| Christian Scriptures A forum to discuss the Scriptures. |
 | | 
25th July 2007, 06:11 PM
|  | Regular Member
47      
| | Join Date: 24th March 2006 Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 268
Blessings: 84,775 My Mood 
Reps: 224,443,029,419,326 (power: 224,443,029,425) | |  Well said...
 Constantine, you are wise far beyond what your seventeen years would indicate! Yes, I too believe poor translations are at the root of many problems we've inherited with our current Bible. I do not see anyone stepping up to the plate to really correct this, however, and I am troubled by that. For what it's worth, since I'm a writer and have been a feature editor for an international publishing company for the last twenty years, the Documentary Hypothesis for the OT seems obvious to me now and indisputable. Once you divide the texts as per their original authors, you're left with versions of the early OT that make a lot more sense in light of who penned them and when they were recorded. And in light of that, some of it certainly does not seem "inspired" to me any longer. Other works, such as Enoch, impress me quite a bit and since a complete version of the ancient text wasn't known until 1773, it's easy to understand why early Church fathers didn't consider it for inclusion. It's obvious, if the Gospels are largely correct, that Jesus taught from Enoch and Enoch is the second most plentiful book in the Dead Sea Scrolls, proving its antiquity and importance. Things like that are why I suggest perhaps taking another look at the Canon. In light of known world history, things which we know to have occurred, what still rings true and what can be explained away as something concocted for the immediate gain of priests or scribes, be they Hebrew, early Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. Thanks to all for not throwing the "heretic" flag on me! Take care and God bless!  |
25th July 2007, 06:23 PM
|  | Minister of Christ
22  
| | Join Date: 19th July 2007 Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
Posts: 1,112
Blessings: 94,293
Reps: 57,084 (power: 63) | | Originally Posted by cyberlizard  the chart would be good were it not for the fact that the KJV is almost 400 years old (almost half a millenium) - the chart does not take into account all the more recent finds including the dead see scrolls.
either way, even if the manuscript evidence for the KJV is sound, the KJV was out of date when it was published, uses language no-one uses anymore and has some serious problems. Now I am allowed to comment on this being as it was produced for a monarch of my country.
the whole KJV only argument sucks - the truth is the differences between versions is not sufficient to throw them out. I for one would like to see a KJV only person highlight all the text differences (not just words) but grammar changes and PROVE once and for all that so called massive theological changes abound from them. I just cannot see it
The Dea Sea Scrolls are not the manuscripts used to translate modern Versions. As a matter of fact the Dead Sea Scrolls identify more with the KJV than the modern versions- they will not tell you that though.
All the modern versions remove verses which lay a foundation of true, and founded beliefs, i can list some of the differences.
I qoute:
"
February 11, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following material first appeared in O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 3, 1995.
Many contend that the modern Greek texts and the new versions do not change doctrine. These do not understand the nature of the changes which have been made. This is something akin to Neo-orthodoxy. The critical text is not a frontal attack on truth; it is a clever infiltration. The attack of the modern versions is not tanks blasting; it is termites eating. The modern versions don't wholly omit doctrines (unless it is the doctrine of fasting) but they undermine many doctrines, and doctrine in general, by deleting repetitious passages, omitting titles of Christ, deleting a key passage here and there, questioning other key passages--a little cut here, a little doubt there. It is easy to underestimate the overall effect. The eclectic Greek text upon which the modern versions are founded is a shorter text than the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. The modern text omits thousands of words and phrases, an amount of text equaling the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter.
The area of repetition is an interesting one. In Genesis 41:32 Joseph explains to Pharaoh why God repeated the dream. It was to reinforce the authority and impact of the message. Jesus Christ often used the term "verily, verily" to emphasize the importance of what He was saying. Many phrases are repeated almost to tediousness in the Bible. "They shall know that I am the Lord" in Ezekiel is an example. Peter's vision prior to his being sent to Cornelius shows how God uses repetition to reinforce a point. He repeated the vision three times. This is the purpose of biblical repetition. Yet the critical text and the modern versions reduce the repetition and thereby reduce the power and impact of God's Word in a subtle yet very real manner. For example, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 have the same warning that man lives by every word of God. That message is weakened in the modern versions by the omission of the last half of the verse in Luke 4:4. Christ's sermon on Hell in Mark 9 contains another example. That is a passage that shook me up before I was saved. It is probably the most powerful sermon on Hell in the Bible. Three times Christ repeated His warning that Hell is a place "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (verses 44,46,48). This sermon in the modern versions is not as hot. It is hot, because the fire is still there in verse 44, but it is not as hot as the sermon in the Received Text and the KJV, because verses 46 and 48 are omitted.
By removing some of the repetition of the Bible, the modern versions weaken the overall standard of doctrine. The critical text is shorter roughly by the amount of text equal to the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter. And the critical text is weak; it is soft; it is less forceful; overall it is more hesitant in presenting the great doctrines of the faith. It IS a theologically corrupt text."
Also see http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible...perversion.htm
I also have four charts that i could paste, if you wish i can paste them. |
25th July 2007, 06:40 PM
|  | Future Sailor.
22  
| | Join Date: 12th January 2007 Location: Washington
Posts: 11,801
Blessings: 5,258,320
Reps: 210,693,748,045,869,408 (power: 210,693,748,045,886) | | Originally Posted by Nachtjager Constantine, you are wise far beyond what your seventeen years would indicate! Yes, I too believe poor translations are at the root of many problems we've inherited with our current Bible. I do not see anyone stepping up to the plate to really correct this, however, and I am troubled by that. 
