Bibical Texts: to be or not to be

[Hupomone10]

...
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
KJV

Here's a little clearer rendering of that passage:
Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. - NASB

Unless we are reading this as "anyone who adds to the KJV or textus receptus ... or takes away from the words of the KJV or textus receptus", I believe the argument really hinges on whether there is anything to the two streams of texts theory and whether the one stream that led to the KJV (textus receptus) can be shown to be better or whether the stream that led to the other translations (Alexandrian text?) can be shown to be better. The rest of the stuff obviously involves small points that can often be dismissed or justified.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Hupomone10]

And that's the dogmatic, ahistorical defense again. Historically, there is no dispute that the KJV is missing scripture in I Sam 11 and Psalm 145. Hence it is an errant translation.

I think he's got you on this one. Can I hear an honest rebuttal of this or an honest admission of it?

We can always search once again for that immaculate translation, all is not lost. The Israelites were without the scriptures for a while and then they found them again.

 

[His_disciple3]

Here's a little clearer rendering of that passage:
Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. - NASB

Unless we are reading this as "anyone who adds to the KJV or textus receptus ... or takes away from the words of the KJV or textus receptus", I believe the argument really hinges on whether there is anything to the two streams of texts theory and whether the one stream that led to the KJV (textus receptus) can be shown to be better or whether the stream that led to the other translations (Alexandrian text?) can be shown to be better. The rest of the stuff obviously involves small points that can often be dismissed or justified.

Just my thoughts.

and you would be exactly right if it were about what you and I thought, but this is not about what you and I think, this Is about the Text that represents the HOLY WORD of God, and how we determine which text is right, and which text is wrong or if both text are wrong, for both can't be right. for there is too much contradictions between the two text for Both to represent the HOLY Word of God. so we look to the Bible to help us determine the truth, God is truth, then if we determine which one could be of God, now we have a standard to compare the others with, keep in mind that Holy does means: Hallowed; consecrated or set apart to a sacred use, or to the service or worship of God. set apart we can't have 140 different translations that are set apart, then use 10, 50. 70 or all of them to come up with the true word of God. so we look for the determining factor; which one has kept the promises of God. the game; yours says but mine says determines nothing, because based on your opinion yours will always be right and to me mine will always be right.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You have, I trust, at least heard of textual criticism?

You speak as if we have no way to know which text was the original. On the contrary, scribes have specific habits when they copy, and by looking at various readings, we can tell which reading was original by determining which variation can understood as one of a short list of common scribal errors.

Haplographs are changes. Dittographs are changes. Glosses are changes. Additional honorifics are changes. Smoother readings are changes. Less seemingly problematic versions are changes. Less internally consistent versions are changes.

We may dispute which one of these best explains which reading, but many times the answer is simple and undisputed. If a piece of text which begins and ends with the a substantial string of the same letters is missing, the version missing it is in error. The scribe copied from the wrong spot, and omitted everything in between. It's really that simple.

 

[His_disciple3]

I think he's got you on this one. Can I hear an honest rebuttal of this or an honest admission of it?

We can always search once again for that immaculate translation, all is not lost. The Israelites were without the scriptures for a while and then they found them again.

they ain't got nothing they can't prove that their text didn't add those verses to the scriptures instead of the Kjb translators ommitting those scriptures. nothing from nothing still leaves nothing!

 

[His_disciple3]

You have, I trust, at least heard of textual criticism?

You speak as if we have no way to know which text was the original. On the contrary, scribes have specific habits when they copy, and by looking at various readings, we can tell which reading was original by determining which variation can understood as one of a short list of common scribal errors.

Haplographs are changes. Dittographs are changes. Glosses are changes. Additional honorifics are changes. Smoother readings are changes. Less seemingly problematic versions are changes. Less internally consistent versions are changes.

We may dispute which one of these best explains which reading, but many times the answer is simple and undisputed. If a piece of text which begins and ends with the a substantial string of the same letters is missing, the version missing it is in error. The scribe copied from the wrong spot, and omitted everything in between. It's really that simple.

says you and your test, but if your text was corrupt, who is to say that thoses verses were in there or not in there to begin with, it is just your word and those scholars that defend your text!! if you don't know who wrote the text then to say this looks alot like paul's writing, it is still assumption to say Paul wrote that text, if you don't know who wrote, you can't know without a doubt who wrote the text, it can be an very good educated guess, but it is still just that, A GUESS!!

