About

The reasons for the differences between older Bibles like the King James Version and newer Bibles like the New International Version have fascinated me ever since my studies in Theology at the University of Pretoria. (1974 – 82) I have great respect for Bible translators, but the differences are real, sometimes extraordinary so there must be good reasons for the differences. With more than 5600 Greek manuscripts and more than 19000 manuscripts in ancient translations to our avail, the original autographs of the New Testament can be established without doubt. I investigate the reasons behind the differences and publish the facts in a post every fortnight to enable my readers to judge for themselves. I love to make an informed decision based of facts.

Since 1973 I am married to my dear wife and greatest friend, Leah Page, founder director of Act-Up Support (actup.co.za) a prayer ministry for families struggling with drug, occult and other dependencies. We are blessed with two daughters and two sons, four grand sons and two grand daughters.

God is alive and omnipotent!

Glory to His Name!

Herman

10 Responses to About

  1. Ken Parker says:

    I have read “Born again or Born from above and found to be very well thought out. Have you studied classical or koine greek?

  2. Hi Herman,

    Good comment on Dan Wallace’s blog about works as evidence. I’ll follow you in my WordPress reader.

    On another note, does your wife’s ministry pray for those with “mobile addiction”, or “internet social site addictions”? These are just as addictive as Cannabis.

    • Hi Alex,
      Thanks for your words. It is an encouragement. Thanks for following my blog, may it be of value to you.
      In my wife’s ministry any addiction is addressed. We do not believe in a few intercessors doing the praying while the involved are sitting on their couches waiting for the results to come in. It will not help if you pray for my loved one and I do nothing. Therefore we add a name only if the parent commits to also take responsibility for an hour of intercession per week, praying with us according to our monthly prayer letter. In that way we stand together before God, and when two or three are together in His name, He promises to be with them!
      God bless,
      Herman.

  3. patmorgan says:

    I just read your 2013 post regarding the phrase “take up the cross” omitted in the NIV Mark 10:21. My Sunday School class studied this passage yesterday in the KJV and the question was asked “What did that phrase mean to the young man Jesus was speaking to, because He hadn’t been crucified yet and his sacrifice wasn’t yet known about.” No one in class responded. It seems to me that people Jesus taught would not have understood that phrase. It would only have meaning after His sacrifice, would it not?

  4. Jim Bob says:

    In response to Patmorgan, “Take up the cross” was relevant to the young man that Jesus was speaking to. The cross was used all the time by the Romans, and would be visible to this man frequently. He would have understood that the cross represents a death (a separation). That is why he was grieved and went away. He was not ready nor could he actually separate himself from his possessions. They meant more to him than anything else in this life and the next. Jesus knew that and therefore zeroed in on his greatest need. A savior. God Bless

    • Dear Jim Bob,
      Thank you for your comment.
      In this post I explained that by transposing this verse from Mark 8:34 into Mark 10:21, one draws the attention away from the main issue that Jesus addressed in this man’s life. Depending on his riches. What you are doing is to alter the meaning of the expression “take up the cross” so that it would fit the meaning it should convey in chapter ten. You are giving this phrase the new meaning “separation”, and that is not legitimate, though that is a way one could force it to serve the meaning of the verse. If we do keep this clause in chapter ten, then Jesus would have actually said to this man: “Sell your possessions, give it to the poor, and then you would have treasure in heaven. Then come, deem your life as of no value at all, and follow Me.” That does not fit. Jesus did not say “put your possessions on the cross”! That is what you propose in order to make this phrase fit.
      In Mark 8:34 the clinging to, versus devaluating of one’s life itself for the sake of following Jesus is in the focus. There taking up one’s cross, that is “deem your life itself as of no value” fits the context.
      And Pat,
      I trust that your question is also partly answered. For Jesus did not ask this man to deem his life as of not important enough to cherish and deem as of no value at all.
      As Jim Bob remarked, people in that time were well aware of the reality of being crucified by the Romans. In Mark 8 from where this phrase comes, it is fitting that Jesus would say that one could not cling to one’s life and still try to follow Him. Crucifixion did not start with Jesus. It was well known.
      God bless,
      Herman.

  5. Hello:

    I read your article about Rev. 22:14 and I wonder if you can help me where did you get the source from [below]:

    2. The Sahidic, the oldest translation, together with seven other ancient translations, including the Vulgate support “robes wash” while five ancient translations support “doing the commands”.

    So you are saying total 7 ancient translations like :

    5 ancient translations: “doing the commands”
    2 ancient translations “robes wash”

    Am I correct?

    Thanks and looking forward to hear from you about the source from The Sahidic.

    Gregory Ross

    • Dear Ross,
      thanks for visiting and commenting.
      My source for the information on the manuscripts is the United Bible Societies text where they list all Greek manuscripts as well as all ancient translations and the quotes of the old Church Fathers. In their list they mention the Coptic Sahidic together with 5 Old Latin translations and also the Vulgate and the Ethiopic, coming to eight translations supporting the reading of the washing of robes. “Doing His commands” is supported by one old Latin translation as well as two Syriac the Armenian and the Coptic Bohairic translations. That comes to five ancient translations. In total we have 12 ancient translation, 7 supporting “Robes wash” and 5 “doing commands”. I trust that you can see the table with all the manuscripts on your computer.
      The Sahidic dialect of ancient Egyptian was used in the Southern parts of Egypt, from Thebes and further South. It is important to realize that a translation proves that that specific version had been translated from a Greek source manuscript already in use. Therefore the translation goes back to an even older Greek source manuscript, unfortunately lost to us today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s