Bible Translations

[DeaconDean]

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.

No sir, you came in the Baptist area, running your mouth.

You said salvation is by the KJV.

You said the way to heaven is by Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -Acts 4:12 (KJV)

You cannot be saved by the name KJV!

Salvation is/was/always will be a work done in us by God.

God draws -John 6:44

The Holy Spirit convicts -John 16:8

Jesus Saves.

It's just that simple.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Then all theology is flawed.

Brother, this is getting sad.

The doctrines that Christianity has stood on since the resurrection of Christ, still stands.

The are not errors per se, but errors in copying.

We know for a fact, the KJV translators used Codex D, Theodore Beza's codex. And it can be also shown that as many as 18 different scribes worked at editing the text.

One of the earliest Greek MSS to be discovered only dates to AD 170, and it is only a fragment.

We also know that Erasmus' work, was used as the baseline for nearly all bibles that followed.

And, we can also show that at least in one place, the printers inserted word(s) that still exist to this day.

The johannine comma did not exist until the next to last edition of Erasmus' work.

In and of itself, this is no biggy as there are numerous places that teach this doctrine. So why is it still included?

Then there is the debate on the last nine verses of Mark 16. Are they original or not?

What is a napkin?

Brother, the core doctrines of Christianity still stand. With the exception of the Nicene Creed's statement on baptism and the "universal-catholic" church, nothing there has changed since AD 325.

The KJV is reliable. The KJV is trustworthy. We can follow what it says.

But is it perfect? No!

Is there a "perfect" version out there?

No!

The only "perfect" version that man ever had was the ones that the Apostles themselves penned by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And those were lost many, many centuries ago.

I'm sorry your being obtuse(deliberate) about this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

There are Aramaic manuscripts that go back to the time of the ECFs that have not been altered by them, as early as some of the oldest Greek manuscripts.

That is true. Have you ever heard of (or read) the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?

Opening paragraph X:
"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture."

Fundamentalists in 1878 said the same thing.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

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

Debatable at best.

The Syriac version, otherwise know as the Peshitta dates only to around 160-180 AD.

The p52, (John Rylands Fragment) dates to AD 96, and the manuscript dates to around AD 125!

Source

The p90, p98, p102 date from around the same time as the Peshitta. (AD 150-200)

The Syriac OT still dates after the LXX:

"3. Syriac Old Testament

But what Theodore of Mopsuestia says of the Old Testament is true of both: "These Scriptures were translated into the tongue of the Syrians by someone indeed at some time, but who on earth this was has not been made known down to our day" (Nestle in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 645b). Professor Burkitt has made it probable that the translation of the Old Testament was the work of Jews, of whom there was a colony in Edessa about the commencement of the Christian era (Early Eastern Christianity, 71 ff). The older view was that the translators were Christians, and that the work was done late in the 1st century or early in the 2nd. The Old Testament known to the early Syrian church was substantially that of the Palestinian Jews. It contained the same number of books but it arranged them in a different order. First there was the Pentateuch, then Job, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah followed by the Twelve Minor Prophets, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and lastly Daniel. Most of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament are found in the Syriac, and the Book of Sirach is held to have been translated from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint.

4. Syriac New Testament

Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there. The tendency of recent research, however, goes to show that Edessa, the literary capital, was more likely the place.

If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii) that Hegesippus "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel," we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer. One thing is certain, that the earliest New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena--2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation--but the whole of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. These were at a later date translated and received into the Syriac Canon of the New Testament, but the quotations of the early Syrian Fathers take no notice of these New Testament books.

From the 5th century, however, the Peshitta containing both Old Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as the national version of the Syriac Scriptures. The translation of the New Testament is careful, faithful and literal, and the simplicity, directness and transparency of the style are admired by all Syriac scholars and have earned for it the title of "Queen of the versions."

Source

Sorry dude.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[now faith]

Brother, this is getting sad.

The doctrines that Christianity has stood on since the resurrection of Christ, still stands.

The are not errors per se, but errors in copying.

We know for a fact, the KJV translators used Codex D, Theodore Beza's codex. And it can be also shown that as many as 18 different scribes worked at editing the text.

One of the earliest Greek MSS to be discovered only dates to AD 170, and it is only a fragment.

We also know that Erasmus' work, was used as the baseline for nearly all bibles that followed.

And, we can also show that at least in one place, the printers inserted word(s) that still exist to this day.

The johannine comma did not exist until the next to last edition of Erasmus' work.

In and of itself, this is no biggy as there are numerous places that teach this doctrine. So why is it still included?

Then there is the debate on the last nine verses of Mark 16. Are they original or not?

What is a napkin?

Brother, the core doctrines of Christianity still stand. With the exception of the Nicene Creed's statement on baptism and the "universal-catholic" church, nothing there has changed since AD 325.

The KJV is reliable. The KJV is trustworthy. We can follow what it says.

But is it perfect? No!

Is there a "perfect" version out there?

No!

The only "perfect" version that man ever had was the ones that the Apostles themselves penned by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And those were lost many, many centuries ago.

