Who Changed Genesis?

[DamianWarS]

Without the aid of the English translations, I believe we really are just trusting in what certain scholars say on what the Hebrew and Greek means by faith, and not all scholars agree. We either believe God preserved His Word in the world language today or He did not preserve it and His Word only exists in a language that nobody today can pick up such a book out of the blue and understand it. But is that how God does things?

"And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it." (Habakkuk 2:2).

How is this verse true today?

Can a person off the street just pick up a Hebrew and Greek only Bible and read it plainly and run?

Surely not.

But they can do that with a King James Bible.

How exactly do you think the KJV was made? It just didn't descend from the heavens, it was translated by people who knew ancient Greek/Hebrew. You have to learn a language to understand it, this is no different with English. Can a Indonesian pick up the KJV off the street and understand it? Can a English speaker pick up an Indonesian Bible and understand it? Sure they can, but they need to learn the language first. This is no different with Greek/Hebrew.

 

[HARK!]

Catholics / Orthodox follow the LXX because it originally contained the Apocrypha. Yes, I am aware the KJV also contained it, but it was later removed because it was never regarded by true believers as an authoritative text (even at the creation of the 1611 KJV).

Who exactly are these true believers?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How exactly do you think the KJV was made? It just didn't descend from the heavens, it was translated by people who knew ancient Greek/Hebrew. You have to learn a language to understand it, this is no different with English. Can a Indonesian pick up the KJV off the street and understand it? Can a English speaker pick up an Indonesian Bible and understand it? Sure they can, but they need to learn the language first. This is no different with Greek/Hebrew.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So if Scripture was formed by the inspiration of God, then logically the preservation of Scripture would be under the same divine inspiration from God, too. If not, then we have no more Scripture or Word of God.

God is perfect.

I think we can both agree to that.

Where we disagree is that His Word is perfect.

I believe God's Word is a reflection of who is and what He does.
His Word lets us know about the faith.
We are born again not by corruptible seed, but by the incorruptible seed.
This is the communicated Word of God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who exactly are these true believers?

Answering this question on the forums can lead to getting points from staff action. So I cannot answer this question openly on the forums.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In case you didn't understand the first time; it's a forgery. It's not present in our earliest manuscripts. Someone added it later.

Fun story, if you're into fiction about Messiah. Personally, I consider such work Satanic.

You might follow this link to give you a better understanding: Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

While I do use Wikipedia on occasion, it is not always accurate and they list things from a secular perspective, or from what is popular. Again, I have already confirmed that the woman caught in the act of adultery is a part of God's Word. Your refusing to look at the verses I posted that confirms its inclusion is on you (if you refuse to believe these words in Scripture). Anyways, please go back and look at my previous post to you on this involving the verses post #113 here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No. Most modern translations are based on Nestlé Aland editions

No. You are only peeling back one layer of the onion and not realizing that there is another layer beneath it.

In the course of the twentieth century, textual critics, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini and others built on the works of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort and produced what is called the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek (NA/UBS) text. Metzger wrote:

"The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration" (James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th century, p. 264). ​

Source:
Aren't newer translations based on a better Greek text? - King James Version Today

 

[DamianWarS]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So if Scripture was formed by the inspiration of God, then logically the preservation of Scripture would be under the same divine inspiration from God, too. If not, then we have no more Scripture or Word of God.

God is perfect.

I think we can both agree to that.

Where we disagree is that His Word is perfect.

I believe God's Word is a reflection of who is and what He does.
His Word lets us know about the faith.
We are born again not by corruptible seed, but by the incorruptible seed.
This is the communicated Word of God.

The word of God is perfect, the translated version of that is less than perfect.

If you accept the preservation of God's word through the inspiration of the divine you should also accept the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate as divinely inspired and you should also accept modern translations as divine inspired in the same capacity. These arguments are not unique to the KJV in the slightest.

With your argument with ancient languages being lost and uncomprendable, Greeks can pickup a new testament and understand it not unlike English speakers can still understand the KJV and Hebrew speaking Israelis can read and understand Biblical Hebrew so long as it's written in Aramaic Square script (modern hebrew alphabet). There is no specialness the KJV adopts it was a game changer for the english speaking world but that doesn't mean it has retired the texts it is translated from.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Textual criticism they helped to formulate is not dependent on their college activities. KJV translators were anglicans, for infant baptism etc.

And King David committed murder and adultery, yet he wrote Scripture. God can use imperfect people to create and or preserve His Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word of God is perfect, the translated version of that is less than perfect.

If you accept the preservation of God's word through the inspiration of the divine you should also accept the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate as divinely inspired and you should also accept modern translations as divine inspired in the same capacity. These arguments are not unique to the KJV in the slightest.

With your argument with ancient languages being lost and uncomprendable, Greeks can pickup a new testament and understand it not unlike English speakers can still understand the KJV and Hebrew speaking Israelis can read and understand Biblical Hebrew so long as it's written in Aramaic Square script (modern hebrew alphabet). There is no specialness the KJV adopts it was a game changer for the english speaking world but that doesn't mean it has retired the texts it is translated from.

I prefer to believe that both the KJV and the original languages breath in harmony, but seeing we speak English (a modern day language), and we need to have a word that is more nailed down without questioning it or re-writing it; Otherwise we can just make up our own Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

that we get a watering down of:

• The Trinity.
• The Deity of Christ.
• The Incarnation.
• The Blood Atonement.
• Holy Living.

Actually, not true.

For example, John 1:18:
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
(the critical text)

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(KJV)

Who is against the deity of Christ now, ha?

Notice that I said, we get a watering down of..... the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc.

A watered down version type teaching will teach these truths but in a more diluted (watered down) way. 1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse that clearly talks about the Trinity and it is in the King James Bible but it is not found in most Modern Translations. If I was on an island and did not know about Christianity, and I only had one Bible wash up to shore, the best Bible to have to help me to understand the Trinity would be a KJV because it clearly tells me about the Trinity in 1 John 5:7.

The devil's name is also replaced for Jesus, and other holy things. If that does not bother, then by all means, trust in the Modern Translations (that all say something a little bit differently).

God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) (KJV).

The part that says "God" in this verse is removed in certain Modern Translations.

This is a problem because it is denying the Incarnation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They are saying there is no such thing as a perfect translation, biblical or not. They are also recognizing that languages change so with that translations change with them. A translation works inside a vacuum but if you take it out of the vacuum all kinds of other variables have bearing because time is not frozen and with that cultures and languages aren't frozen.

If there is no perfect translation, this means there is no perfect Word of God. No perfect Word of God means we get to decide what His Word says and it means God failed to preserve His Word for this generation today. His Word would not be pure words like the Bible says. I know they are pure words because their are many marks of the divine fingerprints of God found within the King James Bible, and the original languages (Hebrew / Greek - Textus Receptus).

 

[1213]

Who Changed Genesis?

No one.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word of God is perfect, the translated version of that is less than perfect.

If you accept the preservation of God's word through the inspiration of the divine you should also accept the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate as divinely inspired and you should also accept modern translations as divine inspired in the same capacity. These arguments are not unique to the KJV in the slightest.

With your argument with ancient languages being lost and uncomprendable, Greeks can pickup a new testament and understand it not unlike English speakers can still understand the KJV and Hebrew speaking Israelis can read and understand Biblical Hebrew so long as it's written in Aramaic Square script (modern hebrew alphabet). There is no specialness the KJV adopts it was a game changer for the english speaking world but that doesn't mean it has retired the texts it is translated from.

So where is your perfect Word of God today?
Or does it not exist?

 

[DamianWarS]

we need to have a word that is more nailed down without questioning it or re-writing it; Otherwise we can just make up our own Bible.

I have no idea what you mean by this. What is a nailed down word?

 

[DamianWarS]

If there is no perfect translation, this means there is no perfect Word of God. No perfect Word of God means we get to decide what His Word says and it means God failed to preserve His Word for this generation today. His Word would not be pure words like the Bible says. I know they are pure words because their are many marks of the divine fingerprints of God found within the King James Bible, and the original languages (Hebrew / Greek - Textus Receptus).

A copy has no ability to corrupt the original, and we may go to the original to confirm this.

 

[DamianWarS]

So where is your perfect Word of God today?
Or does it not exist?

The same place it was in 1610

 

[DamianWarS]

And King David committed murder and adultery, yet he wrote Scripture. God can use imperfect people to create and or preserve His Word.

Of course except for Westcott and Hort.

 

[solid_core]

Notice that I said, we get a watering down of..... the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc.

A watered down version type teaching will teach these truths but in a more diluted (watered down) way. 1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse that clearly talks about the Trinity and it is in the King James Bible but it is not found in most Modern Translations. If I was on an island and did not know about Christianity, and I only had one Bible wash up to shore, the best Bible to have to help me to understand the Trinity would be a KJV because it clearly tells me about the Trinity in 1 John 5:7.

The devil's name is also replaced for Jesus, and other holy things. If that does not bother, then by all means, trust in the Modern Translations (that all say something a little bit differently).

God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) (KJV).

The part that says "God" in this verse is removed in certain Modern Translations.

This is a problem because it is denying the Incarnation.

1 J 5:7 is not in old Greek manuscripts, it was added later by Erasmus. Its not even in the first versions of the Textus Receptus.

If you say that Jesus is the only begotten God (J 1:18), I fail to see how exactly you water down His deity.

 

[solid_core]

And King David committed murder and adultery, yet he wrote Scripture. God can use imperfect people to create and or preserve His Word.

Great. So you dismissed your own argument.

 

[solid_core]

No. You are only peeling back one layer of the onion and not realizing that there is another layer beneath it.

In the course of the twentieth century, textual critics, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini and others built on the works of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort and produced what is called the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek (NA/UBS) text. Metzger wrote:

"The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration" (James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th century, p. 264). ​

Source:
Aren't newer translations based on a better Greek text? - King James Version Today

You must study it more.

1. First versions of Nestlé Aland were based on three other editions, Westcot Hort included:
"In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece...
Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis. (After 1901 he replaced the latter with Bernhard Weiß’s 1894/1900 edition.) Where their textual decisions differed from each other Nestle chose for his own text the variant which was preferred by two of the editions included, while the variant of the third was put into the apparatus."

2. In the Nestlé Aland 25, they added comparing manuscripts and Church fathers:
"...started working for the edition by checking the apparatus entries against Greek manuscripts and editions of the Church Fathers. This phase came to a close in 1963 when the 25th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece appeared; later printings of this edition already carried the brand name “Nestle-Aland” on their covers."

3. Since Nestlé Aland 26, they have begun their own textual research and the text was no more based on other critical editions:
"The 26th edition, which appeared in 1979, featured a fundamentally new approach. Until then the guiding principle had been to adopt the text supported by a majority of the critical editions referred to. Now the text was established on the basis of source material that had been assembled and evaluated in the intervening period. It included early papyri and other manuscript discoveries, so that the 26th edition represented the situation of textual criticism in the 20th century."

4. Currently, they are doing the most complete work that has never done before - Editio Critica Maior - a complete examination of all known sources - manuscripts, papyri, quotes of fathers, commentaries of fathers and other:
"the text was established on the basis of all the relevant material from manuscripts and other sources..."

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

If you want to know real, complex, colorful facts about the world, you must not read just the KJVO manipulative, cherry-picking sources.