Bible Translations

[TaylorSexton]

I'll stick with what the Bible states on religion that God our Father accepts.

 

[DeaconDean]

denominations are demonic

Have you read Acts 15?

There is enough information there to discern that perhaps 7 years after Christs crucifixion, there were at least two (2) denominations at about AD 40.

One (1) comprised of Jewish Christians who observed at least a "reduced" Law.

And one (1) comprised of Gentile Christians who observed, rather were told by the first Apostolic Council that they only had to abide by little, mainly part of the dietary Law.



God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think the ONLY version that has even a snowball's chance of saying that is the most ancient of the Peshita manuscripts written in first century Aramaic, not Greek.

For more information on that I suggest that you read the Introduction section of George Lamsa's New Testament translation. He goes into great detail on the history of the various Aramaic versions, and why he used manuscripts that pre-date the TR and the Syriac by 3 centuries.

I really don't have the time to list all my sources, but I have been doing a study on textual criticism.

This is indeed the longest and deepest study I have thus far undertaken.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

NowFaith,

No-one here has said that the KJV does not contain the "Word of God".

I certainly haven't.

It would wrong to say that the ESV, RSV, or most other versions do not contain the "Word of God".

I would say however, that there is no one singular MSS of any type that contains it all.

Of the 5300 Greek MSS we have, not one agrees 100% with another.

In fact, the MT, did not exist until sometime around AD 900.

Erasmus' text formed a baseline for most to follow. However, even it had a few things wrong with it.

Like I said earlier, the KJV is reliable. It is probably somewhere between 97.9% and 99.7% accurate.

Of all the doctrines we as Christians hold to, none of then stand or fall on any of the disputed texts found in the numerous MSS.

What we (I) have said is that when a group of people say that the KJV is the "preserved word of God", and that it is the "perfect" word, they are wrong. When they say that the KJV is the only version you should use, it should be an opinion, not a doctrine. They in fact, make the KJV an idol. A version that should be worshipped.

As a licensed preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is my duty to study what each version says. Perhaps one version says it a little clearer than another. It is my duty to read the chapter before and after. It is my duty to read the Greek.

Brother, I was taught and I believe it with all my heart that when I get up to preach, what I say is what the scripture says.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The bible and the bible alone is the ONLY source for salvation, and I will ad that the KJV is the ONLY bible all else are satanic counterfeits!

This is a classic example of what I have been saying.

And here I was thinking that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Stupid me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[masmpg]

This is a classic example of what I have been saying.

And here I was thinking that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Stupid me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

If you would have quoted the whole post in context I did write that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. Are you only on here to argue and find fault? You pick a comment from a different thread and post it out of context just so you can look like the hero?

WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH!!!!! FAITH COMES BY HEARING THE WORD OF GOD!!!! WITHOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD THE KJV BIBLE THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS!!!!

 

[TaylorSexton]

WITHOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD THE KJV BIBLE THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS!!!!

I could just read the Greek and the Hebrew/Aramaic.

 

[DeaconDean]

If you would have quoted the whole post in context I did write that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. Are you only on here to argue and find fault? You pick a comment from a different thread and post it out of context just so you can look like the hero?

WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH!!!!! FAITH COMES BY HEARING THE WORD OF GOD!!!! WITHOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD THE KJV BIBLE THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS!!!!

That is not what you said.

The bible and the bible alone is the ONLY source for salvation, and I will ad that the KJV is the ONLY bible all else are satanic counterfeits! ...Jesus Who is the ONLY way to heaven.

The KJV Bible for salvation, and Jesus to get to heaven.

Two totally different things.

And who says the RSV, ESV, or any other version are "satanic"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH!!!!! FAITH COMES BY HEARING THE WORD OF GOD!!!! WITHOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD THE KJV BIBLE THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS!!!!

To the contrary: Without God's holy word in the original Greek NT manuscripts, there would be no recorded information about Jesus!

 

[GeorgeJ]

WITHOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD THE KJV BIBLE THERE WOULD BE NO JESUS!!!!

Really? Where was Jesus before King James directed "his" translation of the bible in 1611?

 

[DeaconDean]

Really? Where was Jesus before King James directed "his" translation of the bible in 1611?

I wonder how people got saved prior to 1611?

Did people get saved prior to 1611?

What did the church use prior to 1611?

Did God leave His church without any form of His Word until 1611?

Here are some facts on the KJV as we know it:

"Did the King James translators use this "textus receptus" as the basis for their translation?
No. Even the first Elzevir edition was not published until 13 years after the date of the KJV.

What was the Greek text on which the KJV New Testament was based?
It was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus
(Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550.

Was the text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based identical with the later "textus receptus"?
No. The two differed in 287 places.