 

[Epiphoskei]

In other words, you use the text of the KJV as the standard by which you will accept or dismiss textual criticism. Dogma, rather than history. There is nothing to be said to you if you will stare errors in the KJV in the face and rationalize them away due to your religious attachment to indefensible readings.

 

[His_disciple3]

Here's a little clearer rendering of that passage:
Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. - NASB

Unless we are reading this as "anyone who adds to the KJV or textus receptus ... or takes away from the words of the KJV or textus receptus", I believe the argument really hinges on whether there is anything to the two streams of texts theory and whether the one stream that led to the KJV (textus receptus) can be shown to be better or whether the stream that led to the other translations (Alexandrian text?) can be shown to be better. The rest of the stuff obviously involves small points that can often be dismissed or justified.

Just my thoughts.

Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. - NASB

Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
KJV
can you please show me where the Nasb is clearer than the KJB????

it was clear from scriptures that the woman at the well was talking with Jesus the Christ but let's look at the two versions and see which one was more clear on that She was indeed speaking with the promised Christ?

John 4:29

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not [a]the Christ, is it?”

Footnotes:

1. John 4:29 I.e. the Messiah

John 4:29

King James Version (KJV)


29Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?



this is not the Christ? Nasb or "is this not the Christ"? KJB

see the nasb didn't add a word or even take one away , they just moved one word from the middle of the statement, and put it in the front of the statement , and completely changed what was stated!! this is not the Christ?????

 

[His_disciple3]

I had a dream, that I was in a Bible study. My Pastor was doing the study, can't remember the text we were studying, but the focus was on one word "damnable" I remember weeping as the Pastor talked about the damnable, and I realized that the whole human race was damnable, the thought was that those that knew they were damnable were the ones that had turned to Jesus Christ as Lord. but many were deceived. I awoke from the dream with the last instruction from My Pastor saying that I needed to study "damnable" as it was applied in scriptures, the only place "damnable" is found is in 2 Peter. it talks about false prophets and false teachers with their "damnable" heresies. As I study 2 Peter. My thought is how do false prohets and/or teachers deceive people so easy,

In 1 kings 13, there was a man of God that was told to go somewhere and not to turn aside from His journey, to eat or drink. another man came along said He was a prophet from God, and that an Angel had told him to bring this man of God back to his house to feed him. and the man went, and because he was deceived by this false prophet, he died. doesn't say he died and went to hell, or heaven, just that he died. So he had the Word of God telling him one thing, and a false prophet telling him something contradicted of that Word of God. So how was this man deceived. he was given a choice of the Word of God to listen to, just as well as Eve was given a choice of which Word to believe in the Garden. She had been told by Adam what God had said, but she believed the false word from God over the true Word of God. as well as the man of God in 1 kings 13. so what is a damnable heresies: something that gives us a choice from the true word of God, and 2 Peter even said it will cause some to speak evil of the true Word of God, remind you of anything?? Nobody Had a problem with the Authorized KJB being the true Word of God for about 350 years. that was until another word of God/choice came along and contested the Authorized english version. and now we don't need any atheist to speak evil of the Word of God, just go to a church that don't use the 400 year old Bible, and you will get enough evil spoken against the Word of God. did they just take out the thee's and thou's like that they said, and no meaning or contents changed, well if they had we wouldn't have the problem, so if a damnable heresies is a Choice from the true Word given from God, could this be any version that would not be in accordance with the 400 year old English translation; the KJB? look at the text in 2 peter and you make the call!

2 Peter 2:1-3
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable *heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
KJV
the NIV the most popular, was at one time the only one with a copyright, so that they can make more money off it, other than when they orginal sell it. Another definition for heresies as one can see is disunion, has the modern day translations brought the Church together in union or split the Church in disunion?? so could the study of damnable lead us to the thought that anything that gives us a choice from the Word of God or causes disunion to the Church or causes the word of God to be spoken evil of be a damnable heresies, so Have I in a dream, been lead to Biblical instuction to stay away from many translations that don't even agree with one another, even though are all taken from the same manuscripts, that causes people to speak evil Of the Word of God, and causes disunion within the Body, so that there would now be Schism in the Body of Christ?