I'm sorry your being obtuse(deliberate) about this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I do not think it is sad,iron does sharpen iron.
If I learn from this then bless God.
I must ask is Christ Blood the atonement for our sins?

 

[now faith]

now faith,

Your whole response is a red herring fallacy. Not once did you refer to the exegesis I had provided of 1 John 3:9 to refute your view.

When you change the topic like this, we cannot have a logical conversation when you do not engage with the information I provided to counter what you wrote about the meaning of 1 John 3:9 (NIV).

Oz

I must ask ,is the Blood of Jesus atonement for our sins?
This question is based on your opening sentence in your response to the verse in St John I posted.
Are we washed in the Blood of the Lamb?

This question goes beyond finding a text in a garbage can,and it's being true.

 

[DeaconDean]

I do not think it is sad,iron does sharpen iron.
If I learn from this then bless God.
I must ask is Christ Blood the atonement for our sins?

According to Heb. 9:11-18, yes.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

This question is based on your opening sentence in your response to the verse in St John I posted.

And you got my answer too.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

I must ask ,is the Blood of Jesus atonement for our sins?
This question is based on your opening sentence in your response to the verse in St John I posted.
Are we washed in the Blood of the Lamb?

This question goes beyond finding a text in a garbage can,and it's being true.

Red herring fallacy again. It's a smoke screen.

 

[DeaconDean]

1 John: 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

So, your going to tell me since the day of your salvation, you have never sinned?

We are joint heirs in the body of Christ by his Blood.

And what has that to do with the question at hand?

God cannot look upon sin ,therefore we through Christ have been redeemed from the flawed sin nature into the perfection of the body of Christ.

Correct, Paul said we have been freed from the bondage to sin.

All men have sinned ,but Christ has made us sinless by his Blood.

It is called grace.

No, your sins have been forgiven, cast as far as the east from the west.

Wrong, that is a mark, sinless perfection, that not even the Apostles could achieve.

We are not perfect, and never will be as long as we live in this body of fleash.

The only time we'll be perfect will be when either He returns and we are made like Him, or we are resurrected and then made like Him.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[now faith]

Red herring fallacy again. It's a smoke screen.

A question is not a red herring or logical fallacy.
If it were indeed a debate you would proclaim straw man ,in order to distract the point.
What I would consider a strawman if this were a debate,would be unfounded proclamation, or any other statement that eludes the question.
I am partisapating in this discussion, because it seems to me that theven people who use the King James are being persecuted more and more.
I was told by my friend a Baptist Pastor that his church is not right for me due to my using the King James.
I had visited there and took part in a mission with them,until he found out what Bible I use.
I have been attending a nondenominational Church for 7 years now ,and they preach from the King James but do not throw fire balls at members with other translations.
In the 7 years I have been there our Pastor has not done a Bible sermon.
The assistant Pastor quoted from the ESV one Wednesday night in all the years I have been there.
We agree to disagree on a couple of topics ,but we are good friends still.
Our Pastor is a teacher who uses examples to make his point.
Our assistant Pastor is a Preacher who Preaches on Jesus and the Blood ,in this is the only way for salvation.
I whole heartedly agree with him.

 

[now faith]

So, your going to tell me since the day of your salvation, you have never sinned?



And what has that to do with the question at hand?



Correct, Paul said we have been freed from the bondage to sin.



No, your sins have been forgiven, cast as far as the east from the west.

Wrong, that is a mark, sinless perfection, that not even the Apostles could achieve.

We are not perfect, and never will be as long as we live in this body of fleash.

The only time we'll be perfect will be when either He returns and we are made like Him, or we are resurrected and then made like Him.



God Bless

Till all are one.

As with the first Adam who through disobedience sin entered the world,we have everlasting life from the last Adam who took away the sins of this world.

John: 1. 29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Would the Holy Spirit dwell in sin?
Romans: 4. 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans: 4. 21. And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.


Galatians: 3. 22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

1 Timothy: 2. 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Thessalonians: 5. 18. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19. Quench not the Spirit. 20. Despise not prophesyings. 21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22. Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

I believe that being in this world ,we must apply the act of sanctification on our lives daily.
As some say to crucify the flesh daily.

God Bless you.

 

[DeaconDean]

I believe that being in this world ,we must apply the act of sanctification on our lives daily.
As some say to crucify the flesh daily.

Of that, you get no debate.

However, as to your posing the passage in 1 John, let me show you why your wrong.

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." -1 John 3:8-9 (KJV)

Peter sinned, after the resurrection and after he was saved in that he directly disobeyed God:

"Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven." -Acts 11:7-10 (KJV)

Three times in this passage, Peter disobeyed God.

In Antioch, Paul confronted Peter:

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" -Gal. 2:11-14 (KJV)

Here, Paul accused Peter of being a hypocrite. And the scriptures says:"because he was to be blamed". Paul is saying Peter was guilty.

