God tearing the Temple veil and opening the Gospel to the gentiles."
The other way around, surely? (but don't blame it on me)
Chris wrote: "Please feel free to do so, but please be honest and not use the Scripture for any case you try to make, as your trans-lation is worthless..."
I do my own translations, thank you.
But regarding worthless translations, let’s mention the NIV and all the other "Dynamic Equivalence" ones...
(before DE, there was no "gay" question in the churches – NO one put "homosexual" in a translation, isn't that reason to pause?)
NP wrote: "Yep...that is how we got Lambeth 1.10 – but you don't care about the view of "whole church" when it conflicts with what you want, do you, Erika?"
Intentionally corrupted DE translations and misdirected Bibli-cism ia chaotic meeting lead to Lambeth 1998 I:10 (remember there are 14 more non-binding "resolutions" from Lambeth 1998 ;=)
So no, He does not "protect His Word".
Only the other day (Epistle on 8th after Holy Trinity) I found that the words en Sarkí have been excised from the Last Swedish State translation (made by 2 converts to Rome) in 1 John 4:1-6, making an anti-Doketic statement Doketic.
(There are a few of these in the Johannine writs, as you know;=)
"Thus you can see which Spirit is from God; each Spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ is come "in human likeness" is from God, but the spirit which denies Jesus is not from God. It's the Spirit of Anti-Christ..."
The Docetist "in human likeness" should read en Sarkí; in the Flesh.
Now, Flesh is a Biblical concept, central to the Biblical understanding of Creation and so on.
So far I have found 38 different Pseudonyms for it in the 1981/2000...
The most amusing psudonyme for Flesh being "that way" ;=)
As the 1981/2000 is Dynamic Equivalent there is no concordance; one has to go through every verse...
I quite understand if you do not care much for the victims of hate crimes (or accept the category), but you must be able to see that this is a Soteriological and Theological point of no small consequence.
So, indeed. He does NOT protect his word written.