*heresies
NT:139
NT:139
<START GREEK>ai%resi$
<END GREEK> hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is); from NT:138; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion:
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

[Epiphoskei]

The KJV is not uncopyrighted. The UK crown holds it under perpetual copyright.

 

[His_disciple3]

Here's a little clearer rendering of that passage:
Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. - NASB

Unless we are reading this as "anyone who adds to the KJV or textus receptus ... or takes away from the words of the KJV or textus receptus", I believe the argument really hinges on whether there is anything to the two streams of texts theory and whether the one stream that led to the KJV (textus receptus) can be shown to be better or whether the stream that led to the other translations (Alexandrian text?) can be shown to be better. The rest of the stuff obviously involves small points that can often be dismissed or justified.

Just my thoughts.

well I am certainly not a scholar of any language, But I am basing what I say by people who were considered scholars, as they say that there was a corrupt text, that was called the minority text. that most scholars shuned from when Translating, then when it comes to english translations, we had the Authorized english translation for 350 years then someone said it is to hard to understand anymore, but did God say in His Word, if you seek wisdom change my Word, so you can find it, or did He say ask Me and I will give it to you! So I guess there was something too hard for God< He can't teach His children anymore in the ole english language, the other translation are easiler to understand was misleading also, check the grade levels on the new modern translations compare to the Ole English Transaltion (KJB) it checks in at aroung the 5th grade reading levels, changing the "thee's, ye's and the Thou's" didn't clear anything up but made it more confusing, now alot of places we can't tell if it is referring to one person or many, so that was two lies that many have shallowed and layed down the Holy Bible, as a result of these lies. and Not only do they lay it down but speak evil of it as if it ain't even a Holy Bible anymore!! so how could anyone find anything wrong with the new preversions, we don't have to debate which text is good just look at the Church since the 1950's when the new preversions came out, do we have any more barn raisings, when Someones house burns down, does the whole neighborhood stop and help rebuild it. the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer, and I am not talking about the World, I am talking about the Church since 1950"s or since we have picked up the easiler to understand word of God, are we as Christians supposed to take the easy way out or seek wisdom as hidden treasure(PROV 2) , it is not the same treasure anymore For some have changed the Map, just my thoughts!

 

[Epiphoskei]

You've crafted a narrative with very little in the way of facts when quoting these anonymous "scholars" who tell you to believe as you believe.

Moreover, why do you believe those "scholars" instead of the entire body of modern scholarship? Besides the fact that they agree with what you want to conclude to be fact, that is.

 

[WinBySurrender]

The KJV is not uncopyrighted. The UK crown holds it under perpetual copyright.

The British copyright only applies to Great Britain. In the rest of the world, the KJV is in public domain. Check "search God's word" dot org, info / copyright / bible / kjv dot html

 

[His_disciple3]

You've crafted a narrative with very little in the way of facts when quoting these anonymous "scholars" who tell you to believe as you believe.

Moreover, why do you believe those "scholars" instead of the entire body of modern scholarship? Besides the fact that they agree with what you want to conclude to be fact, that is.

I am sorry, lady but you need to check your facts a little closer, the modern scholars as you brag about, can't even agree amongst themselves, if so why so many different translations. As I have said before we can play the you said and I said game til He comes back, oh wait that is right according to your text we can't be sure that He is coming back, Right? but I like to say that the proof is in the pudding, look at the shape and the direction the Body of Christ/ the Church has went since 1950's when the scholars said that the King James is out dated , along with it is too hard for our generation to understand and you need to lay it down and use these modern day perversions. for we have just took out the thee's and thou's and made it easier to undestand. so they lied to get us to pick up their bible. they said the word of God was too hard to understand. they spoke evil of the Authorized English version of the Holy scriptures and many shallowed this lie. and these are the same scholars that you want me to trust now!!! also I have stated which you can't seem to comprehend if The modern day scholars used a corrupt text then it don't matter how smart they are or how much they know about their text, can a bitter water produce sweet water, a little leaven will leaven the whole Lump! a computer is only as good as the programmer, or what data has been supplied to the computer, the same with scholars and translators. if their source is faulty then their product will be faulty also!!