How many Greek manuscripts agree exactly with the edition published by Stephanus, and how many agree exactly with the edition published by Elzevir?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with either of these. Both of them are conflate texts.

Were the scholars who prepared the King James Version convinced that their text was absolutely correct?
No. They recognized the possibility of copyists' errors, and showed this by making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." In Acts 25:6, where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days."

What was the source of most of the readings found both in the edition of Stephanus and in that of Elzevir?
Most of the readings in both of these follow the edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus, the great enemy of Luther, and published in 1516, the year before the Reformation began.

Should a denomination or association of churches oppose a version solely on the ground that it is not based on the textus receptus?
The important thing about a version is its accuracy in translating the text of the Bible. The KJV was greatly used of God for 300 years until much of its language became quite archaic, as the English language changed.

It is foolish to ask young people to learn the language of 300 years ago in order to read the Bible. Even mature Christians do not know what is meant by such phrases as "we do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1). and "thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Ps. 5:6). God's people need an accurate translation in the language of today. This is extremely vital. It is wrong to ask Christians to oppose a translation because it tries to follow the ancient manuscripts rather than a text based largely on Erasmus' edition. To do so is to make an idol of the textus receptus. or of the King James Version. God does not want His people to be idolaters!* (emphasis here mine, also see **)

*The preceding material was compiled by the late Allan A. MacRae, President and Professor of Old Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA. Copyright 1975.

** Which also re-enforces what I said previously: "When they say that the KJV is the only version you should use, it should be an opinion, not a doctrine. They in fact, make the KJV an idol."

Source

There is also the fact that today, the most popular, and the best selling version of the King James Version of the Bible is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

And guess whose material they use for their KJV bible?

"This Scrivener 1881 text is supposedly identical to the 1894 edition which was published posthumously and has been reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society."

Source

Funny, if you indeed are privileged to possess a true 1611 Authorized King James Version your sitting on a gold mine. And who, would dare to break it out and use it on a daily basis?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

I wonder how people got saved prior to 1611?

Did people get saved prior to 1611?

What did the church use prior to 1611?

Did God leave His church without any form of His Word until 1611?

Here are some facts on the KJV as we know it:

"Did the King James translators use this "textus receptus" as the basis for their translation?
No. Even the first Elzevir edition was not published until 13 years after the date of the KJV.

What was the Greek text on which the KJV New Testament was based?
It was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus
(Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550.

Was the text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based identical with the later "textus receptus"?
No. The two differed in 287 places.

How many Greek manuscripts agree exactly with the edition published by Stephanus, and how many agree exactly with the edition published by Elzevir?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with either of these. Both of them are conflate texts.

Were the scholars who prepared the King James Version convinced that their text was absolutely correct?
No. They recognized the possibility of copyists' errors, and showed this by making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." In Acts 25:6, where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days."

What was the source of most of the readings found both in the edition of Stephanus and in that of Elzevir?
Most of the readings in both of these follow the edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus, the great enemy of Luther, and published in 1516, the year before the Reformation began.

Should a denomination or association of churches oppose a version solely on the ground that it is not based on the textus receptus?
The important thing about a version is its accuracy in translating the text of the Bible. The KJV was greatly used of God for 300 years until much of its language became quite archaic, as the English language changed.

It is foolish to ask young people to learn the language of 300 years ago in order to read the Bible. Even mature Christians do not know what is meant by such phrases as "we do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1). and "thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Ps. 5:6). God's people need an accurate translation in the language of today. This is extremely vital. It is wrong to ask Christians to oppose a translation because it tries to follow the ancient manuscripts rather than a text based largely on Erasmus' edition. To do so is to make an idol of the textus receptus. or of the King James Version. God does not want His people to be idolaters!* (emphasis here mine, also see **)

*The preceding material was compiled by the late Allan A. MacRae, President and Professor of Old Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA. Copyright 1975.

** Which also re-enforces what I said previously: "When they say that the KJV is the only version you should use, it should be an opinion, not a doctrine. They in fact, make the KJV an idol."

Source

There is also the fact that today, the most popular, and the best selling version of the King James Version of the Bible is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

And guess whose material they use for their KJV bible?

"This Scrivener 1881 text is supposedly identical to the 1894 edition which was published posthumously and has been reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society."

Source

Funny, if you indeed are privileged to possess a true 1611 Authorized King James Version your sitting on a gold mine. And who, would dare to break it out and use it on a daily basis?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Did people get saved reading the Latin Vulgate, which was much, much earlier than the KJV?

By the way, a copy of the KJV of 1611 is available for purchase today as a popular size Bible. A fellow in a church I used to attend was pressing people to get that version. He was a KJVonlyist.

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Did people get saved reading the Latin Vulgate, which was much, much earlier than the KJV?