I'm not wise. I'm just one that can see beyond the initial problem; i.e. the roots of the problem.  Originally Posted by Nachtjager Other works, such as Enoch, impress me quite a bit and since a complete version of the ancient text wasn't known until 1773, it's easy to understand why early Church fathers didn't consider it for inclusion.
Enoch is part of the canon... if you're Ethiopian Orthodox. But to say that it wasn't found until 1773 is inaccurate since the Ethiopian Orthodox have been around a very long time and have used Enoch since I don't know when. What would be more accurate is to say that the Western world did not know of Enoch until 1773.
However why Enoch was not included outside Ethiopia is beyond me. Personally, I haven't read it. However, one can make educated guesses. Originally Posted by Nachtjager It's obvious, if the Gospels are largely correct, that Jesus taught from Enoch and Enoch is the second most plentiful book in the Dead Sea Scrolls, proving its antiquity and importance. Things like that are why I suggest perhaps taking another look at the Canon.
The West should take another look at their canon. After all, using Hebrew texts as opposed to Greek Septuagint (Apostles referred to Greek Septuagint because Greek back then was like what English is today) and taking out James' Epistle does lead to issues of doctrine and belief and eventually debates centered around decades old polemics.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. <--------I make that stuff! But will no longer in a month and a half so I can join the Navy! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The One True Old Posters of the Genuine Ancient Way in Exile From Christian Forums Resistance in Communion with Baklavas Synod in Exile Abroad
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
25th July 2007, 06:41 PM
| | Future Sailor.
22
| | Join Date: 12th January 2007 Location: Washington
Posts: 11,801
Blessings: 5,258,320
Reps: 210,693,748,045,869,408 (power: 210,693,748,045,886) | | Originally Posted by Jerrell The Dea Sea Scrolls are not the manuscripts used to translate modern Versions. As a matter of fact the Dead Sea Scrolls identify more with the KJV than the modern versions- they will not tell you that though.
Who is "they" in the bold?
Please do not post any more charts. The first one was obviously concocted out of hidden agendas and with no real knowledge of what actually happened during the first five centuries AD.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. <--------I make that stuff! But will no longer in a month and a half so I can join the Navy! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The One True Old Posters of the Genuine Ancient Way in Exile From Christian Forums Resistance in Communion with Baklavas Synod in Exile Abroad
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
25th July 2007, 07:46 PM
| | Lurking in the shadows...
 | | Join Date: 17th February 2007
Posts: 3,350
Blessings: 2,400,759 My Mood 
Reps: 123,400,269,011,716,160 (power: 123,400,269,011,724) | | Originally Posted by EmperorConstantine Please do not post any more charts. The first one was obviously concocted out of hidden agendas and with no real knowledge of what actually happened during the first five centuries AD.
That is exactly why I have ducked out of this thread...  |
25th July 2007, 09:56 PM
|  | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 21st June 2007 Location: California
Posts: 798
Blessings: 90,972
Reps: 8,030 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by KjellBjarne You're right that we'd never come to the table. The canon was settled over 1500 years ago. Were the folks who assembled it inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, there is no need to redefine it, because God surely isn't going to lead anyone to any different conclusion now than He did before. If if those folks weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit, Christianity has been mislead for over 1500 years by a false book.
It definitely it is not the latter, so it's the former... end of discussion.
IMHO those who settled it were inspired by their own greed and hunger for power. |
25th July 2007, 10:33 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
46 
| | Join Date: 28th November 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6,149
Blessings: 155,115
Reps: 105,291,347,172,269,648 (power: 105,291,347,172,284) | | Originally Posted by GodsChild07 IMHO those who settled it were inspired by their own greed and hunger for power.  Care to demonstrate how you arrived at such a 'humble' opinion? |
25th July 2007, 11:05 PM
| | Lurking in the shadows...
| | Join Date: 17th February 2007
Posts: 3,350
Blessings: 2,400,759 My Mood
Reps: 123,400,269,011,716,160 (power: 123,400,269,011,724) | | Originally Posted by GodsChild07 IMHO those who settled it were inspired by their own greed and hunger for power.
Wow, where to begin...
1) How do you know? Were you there?
2) How is that God has allowed so many billions to be mislead by what you are basically claiming to be a false book?
3) Why does your opinion on these men matter, and who put you in a position to judge them?
4) What are the sources of your faith, if not the Bible (and by extension, not Holy Tradition either)? |
25th July 2007, 11:12 PM
| | Minister of Christ
22
| | Join Date: 19th July 2007 Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
Posts: 1,112
Blessings: 94,293
Reps: 57,084 (power: 63) | | | I dont have time for version arguments. It's meaningless for me to argue with those who percieve to know and yet don't want to know. I will allow you to wallow in your ignorance as they tell you what they want you to know. And by they I mean those who pervert truth. When you desire to understand then i will speak with you, because the earnest seek knowledge. The fool says he knows all and need not know more. |
25th July 2007, 11:19 PM
| | Lurking in the shadows...
| | Join Date: 17th February 2007
Posts: 3,350
Blessings: 2,400,759 My Mood
Reps: 123,400,269,011,716,160 (power: 123,400,269,011,724) | | Originally Posted by Jerrell When you desire to understand then i will speak with you, because the earnest seek knowledge.
I have no idea who you are talking to with this post, but it doesn't matter - let me refute you with your own words, since you seem to think that you have this knowledge that others lack... Originally Posted by Jerrell The fool says he knows all and need not know more. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