 

[Epiphoskei]

If your goal was to be as dishonest and offensive as possible in order to get me to unsubscribe from this thread, congratulations, you have succeeded.

I don't know why any such behavior is supposed to convince anyone to follow your beliefs, though...

 

[WinBySurrender]

Of all the possible divisive, polarizing discussions that can take place, the "KJV Only" or "Not KJV Only" argument is the worst. Unless it is "Once Saved, Always Saved" or not, or the tongues debate, or any one of a myriad divisive and polarizing discussions. People are convinced they are right and nothing will convince them otherwise. So why don't we all just agree to disagree about things that are not salvation oriented and vow to be Christlike? Or is that too hard to do?

God bless

 

[His_disciple3]

Of all the possible divisive, polarizing discussions that can take place, the "KJV Only" or "Not KJV Only" argument is the worst. Unless it is "Once Saved, Always Saved" or not, or the tongues debate, or any one of a myriad divisive and polarizing discussions. People are convinced they are right and nothing will convince them otherwise. So why don't we all just agree to disagree about things that are not salvation oriented and vow to be Christlike? Or is that too hard to do?

God bless

well, right before he slew the giant, David asked a question about, the giant out there, that speaking evil against the God that he served. He asked is that not a cause to defend God ? seeing that testament means testimony. to Speak evil of the testimonies of God, is the same to speak evil of God! I will answer your question with a question! IS THERE NOT A CAUSE? of course there is a big difference here between the gaint and Epiphoskei. the Giant was a known enemy of God not someone who claimed to be a child of His!

and don't look now but "once saved always saved" is salvational oriented

 

[WinBySurrender]

well, right before he slew the giant, David asked a question about, the giant out there, that speaking evil against the God that he served. He asked is that not a cause to defend God ? seeing that testament means testimony. to Speak evil of the testimonies of God, is the same to speak evil of God! I will answer your question with a question! IS THERE NOT A CAUSE?

Once more, with clarity, please.

 

[His_disciple3]

Once more, with clarity, please.

well, let's see! if an atheist says that there is no God, the Holy Bible is just made up by men, are we to agree to disagree? now if a Christian says that the Authorized English Version is not of God , but made up by man, and is full of errors, we are to agree to disagree? and if we don't then we are partaking in one Of all the possible divisive, polarizing discussions that can take place! NOT!! is this clear enough?

 

[WinBySurrender]

well, let's see! if an atheist says that there is no God, the Holy Bible is just made up by men, are we to agree to disagree? now if a Christian says that the Authorized English Version is not of God , but made up by man, and is full of errors, we are to agree to disagree? and if we don't then we are partaking in one Of all the possible divisive, polarizing discussions that can take place! NOT!! is this clear enough?

All translations are imperfect by the mere fact of the matter that they are translations. But just to give an example or two ...

1 Cor 11:29 in the KJV reads For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord&#8217;s body.

Clearly the word krima should be translated "judgment" as it is elsewhere (even in the KJV) translated.

Romans 7:6 in the KJV reads But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

All Greek texts show the word apothnesko (to die) modifying "we", not "the Law." The law is not dead, but rather we are dead to the Law.

To be fair, all translations have errors to one extent or another. None of them accurately translate John 15:2, which quotes Jesus thusly: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away ; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit."
They all say "takes away" even though the Greek word is airo, which means "to elevate, lift up, raise, take up from the ground." This is consistent with His example of the vinedresser. The vinedresser is responsible for keeping the branches of the vine healthy, clean, and fruit bearing. It is easy to see why Jesus used the analogy, but it is a shame none of our modern translations seem to click on what He actually said.

None of this in any way takes from the veracity of the Bible. By comparing the thousands of Greek manuscripts we can be assured that the integrity of the original Greek autographs is preserved in the mainstream versions we have today, and it appears to me that the major paraphrases are consistent as well. Having the different versions provides an excellent foundation for the believer to live in Christlikeness and be a good witness for Christ.