But lets not leave Paul out. Paul, being a Pharisee, educated at the feet of Gamaliel knew the Law, perhaps better than the Apostles but not as good as Jesus. When brought to the Sanhedrin, "the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth." (Acts 23:2) To wit, Paul retorted:

"God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." -Acts 23:3-5 (KJV)

This same Paul who said "To the Jew I become as a Jew that I might gain the Jews". Paul sinned in cursing the high Priest.

Earlier on, Paul was told:

"who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem." -Acts 21:4 (KJV)

And afterwards:

"And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." -Acts 21:10-11 (KJV)

Two perhaps three times, Paul disobeyed and sinned.

If we take 1 John 3:8-9 just as they say, we have no recourse than to say that Peter and Paul, Paul the one who wrote 66% of the New Testament, were not saved because after the point of salvation, they sinned.

There, you have your answer.

Sinless perfection, entire sanctification is a myth. But it shouldn't mean we shouldn't try.

Entire Sanctification, B.B. Warfield

How many times did Peter sin after the resurrection?

How many times did Paul sin after Jesus called him?

And what did Paul teach while he was on his way to Rome?

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." -Rom. 7:17-25 (KJV)

Have you not sinned once since the point of salvation?

Are you so sanctified and filled with the Holy Spirit that you cannot sin anymore?

If you are/have, then your better than the Apostles, for they couldn't do it!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Dave-W]

I have found R. Laird Harris’s statement helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

‘Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it' (Harris 1969:88-89).
Oz

That is a great analogy.

But another step could take it to a local tool and die shop and have a die maker measure it with a micrometer. Mine is maxed out at one inch but many have them that will measure up to 12", and some of them can measure to 5 decimal places. (hundred thousandth of an inch - .00001) My vernier calipers that only measure to the nearest .001 " are called "proximity sticks."

 

[visionary]

Matthew, also called Levi, composed a gospel of Yeshua published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain.

Jerome states in Lives of Illustrius Men, ch 3 "The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it."

I believe the gospels were all originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic because of the sacredness of the contents, and the gathering of believers in Jerusalem and Israel. Later it was translated for those who lived in diaspora, reading and writing Greek. Paul's writings on the other hand were specific to those in diaspora and I would not be surprised to find out that the originals were in Greek.

 

[visionary]

The earliest Greek Manuscript that contains the word Christian dates only to 450 A.D.

Here is a scan of that one...

Acts 11:26

 

[DeaconDean]

The earliest Greek Manuscript that contains the word Christian dates only to 450 A.D.

Here is a scan of that one...

Acts 11:26

And?

As I showed another person here. There are Greek MSS that go back as far as the early 2nd century.

"Matthew 1, 19, 21, 25, 37, 45, 53, 64, 67, 70, 77, 101, 103, 104

c. 150–250 (2nd–3rd century)"

Source

I can also show:

"P52 (John Rylands Fragment), Contents: John 18.31-33; 37-38; Date of Original: 96 AD; Date of Manuscript: 125 AD

Source

Now, if you want to talk about a complete Codex of the NT, then it is the Codex Sinaiticus.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Matthew, also called Levi, composed a gospel of Yeshua published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain.

Can you provide a source?

Jerome states in Lives of Illustrius Men, ch 3 "The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it."

I believe the gospels were all originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic because of the sacredness of the contents, and the gathering of believers in Jerusalem and Israel. Later it was translated for those who lived in diaspora, reading and writing Greek. Paul's writings on the other hand were specific to those in diaspora and I would not be surprised to find out that the originals were in Greek.

Then explain to me, if they were so sacred, if they were preserved, then explain why it took the Peshitta until the middle of the 2nd century to arrive?

And lets not forget the arguments that arise from the "Peshitta Primacy" arguments.

"Many Peshitta Primacy advocates claim that the Peshitta dates back to the first few centuries AD. Since it’s written in Classical Syriac, and Syriac was spoken at that time, it seems logical that the text could be that old. The problem, however, is that not all Syriac is equal.

If the Peshitta was written right after Jesus’ lifetime, one would expect the dialect to match up with other inscriptions from the first few centuries. This particular dialect of Syriac is known as Old Syriac, * and is attested in about 80 different inscriptions. So when we compare the two what do we find are some very curious and telling differences."

* This is not to be confused with the dialect of the “Old Syriac” Gospels. They are in early Classical Syriac and are merely “Old” relative to the Peshitta. Aramaic nomenclature can sometimes be problematic due to points of reference. For example, one often refers to “Eastern” and “Western” Syriac, but both of these dialects are Eastern Aramaic languages. (They are merely “eastern” and “western” when compared to each-other.)

Source

But lets face that fact. The date of the p52 shows that at the end of the 1st century, there was/were Greek manuscripts being passed around.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Goodbook]

Did I answer this one?

Deerglow...
1. KJV
2. KJV
3. KJV

Lol. You cant go wrong with these top 3.

 

[Newsgurl]

My favorites are 1. New living translation 2. New international version 3. English standard version. I actually have three different versions of bibles at home so I can see how different they word stuff.