Corrupted Bibles

[aforchrist33]

Dear Filosofer;

You said "In all my years of evangelizing not one sinner has bothered with the issue of Bible translation"

I should hope not, it would contradict the bible if they did. We are told God's word is spiritually disherned to them. Sadly they are at a disadvantage to be a pray for religious wolves who devour their minds with confusion.

 

[Rainbow Joy Promises]

filosofer: Thank you. As far as the KJV, it may have been the first English Bible, but I don't believe it to be necessarily the best. Many people think it's the "original Bible," so that's why we should use only that. It's not. The original Bible, as most of us know, was in Hebrew and Greek. Since the KJV was translated, we've found more documents, and I'm sure learned more. So no, I don't think the KJV is the "supreme" English translation. I was not aware that the NLT was a translation, thanks for informing me!

aforchrist33: So are you saying there is a perfect translation then? One that is perfectly "rightly divided?" Perhaps "fairly accurate" was a bad choice of words on my part. Maybe I should have said that it seemed to make the same point as other Bible translations. I have compared verses from the NLT to verses from the KJV, the NIV, and I think the NASB, and they all seem to be saying the same thing to me.

 

[LouisBooth]

aforchrist33...just wondering..have you realized the bible wasn't in english yet? oh..Jesus didn't speak english with a british accent either like you see in those movies Just wanted to clue ya in

 

[edjones]

Originally posted by aforchrist33
Dear Filosofer,

I can just picture Peter with his NAS bible advising John to get a NKJV or an ESV. Paul walks in and Peter tells John "Don't be taken in by those KJV advocates"

No wonder sinners see christians as a joke.

 

[filosofer]

Originally posted by aforchrist33
I should hope not, it would contradict the bible if they did. We are told God's word is spiritually disherned to them. Sadly they are at a disadvantage to be a pray for religious wolves who devour their minds with confusion.

Wasn't as clear as I could have been.

What I meant is that someone who is hearing the Gospel, and responding in faith in Jesus Christ, is not hung up on translation issues.

So who are the "religious wolves"? Would it not be those who make claims about one translation that are borderline absurd? Saving faith is in Jesus Christ, not in the Bible. (Now, please, don't misquote me on this. The point is that people can be saved without ever seeing a written Bible.)

 

[edjones]

Acts 9:20

NASV : "and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus...."

KJV :
"And straightway he preached Christ..."

..............................................

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear Edjones;

What is your point to your comment?

Thanks!

 

[engrapho]

The Greek word for passover (a God given holiday) was translated easter (a pagan holiday) in the KJV !

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

And if my memory recalls, the Greek word for Lord or Saviour was translated child!

Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

 

[edjones]

Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.KJV

Luke 2:33 The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.NIV

Luke 2:33 And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him;ASV

Luke 2:33And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.NASV


So, Joseph was Jesus Christ's father? That's news to me! The BIBLE says that Jesus Christ was the Son of GOD!

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
A "son" inherits his fathers blood, therefore, consider this verse:
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
The doctrine of Jesus Christ's DEITY is attacked by the (per)versions.
GOD was the Father of Jesus Christ, NOT Joseph!

 

[Jesusong]

On the poll I voted for the NIV for the ease of understanding. That's the one Bible I would recommend to anyone. Especially the Study Bible edition.

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear Jesusong;

You said you "Recomended the NIV"

Question: Why would you recomend a corrupted interpreted biblical version to those seeking truth?

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear Bgoh;

Welcome!

i agree that any biblical version may be used for salvation, (Due to their being no rong way to be saved) However it becomes our duty afterwords to correctly intrepert scripture (1 Timothy 2:4) through "Rightly dividing" (2 Timothy 2:15) God bless!

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear RainbowJoyPromises;

You asked if

1. I was "Saying there is a perfect translation"

Answer: Not at all, I'm saying a closer version to an original is safer!

2. As for "They all seem to be saying the same thing" I believe there is no such thing as justifing seeming to be correct. It's either right or rong!

Comment: If you realized the seriousness of added translations I doubt you would be thanking (Filosofer) for encouraging confussion. Should you care to search for truth on this matter, please click on our "Corrupted Bibles Study" and let us know what you think. God bless!

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear LouisBooth;

Thank's for your comment. Was already aware of language, however that doesn't justify inapropriate translations.

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear Filosofer;

I agree on people being saved without a bible. But your rewording on sinners not being "Hung up on translated issues" still doesn't justify corrupted biblical translations. God bless!

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear Engrapho;

Your misintreptations in the King James isn't my point, added translations is. Besides that doesn't justify other translations with more confusion.

 

[filosofer]

And you still haven't answered the question: On what basis do you believe that the KJV is a better translation?

 

[aforchrist33]

Dear Filosofer;

You asked on "what basis do you believe the KJV is a better translation?"

Answer: On the basis of my God given renewed mind which tells me through the holy Spirit, that an error in my first language translation doesn't justify added confusion of other translations. God bless!

 

[LouisBooth]

"Answer: On the basis of my God given renewed mind which tells me through the holy Spirit, that an error in my first language translation doesn't justify added confusion of other translations. "

ahh..so you're claiming to have God directly speaking to us through you? Sounds a little fishy to me

 

[Jesusong]

Question: Why would you recomend a corrupted interpreted biblical version to those seeking truth?

When I first accepted Christ as my Lord & saviour in 1979, I bought an NIV Bible. A couple of years later after reading material from Jack Chick I went to the KJV. For 17 years I was a KJV only advocate. During that time I read books from David Otis Fuller, Peter Ruckman (even then I had a hard time w/ some of his conclusions) etc. To me it was an open & shut case. It was KJV all the way. Around 1998 I started reading books from the other side of the fence (modern versions advocates), to see if what I was reading in my pro KJV books was accurate, cause I would always read the rebuttals of these "anti KJV" books that come out, but I've never read any of them. I wasn't totally convinced of their (the pro modern versions advocates)arguments, but some of their points I could understand. I also noticed that they were not the Bible denying heretical apostates, worshipping at the feet of Wescott & Hort that some were declaring them to be. During this time I finnally came across a downloadable version of "The King James Version Defended" by Edward F. Hills. I have been wanting to get this book for quite a long time but was just not able to find it. When I got to the chapters dealing with manuscript evidence and the TR, he was stating things that was opposite of what I had been lead to believe, and confirming what I was reading in the books written by the modern versions advocates. By this time I was totally questioning the KJV only position. A Christian brother at work gave me a copy of Gail Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions" to read (This book I remember seeing in the local Christian bookstore, but never bothered to get, because at that time I had so many pro-KJV books that I felt that I didn't need another one). I read it, & couldn't believe the conclusions she was comming to. When I would read her quotes from other sources, I realized that I had some of the books she was quoting from, and when I checked them out, I found that she mis-quoted, or completely taken out of context, or even made up statements to prove her position. Even some of her Bible verse comparisons were wrong. At that moment I realized how flawed the KJV only position really was. I went out to Borders bookstore and bought an NIV Bible. I remember when I gave the Gail Riplinger book back to my friend at work and he asked me what I thought of it (he was & still is KJV only), & I told him that I thought that it was the worst book I have ever seen to come out promoting the KJV only position, and because of it I went out and bought an NIV. He looked at me dumb founded , and couldn't believe that I could come to such a conclusion. So now I endorse the NIV, NASB, KJV, etc. because they all are the Word of God. I especially endorse the NIV because it captures the spirit of what the KJV translators set out to do when they published their Bible version.