My point also.

By the way, a copy of the KJV of 1611 is available for purchase today as a popular size Bible. A fellow in a church I used to attend was pressing people to get that version. He was a KJVonlyist.

Oz

BTW, my comment was intended to be read not a reprint of the 1611 AKJV, but rather, if somebody had a real, first edition of the 1611 AKJV.

Not to many years ago, Gardner-Webb University (I think) or perhaps Duke University, was given a first edition of the Geneva Bible.

Know how much that was worth?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[now faith]

So tell me what is the inspired Word of God,unyielding infallible?
As with any language over time,slang and ubonics become the norm.
With the update on God's Word does it change the meaning?
Example 1940s musicals often used the word gay as being joyfull,today being gay means you are a homosexual.
The King James calls men who lay with men Sodomite, The ESV calls them temple prostitutes.
Is this a better translation?

As far as the Vulgate goes during its time you did what the Church said to do or suffer.

I wonder how reformed we are today.

 

[now faith]

What I personally believe ,is people do not want to yield to a unchanging God,so they have to change his Word.
Why would we trust a progressive Bible from Egyptian manuscripts?
So we do not understand proper English?
So we need to modernize Gods Word?
I do not condemn others for what they choose to read,but I will defend my choice among scoffed.
No I do not believe the earth is flat.
You do not need to be a graduate of Seminary to Preach or understand God's Word.
God's Word is given by the Spirit for comprehension, aside from the removing Christ from the God Head in the numerous translations, I suppose God could guide you in all truth with modern-day translation.

The Geneva Bible was a tremendous work inspired by God,so good that Huss was burned at the stake over it.
It was the beginning of the ecclesiastical Reformation in my opinion, due to the zeal others had at trying to destroy it,and the errors that were pointed out in the Vulgate.
Yet it was not a perfect work due to promotion of Wycliffes interpretation, and doctrine.

 

[OzSpen]

So tell me what is the inspired Word of God,unyielding infallible?
As with any language over time,slang and ubonics become the norm.
With the update on God's Word does it change the meaning?
Example 1940s musicals often used the word gay as being joyfull,today being gay means you are a homosexual.
The King James calls men who lay with men Sodomite, The ESV calls them temple prostitutes.
Is this a better translation?

As far as the Vulgate goes during its time you did what the Church said to do or suffer.

I wonder how reformed we are today.

The autographa!

 

[Dave-W]

The autographa!

Which - unfortunately, are no longer in existence.

 

[GeorgeJ]

Yet it was not a perfect work due to promotion of Wycliffes interpretation, and doctrine.

There are no perfect bible translations. None.

 

[masmpg]

That is not what you said.



The KJV Bible for salvation, and Jesus to get to heaven.

Two totally different things.

And who says the RSV, ESV, or any other version are "satanic"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

So, if you want to split hairs over "salvation" and "get to heaven" so be it. They are in fact one in the same. Without salvation we will not get to heaven. Salvation comes by the grace of God through FAITH and faith comes by hearing, understanding, praying about, and studying the word of God to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Please quote tome Matthew 18:11 in the ESV or the RSV! In Revelation John warns that anyone who takes away from the words of the prophecy of that book God will take away his portion from the tree of life. I believe that he is referring to the whole bible. There are 8 verses deleted from the NT in the RSV and the ESV and the old NIV and most of the rest of the westcott and hort satanic translations. The "new and 'improved'" NIV which has been updated three times since it cursed God's dear church, has 18 verses complete yanked out of the NT alone and thousands of verses have been changed so drastically that the meaning is opposite from the original meaning. It matters not to me what anyone's opinion is on this matter but when it comes down to arguments about translation errors, which the westcott and hort are full of the KJV is the ONLY source for the real truth. You can argue greek and hebrew all you want to but we are not required to read nor understand that. I have the faith to know that God gave us the KJV and protected the manuscripts for it from the beginning.

You know, it is much more uplifting to find common ground before attacking people. Do you think you can win people to Christ by finding fault with everything they say or write? Paul said this in 1Corinthians:1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." This IS the Christian experience. The disciples argued who will be the greatest all the way up until Jesus ascended to heaven. The ONLY way that were given the Holy Spirit during the time of pentecost was by confessing their faults to each other and weeping in the upper room for 10 days. The disciples were finally "of one accord, and in the same place" before they received the Holy Spirit power. They held everything in common so that nothing was their own. This is the spirit that God will power out the latter rain on.

 

[masmpg]

To the contrary: Without God's holy word in the original Greek NT manuscripts, there would be no recorded information about Jesus!

Sorry but there is not such thing as "original" greek new testament manuscripts because the new testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The septuagint was the greek translation of the Hebrew new testament!