• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Authorised King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Thunderchild, Feb 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    While you objection to the Origen-source for the Septuagint is correct, I would just clarify that Origen was not a 4th century church father. Rather he was born in Alexandria ~ A.D. 185 and died ~ A.D. 254. Your point, however, is still valid.
     
  2. Jesusong

    Jesusong Veteran

    +94
    Pentecostal
    Married
    filosofer: correction noted, and gladly recieved & accepted. :)
     
  3. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Ever heard your pastor/counselor/guide/mentor/religious hero mention the word Septuagint? Unless you are in a KJV Bible Believing Church, and even some of those fellers' lie about this one, you will hear your pastor/pastorette refer to the Septuagint, or maybe only to the LXX.

    Turn to John 6:45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. This Old Testament quote is from Isaiah 54:13 and its phrasing by Jesus Christ in this case puts the lie to the fraudulent teaching that Jesus and his disciples used the fictitious Septuagint.

    Scholars claim that the Septuagint is an "official" Greek translation of the Old Testament that was supposedly done around 250 BC by seventy-two Jewish scholars.

    They further claim that Jesus, His disciples and the New Testament writers all used it. That, they say, is why there is often a difference between the wording of one of Jesus' quotes and the exact wording of the particular Old Testament passage He is quoting. This is BUNK!

    There is NO MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE of the existence of a Greek translation of the Old Testament prior to 150 BC. And even this weak piece of evidence is of nothing more than some portions of Deuteronomy. Hardly to be called an 'entire' Old Testament!

    But! If you go to a "Christian" (I prefer the term religious bookstore) bookstore you can purchase a 'genuine' copy of the Septuagint. How can that be? Simple - the Old Testament Greek translation that is sold as The Septuagint was never translated before the time of Christ. It is nothing more than a copy of a work that Origen did in the 4th century AD - and we all know what God thought of Origin and what Origin thought of God, don't we!

    PS - Origen produced a work entitled the Hexapla. It got that name from the fact that it was made up of six columns on each page. The 1st column was copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew; the 2nd was Greek translation, a Greek version by Aquila; the 4th column was a translation by Symmachus; the 5th column was Origin's own translation; the 6th, a translation by Theodotion. What is known to us today as The Septuagint is actually the 5th column of Origen's Hexapla.
     
  4. Rjano21

    Rjano21 New Member

    75
    +0
    Edjones pretty much summed it up... there are stories of the septuagint being created B.C., but the farthest back it can be traced conclusively is to Origen's 3rd century hexapla. As for the papyrus fragment, it could have been someone's private translation for all we know. It certainly doesn't prove the existance of a worldwide Greek old testament.

    Even in some editions of the septuagint marketed today, the preface states that the stories of its B.C. creation are fables.

    The term LXX comes from the story that the high priest in Jerusalem sent 70 or 72? learned Jews, 6 from each tribe, to do the translation work. That story is ignorant of one crucial fact: In the Bible, only the tribe of Levi had the authority to copy and handle the holy scriptures. Its very doubtful that any Jewish high priest would blatantly ignore such a mandate (we see in the NT how zealous the Jews were to keep the letter of the law).
     
  5. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Should I be concerned by the criticisms of a self confessed "man of the flesh" - incapable of understanding the things of God? :sleep:

    Was it not EdJones who stated that he believes the Bible predicts the advent of the telephone? by his own imagined and thoroughly warped interpretation of one of the psalms? :scratch:

    OOPS - no, it was that passage in Job that EdJones tried to pretend was a prophecy regarding the invention of the telephone. :(
     
  6. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    What was it I said about the Septuagint? That it was a wholly accurate translation of the Hebrew? Or that the words of the Septuagint show the Hebrew meanings of the Koine Greek. Do we know the what the Hebrew meanings are? Yes. The words of the Greek therefore become understandable.

    Any arguent about the reliability of the Septuagint is tangential to the comment I made.
     
  7. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Hmmm.... Hexapla is one I never heard of - the first parallel Bible?
     
  8. paulewog

    paulewog Father of Insanity; Child of Music.

    +369
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I think NASB is closest to the Greek.

    And the Greek is closest to the autographs.

    The only way the KJV could be the "perfect" Bible is if the translators were inspired by God in the same way Paul, Moses, etc., were inspired.
     
  9. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Hay Paul hows it going? :wave:
    ed
     
  10. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    The word of God endures forever..... means that the word of God endures forever. Does it mean that it cannot be forgotten by man? no. Does it mean that it cannot be lost to the knowledge and sight of man? no. The Bible itself records a time when the written word of God, the scripures, were lost to knowledge and memory of man - hidden away in a temple vault, their very existence forgotten.
     
  11. Rjano21

    Rjano21 New Member

    75
    +0
    Just depends on which "Greek" you refer to. The KJV is a 100% accurate and literal translation of the Textus Receptus, which is the traditional Greek text used by the vast majority of Christians throughout history.

    The NASB however, is a pretty accurate translation of the modern critical Greek texts which are based on the minority alexandrian manuscripts (made primarily by heretics and philosophers). Textual criticism is a guessing game as to which greek manuscript they follow. The NASB also intentionally omits, mistranslates, or offers alternate readings based on the translator's personal theology, not on the original manuscripts. I can give examples of this if you like, you just can't judge a Bible by what the back cover says.
     
  12. Jesusong

    Jesusong Veteran

    +94
    Pentecostal
    Married
    The Textus Receptus cannot be "the traditional Greek text used by the vast majority of Christians throught history," due to the fact that the TR didn't exist before 1516 when Erasmus compiled the text from 7 Greek manuscripts, with the earliest manuscript being from the 11th century. It went through 21 editions and wasn't even known as the Textus Receptus until 1633, 22 years after the KJV was published.

    That statement is completely false. If you were saying this about the Jehovah Witnesses and their bible version, then I would completely agree. The readings in the NASB, NIV, etc. are documented in the manuscripts. You make it sound like that the translation committee picks up a KJV and flips through it & says "I don't like this," "I don't agree with that," and with a pair of scissors goes "snip, snip, snip" and viola, we have a new Bible version. I'm sorry if this comes as a shock, but, that's not how Bible translations work.
    I can give you examples of this from the KJV.

    Rev 16:5; KJV And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

    Rev 16:5 NASB And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things;

    The bold reading in the KJV was added into the text of the TR by Theodore Beza with no manuscript support what so ever.

    The TR is based on 7 manuscripts (as I pointed out above), but the Majority Text is based on over 4000 manuscripts, yet the Majority Text does not have: Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36, Acts 15:34, 1John 5:7.

    I'll have to leave it at this cause I have to go and get ready for church. :wave:
     
  13. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    So does the AKJV - as has been demonstrated on more than one occasion within this thread - and that (mostly) by those who claim the AKJV is the only God authorised version.
    (Well, except for the "alternate readings" part, anyway). As for the "based on the translators' personal theology" comment - what arrant nonsense. Where specific passages might REASONABLY be asserted to have alternative readings, the fact is noted. That would seem to a REASONABLE person to show that the translators of the NASB are attempting to be completely honest.

    (OOPS. JesusSong said that already.) :sorry:
     
  14. SenseiPiccolo

    SenseiPiccolo Well-Known Member

    +0
    Id prefer the King James Bible (1611)
    :clap:
    (runs away)
    :eek:
     
  15. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
    I read NIV mostly. KJV onlyism is idolatry, point finale.
     
  16. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Prince Jeff..
    You point is not final because it is false. Not one KJV only people believe in IDOL worship. Just exaclty how do we worship our bibles as an idol...huh?? Do we kiss the bible? NO
    Do we pray to the bible? NO
    Do we do rituals over our bibles? NO
    hmmm whatelse??
    Well that about covers what Idol worship is.
    GEL
     
  17. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0

     
  18. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    The AKJV is not a 100% accurate translation of the Textus Receptus - it is a pretty accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. It is as faithful to the TR as the NAS is to the Majority texts.
     
  19. Rjano21

    Rjano21 New Member

    75
    +0
    The Jehovah Witness Bible is very similar to the NIV, at least in all the places they both disagree with the KJV.

    Any scholar can tell you that the text type of the Textus Receptus is the same exact text in the majority of the 5300+ Greek manuscripts in existance.

    Why do you parrot deceptive statements? You try to make it sound as if the Textus Receptus has no legitimate textual basis, which is nonsense. Like I said before, out of the 5300+ Greek manuscripts known today, 99% of the readings therein AGREE with the Textus Receptus. Like it or not, that's a documented fact. Erasmus may have used 7 manuscripts for his TR, but those were representative of the vast majority he already knew about.

    I know that the last verse isn't in the majority of Greek texts, but that's a whole different discussion. It is in the majority of Latin manuscripts including the old Latin (150 A.D.), and also quoted by several early writers and councils. The reason for its omission from the Byzantine Greek was probably to combat a heresy called Sabellianism... but that's another story.

    I guess I should have said the KJV is a 99.99% literal and accurate translation of the TR, as there are a few exceptions to the rule, not without reason.

    Demonstrated? Not likely, although I don't feel like reading through this huge thread again to find out what you're referring to. People can make all the accusations they want, but there's never been a proven error or mistranslation in the AV.

    Then I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NIV eliminates or downplays most references to sodomy (they had 2 homosexuals on the comittee). They certainly didn't pick and choose their omissions based on manuscript evidence.

    You're somewhat correct, the translators themselves don't usually do that. The textual critics, who make things like the Nestle/Aland or UBS Greek texts, are the guilty ones. Wescott and Hort did exactly the things which you said above. For decades these 2 "scholars" picked and chose what they thought the Bible said (or should say), and made their own Greek text out of it. This text then served as a basis for all the New Age Bibles we have today.

    That depends on what is reasonable. When they give an alternate reading based on 2 manuscripts out of 4000, I do not consider that reasonable. When they omit or bracket nearly 100 words based on 1 lousy manuscript (Luke 24), that is unreasonable. A good number of their footnotes are deceptive, like the ones which say "some manuscripts do not have..." when the truth really is "all manuscripts have this, except 1 or 2"

    Nah, setting yourself up as the final authority above God's Word is idolatry. That's what the new versions offer people... a chance to make yourself the judge of what you want God's Word to say.
     
  20. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
    My bible does nothing of the sort. Sorry but that is the truth.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...