Aussie Church Failing?

artofwar · Jul 29, 2004

well again we will have to agree to disagree
so what do you think of the NKJV then?

also could you explain this more?

Very subtely, verses have been taken out of the NIV which are in the KJV. Mat17:21,
Luke22:21 are to name the two I stumbled across. For that reason, I burned the NIV

.

Bevlina · Jul 29, 2004

I have the New King James study Bible art, and that lines up with the KJV of course.
But, I was given the NIV.
While reading it, I noted something was wrong. So I got out the KJV and noted those 2 particular verses had been ommitted.
I went to others who used the NIV, and also the KJV. We all compared the Bibles, and the verses were missing from their NIV Bibles too.
For that reason, I refused to have the NIV in the house. So, it was disposed of.
Mainly because I didn't know what else they'd taken out and I wasn't prepared to go through the whole NIV Bible together with the KJV.

thejesusfish90 · Jul 30, 2004

wow...thats strange...what were the verses they took out about?...There's usually a good reason why they take them out...ie they aren't found in many older manuscripts...etc...BTW now that were talkaing about biblical ommisions, does anyone know why there are books in the catholic bible that aren't in the protestant bible...if so, what books are they, what are they about, and why were they taken out...

Your brother in Christ

Chris

thejesusfish90 · Jul 30, 2004

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...Its a..its a...its a...its a....DOUBLE POST...(DAH, DAH, DAH!!!)

artofwar · Jul 30, 2004

you mean the apocrapha?

thejesusfish90 · Jul 30, 2004

yeah...that and other stuff...like i've heard theres like a bookcalled Sirach, and wisdom of Solomon, and that aint in the protestant bible...nor is the ! maccabrees, and 2 maccabree,,,im just wondering if there ar emore...and what these books are about and why they aint in our bibles...

artofwar · Jul 30, 2004

ohhhh long story this one if i didnt have to leave work in 15 min i would go through it, sorry mate maybe monday

Bevlina · Jul 30, 2004

Yes Chris...these are in the Catholic Bible, but, there is a statement in the front that says they are apocraphal writings. I'd also like to know why the Prayer of Manessah isn't in our Bible. It's a beautiful book to read.

thejesusfish90 · Jul 30, 2004

lol..I understand mate...have fun...

inquisitor_11 · Jul 30, 2004

The apocryphal writings weren't included in the catholic canon, until post reformation (off the top of my head). They were excluded from the christian canon from the start as they were recognised as being dodgey/ spurious by both Jews and the early church.

Although I don't pay much attention to the KJV vs. everything else argument (it's pretty stupid in my mind)- newer translations often have "omitted" verses, which aren't really omitted. To the best of my knowledge, anything that "disappears" from more recent translations are parts found to be more recent additions in the source manuscripts.

e.g. In Matt 5 KJV/ NKJV has "angry with your brother without cause...", whereas, the NIV at least, has "angry with your brother..." . When the KJV was translated, the manuscripts/translations they worked from were more recent. By the time NIV etc. were being translated we had access to older manuscripts (i.e. those closer to the originals). On comparison it has been found that there were additions to the text in the newer manuscripts (such as the above, the traditional ending of Mark), that weren't in the earlier ones. As such, new translations simply reflect a greater accuracy in translation/transliteration and (hopefully) accuracy to both the original text, language and culture.

thejesusfish90 · Jul 30, 2004

thanks inquisitor...that raises the question...why were they put in....

Bevlina · Jul 30, 2004

inquisitor_11 said:
The apocryphal writings weren't included in the catholic canon, until post reformation (off the top of my head). They were excluded from the christian canon from the start as they were recognised as being dodgey/ spurious by both Jews and the early church.

Although I don't pay much attention to the KJV vs. everything else argument (it's pretty stupid in my mind)- newer translations often have "omitted" verses, which aren't really omitted. To the best of my knowledge, anything that "disappears" from more recent translations are parts found to be more recent additions in the source manuscripts.

e.g. In Matt 5 KJV/ NKJV has "angry with your brother without cause...", whereas, the NIV at least, has "angry with your brother..." . When the KJV was translated, the manuscripts/translations they worked from were more recent. By the time NIV etc. were being translated we had access to older manuscripts (i.e. those closer to the originals). On comparison it has been found that there were additions to the text in the newer manuscripts (such as the above, the traditional ending of Mark), that weren't in the earlier ones. As such, new translations simply reflect a greater accuracy in translation/transliteration and (hopefully) accuracy to both the original text, language and culture.

Really? And...where did they find the older manuscripts?

Bevlina · Jul 30, 2004

thejesusfish90 said:
thanks inquisitor...that raises the question...why were they put in....

Good question Chris!
I have the Catholic Bible right here in my hand but I cannot find out why they added them...will keep looking though!

Ah! Got it....

Apparently there is widespread agreement that these books are important in providing much valuable information on Jewish history, life,thought, worship and religious practice during the centuries immediately prior to the time of Christ.

They are excellent reading.

inquisitor_11 · Jul 30, 2004

Really? And...where did they find the older manuscripts?

Some bloke called Fred found them out the back of his place, underneath a pile of old newspapers...

Not really. They keep turning up in archaeological finds- Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls that sort of thing.

that raises the question...why were they put in....

Unfortunately the reasons were not nearly as benevolent as the RCC would like us to think (not that I'm an uber anti-catholic type). To the best of my knowledge it was a bit of a polemic move against the reformation. The texts of the apocrypha help to support some of the RCC's doctrinal stance's e.g. Mary's *almost* divinity etc. So for the first 1300 odd years of the church, the apocrypha were generally not considered to be a part of "God's Word" (whatever you might consider that to be).

I think Martin Luther made a comment about the apocrypha, that it's useful for moral instruction, but in terms of theology and factual accuracy, it's a bit shady. There should be plenty of info on the net about it. Or you could ask in General Theology or Hermenuetics- they might be able to fill you in a bit more.

Aussie Church Failing?

artofwar

Well-Known Member

Bevlina

Guest

thejesusfish90

Guest

thejesusfish90

Guest

artofwar

Well-Known Member

thejesusfish90

Guest

artofwar

Well-Known Member

Bevlina

Guest

thejesusfish90

Guest

inquisitor_11

Viva la revolucion!

thejesusfish90

Guest

Bevlina

Guest

Bevlina

Guest

inquisitor_11

Viva la revolucion!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency