Every Man For Himself Bible Versionism

[brandplucked]

So, you learn Greek/Hebrew – what texts do you go to learn God’s word?
There are 5,000 different texts!!!
When they disagree (and they do) what is your standard for deciding which reading is correct? Will and I do not have that problem with the AV.



Hi brother AV. Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for the good points you made here.

"Kept by the power of God through faith" - 1 Peter 1:5

Will K

 

[Hentenza]

Above is one of my favorite quotes/thoughts to comment on - There are about a million things wrong about that statement but I will only cover a few:
1. Your crowd accuses the AV as being hard to read and yet you demand one learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand the “Bible”!
How many saints do you know that even know these languages? I raised 10 children – they never complained about the “archaic” words! They looked them up in a good English dictionary like a Webster’s 1828.

Learning the languages was my option not applicable to any that do not want to. The issue with "our camp" is not that the KJV is hard to read but that it is in English (outdated Elizabethan English at that) and consequently millions (if not billions) of non English speaking Christians would have to learn English to read what you guys call the "only" inerrant word of God. That is absurd. God gave us the scriptures and they have been translated to over 2400 languages. ALL of them are reading the word of God because God's word is objective, aplicable to all, everywhere, and everytime.

2. So, you learn Greek/Hebrew – what texts do you go to learn God’s word?
There are 5,000 different texts!!!
When they disagree (and they do) what is your standard for deciding which reading is correct? Will and I do not have that problem with the AV.

I'll tell you what is NOT my standard, the KJV. The KJV is a good translation among many. I own one and 9 other English translations.

3. What about poor ole’ farmer Jones? He sits on his tractor all day working – comes home to read his bible and can’t really know it because he cannot speak Greek/Hebrew!!!! Do you think God is in this kind of mentality?!?!?!?

Hoiw about poor Chinese farmer that speaks no English but has a zeal for the Lord. Should he learn English so that he can read the "word of God"?

Folks – do you even think before you write?

Likewise.

Will and I are a couple of old dogs who have been around a while.

Yep. I am one of the old dogs from "my camp". lol

When you say one has to learn the Greek/Hebrew in order to really know the word then you’ve demonstrated you are confused as a termite in a yo yo on this issue of the scriptures.

When one says that a bible translated in the 17th century, almost 1500 after John wrote Revelation, is the only words of God then one must be plenty confused.

Ya’ll have a nice day now!

You too.

 

[AVBunyan]

1.The issue with "our camp" is not that the KJV is hard to read but that it is in English (outdated Elizabethan English at that) and consequently millions (if not billions) of non English speaking Christians would have to learn English to read what you guys call the "only" inerrant word of God.

2. I'll tell you what is NOT my standard, the KJV. The KJV is a good translation among many. I own one and 9 other English translations.

3. How about poor Chinese farmer that speaks no English but has a zeal for the Lord. Should he learn English so that he can read the "word of God"?

1. We never said a person who couldn't speak English had to read the AV to get the word of God. God has blessed many a translation based upon the AV or the texts the AV came from. We are saying the AV is the standard by which all others are judged. A foreign translation based upon the Alexandrian texts or from the English version from those texts is corrupt and is of little use.

2. OK - do you have an absolute final authority/standard which you can go by? Out of those 9 - when they disagree how do you determine which reading is correct?

3. That Chinese farmer can get a translation based upon the AV or the Greek/Hebrew texts the AV came from and he will do just fine. If he gets one based upon your modern versions he will get very little light. One can survive on a McDonald's burger but he will not be very healthy after a while.

 

[AVBunyan]

[FONT=&quot]While I'm here -

Forget for a moment all you’ve used as evidence and that all you have are the MVs and the AV in English:

Which out of the 4 verses listed are the most clear and complete at presenting the doctrine? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The first verse is the AV (one should be able to tell) and the other three are from different MVs which of course all come from the same “family” of manuscripts.

Matthew 9:13
For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.

Call sinners to what?

Matthew 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Verse is omitted
Verse is in (footnote says most ancient manuscripts omit verse)
Verse is omitted

Why would someone omit this type of truth?

Matthew 19:17
Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.
Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.

There are two completely different thoughts here.

Matthew 25:13
Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
You know neither the day nor the hour.
You do not know the day nor the hour.
You know neither the day nor the hour

Is somebody try to obscure the 2nd advent here?

Luke 4:4
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Man shall not live by bread alone.
Man shall not live on bread alone.
Man must not live by bread alone.

Mercy – does somebody here not like the word of God or what?

Luke 24:51
He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Included but footnote says: many ancient authorities omit.
Omitted
Included but footnote says omit.

Again – why would one omit such a truth?

John 6:47
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
He who believes has eternal life.
He who believes has eternal life.
He that believes has everlasting life.

Believes what?

Acts 2:30
According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.
Omitted
Omitted
Omitted

It appears somebody is not wild about the resurrection!

I Corinthians 15:47
The second man is the Lord from heaven.
The second man is from heaven.
The second man is from heaven.
The second man is out of heaven.

Who is this second man? Oh we know from other verses but here – give me a break!

Ephesians 3:9
Who created all things by Jesus Christ.
Who created all things.
Who created all things.
Who created all things.

So, Jesus isn’t equal to God as the creator?!?!

Colossians 1:14
We have redemption through his blood.
In whom we have redemption.
In whom we have redemption.
By means of whom we have our release.

Redemption is dependent upon the blood – redemption and forgiveness re not the same.

I Peter 4:1
Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.
Christ suffered in the flesh.
Christ has suffered in the flesh.
Christ suffered in the flesh.

Who did Christ suffer for? Why would some one want “us” out?

I Peter 5:11
To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
To him be the dominion for ever and ever.
To him be dominion for ever and ever.
To him be the might for ever.

Why would the word glory have to come out? Oh, I see, the AV translators added it?!?!?

I John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.
And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
But every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.

Somebody doesn’t like the fact that “God was manifest in the flesh? I guess they don’t because they also changed God to Him I Tim. 3:16 based upon a supposedly missing Theta!?!?!

Revelation 5:14
Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever an ever.
And the elders fell down and worshipped.
And the elders fell down and worshipped.
And the persons of advanced age fell down and worshipped.

Mercy – I thought Christ was eternal! Why leave it out?

There you have it – just few of hundreds more examples available. Be honest – which one would you really rather have in your hands based upon the above and remember we could supply a ton more of examples. I bet you would still take the MV readings over the AV in the above. Ever noticed why all the MVs read the same and pick at the same verses and doctrines?

Yes I know – “Just different translation methods…really doesn’t make much of a difference because the truths are elsewhere…it is ok, the message is still there…you cannot prove the AV is right here in these, all valid anyway – can’t prove otherwise, blah, blah, blah, etc.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sounds like someone or ”something” has an agenda –
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said,…?[/FONT]

 

[Jig]

[FONT=&quot]While I'm here -

Forget for a moment all you’ve used as evidence and that all you have are the MVs and the AV in English:

Which out of the 4 verses listed are the most clear and complete at presenting the doctrine? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The first verse is the AV (one should be able to tell) and the other three are from different MVs which of course all come from the same “family” of manuscripts.

Matthew 9:13
For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.

Call sinners to what?

Matthew 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Verse is omitted
Verse is in (footnote says most ancient manuscripts omit verse)
Verse is omitted

Why would someone omit this type of truth?

Matthew 19:17
Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.
Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.

There are two completely different thoughts here.

Matthew 25:13
Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
You know neither the day nor the hour.
You do not know the day nor the hour.
You know neither the day nor the hour

Is somebody try to obscure the 2nd advent here?

Luke 4:4
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Man shall not live by bread alone.
Man shall not live on bread alone.
Man must not live by bread alone.

Mercy – does somebody here not like the word of God or what?

Luke 24:51
He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Included but footnote says: many ancient authorities omit.
Omitted
Included but footnote says omit.

Again – why would one omit such a truth?

John 6:47
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
He who believes has eternal life.
He who believes has eternal life.
He that believes has everlasting life.

Believes what?

Acts 2:30
According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.
Omitted
Omitted
Omitted

It appears somebody is not wild about the resurrection!

I Corinthians 15:47
The second man is the Lord from heaven.
The second man is from heaven.
The second man is from heaven.
The second man is out of heaven.

Who is this second man? Oh we know from other verses but here – give me a break!

Ephesians 3:9
Who created all things by Jesus Christ.
Who created all things.
Who created all things.
Who created all things.

So, Jesus isn’t equal to God as the creator?!?!

Colossians 1:14
We have redemption through his blood.
In whom we have redemption.
In whom we have redemption.
By means of whom we have our release.

Redemption is dependent upon the blood – redemption and forgiveness re not the same.

I Peter 4:1
Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.
Christ suffered in the flesh.
Christ has suffered in the flesh.
Christ suffered in the flesh.

Who did Christ suffer for? Why would some one want “us” out?

I Peter 5:11
To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
To him be the dominion for ever and ever.
To him be dominion for ever and ever.
To him be the might for ever.

Why would the word glory have to come out? Oh, I see, the AV translators added it?!?!?

I John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.
And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
But every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.

Somebody doesn’t like the fact that “God was manifest in the flesh? I guess they don’t because they also changed God to Him I Tim. 3:16 based upon a supposedly missing Theta!?!?!

Revelation 5:14
Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever an ever.
And the elders fell down and worshipped.
And the elders fell down and worshipped.
And the persons of advanced age fell down and worshipped.

Mercy – I thought Christ was eternal! Why leave it out?

There you have it – just few of hundreds more examples available. Be honest – which one would you really rather have in your hands based upon the above and remember we could supply a ton more of examples. I bet you would still take the MV readings over the AV in the above. Ever noticed why all the MVs read the same and pick at the same verses and doctrines?

Yes I know – “Just different translation methods…really doesn’t make much of a difference because the truths are elsewhere…it is ok, the message is still there…you cannot prove the AV is right here in these, all valid anyway – can’t prove otherwise, blah, blah, blah, etc.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sounds like someone or ”something” has an agenda –
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said,…?[/FONT]

Are you saying the my NASB is NOT clear that Christ is God, that Christ is the true and only Savior, that Christ is Creator, that Christ suffered for us, that Christ is eternal, that Christ is to be worshiped, that redemption is dependent on a blood sacrifice, that Christ resurrected from the dead???

You worry about all these verses that have been omitted (IMO they were never part of the original autographs to begin with), but you fail to recognize that EVERYTHING that was omitted is mentioned ELSEWHERE very clearly.

It seems that you want to believe that these verses were omitted to hide the truth about Christ, but this truth is not hidden at all. The NASB (and many other English translations) affirm all these things you are concerned about.

 

[brandplucked]

Are you saying the my NASB is NOT clear that Christ is God, that Christ is the true and only Savior, that Christ is Creator, that Christ suffered for us, that Christ is eternal, that Christ is to be worshiped, that redemption is dependent on a blood sacrifice, that Christ resurrected from the dead???

Hi Jig. What we are saying is NOBODY seriously believes any of your modern versions ARE the complete and infallible words of God. The modern versions confuse sound doctrine and contradict even each other. "Your" NASB weakens or confuses many of these doctrines. The NASB teaches that there are TWO Gods in John 1:18 and the modern versions are all over the map when they try to translate this verse. The NIV so far has 3 different translations for this one verse and the latest one follows no know Greek text at all.

The confusion of John 1:18 in the modern versions

John 1:18 begotten Son - Another King James Bible Believer

That Christ is the Creator is weakened in the modern versions.

Your NASB even teaches that God Himself was DECEIVED by mortal men in Psalm 78, though the RV, ASV, ESV and NIV do not.

Eze14:9; Ps 78:36deceive - Another King James Bible Believer

Several modern versions like the NIV teach that Christ is NOT eternal but rather that He has an origin.

Micah 5:2,Heb2:11 origin - Another King James Bible Believer

There are several other false doctrines being taught in the modern versions like we can somehow "speed up" the coming of the day of God, when the truth of the matter is that we cannot make it come any faster at all.

2Peter3:12hastingunto - Another King James Bible Believer

Many modern versions teach that the robe of righteousness is our works or "righteous acts" rather than that given us by Christ

Rev. 19:8 fine linen - Another King James Bible Believer

Several of them teach the lie that Satan rules this world, when he does not. GOD rules this world.

Satan or God controls? - Another King James Bible Believer

And most of your modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV DO weaken the doctrine that Christ died FOR US because they follow the "Textus Corruptus"

There are a few other specific verses that teach the particular redemption of God's people that have been altered just by removing a single word or two. 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells us "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US." Hebrews 1:3 "when He had by Himself purged OUR sins."; 1 Peter 4:1 "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered FOR US in the flesh", and 1 John 3:5 "And ye know that He was manifested to take away OUR sins". All these readings are found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus, the Syriac and in Tyndale's bible 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1599, and the NKJV. But Catholic text versions (mainly Vaticanus) like the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET have removed all these capitalized words that teach the particular redemption of God's people.

The main doctrine that is affected by all these confused and contradictory "bible" versions is that of the Infallibility of the Bible. Every day fewer and fewer Christians believe that any Bible in any language IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God.

Most here fall into that category of unbelief.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Are you saying the my NASB is NOT clear that Christ is God, that Christ is the true and only Savior, that Christ is Creator, that Christ suffered for us, that Christ is eternal, that Christ is to be worshiped, that redemption is dependent on a blood sacrifice, that Christ resurrected from the dead???

2. You worry about all these verses that have been omitted (IMO they were never part of the original autographs to begin with), but you fail to recognize that EVERYTHING that was omitted is mentioned ELSEWHERE very clearly.

3. It seems that you want to believe that these verses were omitted to hide the truth about Christ, but this truth is not hidden at all. The NASB (and many other English translations) affirm all these things you are concerned about.

1. Clear in some places and not clear in many others - doesn't it bother you that in those other places it is not? The AV is clear 100% - just the few examples I gave should be enough to prove this. If you have one verse such as Mic 5:2 that in the modern versions says Christ has a beginning then that should be enough for one to toss those versions aside. The examples that Will gave should be more than enough! Remember these modern versions all had their origin in Origen who translated these in the 3rd century - he did not believe in the deity of Christ so the his modern versions reflect his false beliefs. All modern versions came from Origen's work. Origen had an agenda - he was a heretic and is in hell right now and you folks are reading his bibles!!!!

2. Can you produce a copy of the originals to prove your point that they were not there? Why would the originals be so vague? The fact that the truths are elsewhere does not make up for the fact that they were omitted for a reason.

3. Just because you can find a diamond in a septic tank doesn't make the septic tank a jewelry store. Just because you can find truth in these bibles doesn't make them bibles! . God is not the author of confusion.

Again - go back and read the examples - Which translation is more clear in presenting the doctrine?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

It seems to me that the foundation of KJV Onlyism is the idea that we need to have absolute certainty in regard to the reliability of Scripture. Scripture can't be reliable unless there is a perfect, infallible, inerrant and "preserved" form that it comes in. I don't particularly understand the draw, it seems entirely unimportant.

Conversely, others tell me that we need a perfect, infallible, inerrant and "preserved" church.

If only faith were that simple and easy. But it's not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hentenza]

1. We never said a person who couldn't speak English had to read the AV to get the word of God. God has blessed many a translation based upon the AV or the texts the AV came from. We are saying the AV is the standard by which all others are judged. A foreign translation based upon the Alexandrian texts or from the English version from those texts is corrupt and is of little use.

The AV is not the standard. Never has been. How can the standard of scripture be a text translated 1500 years after Jesus? Not only that, but how can the outdated Elizabethan KJV be the standard when it is not in the original languages? You do know that, like the saying says, "you loose some in the translation", right?

BTW- As a deacon in my church I have heard many testimonies from new believers becoming Christians reading bibles based on the Alexandrian text or others. Don't say that it is of little use because you would be wrong.

2. OK - do you have an absolute final authority/standard which you can go by? Out of those 9 - when they disagree how do you determine which reading is correct?

Yes, I have the bible (most translations). When I have a question about which translation is correct I go to the Greek or the Hebrew.

3. That Chinese farmer can get a translation based upon the AV or the Greek/Hebrew texts the AV came from and he will do just fine. If he gets one based upon your modern versions he will get very little light. One can survive on a McDonald's burger but he will not be very healthy after a while.

I guess he just gets himself to the local Christian bookstore and picks which one he likes. lol

A good portion of them will get the translation that a missionary gave them or the one that they can get in their region. Might or might not be based on the AV but they are reading the word of God regardless.

 

[Hentenza]

Most here fall into that category of unbelief.

Actually most here do not. KJVism simply falls into an extreme (fringe) of Christianity.

 

[brandplucked]

It seems to me that the foundation of KJV Onlyism is the idea that we need to have absolute certainty in regard to the reliability of Scripture. Scripture can't be reliable unless there is a perfect, infallible, inerrant and "preserved" form that it comes in. I don't particularly understand the draw, it seems entirely unimportant.

Hi Crypto. I think you sum up the idea correctly. If God is infallible Himself and He cannot lie but always tells the truth because He is the Truth, then it only follows that there must be somewhere an infallible Bible, since it is God Himself who promised to preserve His words, heaven and earth would pass away but not His words, and He tells us to "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read".

All this may seem "unimportant" to you and to more and more Christians today, but this dismissive attitude is not a sign of advanced spirituality, but rather ever advancing apostasy.

Conversely, others tell me that we need a perfect, infallible, inerrant and "preserved" church. -CryptoLutheran

Well, the difference is the former (an infallible Bible) IS taught in God's word, but the later (an infallible church) is not. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith and that many will turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables and they will not endure sound doctrine in the last days.

Golly! Maybe the Bible IS true, after all

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

The AV is not the standard. Never has been. How can the standard of scripture be a text translated 1500 years after Jesus? Not only that, but how can the outdated Elizabethan KJV be the standard when it is not in the original languages? You do know that, like the saying says, "you loose some in the translation", right?
Yes, I have the bible (most translations). When I have a question about which translation is correct I go to the Greek or the Hebrew.

They just don't get it, do they AV. Now, Hen is complaining once again about the "outdated Elizabethan" language of the greatest Bible ever published, and yet all over again he refers us back to those far more archaic and difficult Hebrew and Greek words. Not only that, but he still won't let us know WHICH Hebrew and WHICH Greek he is referring to, nor will he explain why the modern bible versions he himself does not believe and yet endorses so often reject these same Hebrew readings as being either corrupted or lost.

The way I figure it, the Bible version issue is most definitely a spiritual issue rather than in intellectual one. Few people who have two fingers of forehead are capable of parroting such absurdities as the bible agnostics do all on their own. There must be some spiritual force behind such blindness.

May God have mercy and open more eyes and hearts to His infallible Book.

Will K

 

[Hentenza]

They just don't get it, do they AV.

Oh, we get it. We really do.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, NIV, TNIV, NKJV

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

For those who have ears to hear and can see through the Double-Speak, inconsistency and logical fallacies of modern version scholars, the 2001 Holman Christian Standard Bible provides us with several quotes that exemplify the typical, pious sounding BALONEY promoted by those who do not believe IN FACT that any Bible is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

## None of them is inerrant, none of them contains a text which is flawless - but they are sufficient for their function. What would be the good of a flawless Bible ? People would still find reasons to form sects. Even Churches that all agree in maintaining the total inerrancy of the Bible, disagree - so how would having a Bible perfect in some other way mend matters ? The problem is in men, not in the Bible. Even the least satisfactory version can be a means of God's blessing, if God blesses its use. Without God's blessing, the most perfect of Bibles would be useless.

The NT was not written as some form of the AV-KJV - so there is no reason why the AV should be used as the standard for the text. The AV is useful, but not what the NT writers wrote.

In the Introduction to the HCSB, the translators describe themselves as "a team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders, ALL OF WHOM WERE COMMITTED TO BIBLICAL INERRANCY". They tell us: "The Bible IS God's inspired Word, inerrant IN THE ORIGINALS." They then tell us their goal is "to affirm the authority of Scripture as God's Word and to champion ITS ABSOLUTE TRUTH against social or cultural agendas that would compromise its accuracy", and that the HCSB "will be a standard in Bible translations FOR YEARS TO COME."

Then they tell us: "Each generation NEEDS a fresh translation of the Bible in its own language" and that "each new generation must be introduced to God's Word in its own language...Translations made as recently as 10 or 20 years ago do not reflect many of these advances in biblical research."

They inform us that their textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, and the Unitied Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition, but then they say: "At times, however, the translators have followed an alternative manuscript tradition, DISAGREEING with the editors of these texts ABOUT THE ORIGINAL READING."

They go on to tell us: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24. Would you characterize 39 entire verses in the New Testament as "a few places"?

Yes, definitely. 39 out of about 8,000 verses is peanuts - it's about 1/200th of the number of verses, or 0.5 per cent. THat's hardly anything.

First of all, it should be obvious that if only the originals were inspired and inerrant, and they no longer exist, and have never been seen by any of the HCSB translators, then how can they logically say The Bible IS inspired?
Don't they really mean "Once upon a time, and far, far away, the Bible WAS inspired"?

## The answer will depend on what one thinks inspiration means. If the Holy Spirit enlivens the written text for the sanctification of the reader, that is one form it might take.

Secondly, if they are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy", then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.

## Because they are making, not a theological judgement about the text from a religious POV, but a judgement about the integrity of the text; IOW, they are acting as textual critics. The Bible is not just a religious text. The NT is also a body of compositions in 1st-century Greek, and under that aspect is subject to the same kind of research as any other body of compositions in 1st-century Greek.

Thirdly, they reveal their "Every man for himself" X Files Bible mentality (the truth is out there somewhere) by telling us that they themselves disagree about the original reading with the scholars who put together the ever-changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts. Those UBS scholars think certain readings are original, but the HSCB guys think that others are. And you can bet the next bible version to come down the pike will promote yet different readings as original; in fact, it is already happening in the TNIV and ISV.

## This is entirely usual. People differ in their judgements of whether a reading is original for many reasons: for example, does it, if it has theological implications, agree with the theology of the NT author as expressed elsewhere ? Is it perhaps the result of harmonisation of the text, so as to make a reading that contradicts what is said elsewhere non-contradictory. Did Jesus send out 70 disciples - or 72 ? St.Matthew 10 could read as either number, because both have good OT backing as significant numbers; the figure one chooses will depend on what one thinks the author had in mind.

There are differences - they shouldn't be exaggerated, or denied. There is nothing sinister about them - all ancient texts have textual uncertainties, and that of the NT is unusually well witnessed; most ancient books survive in a few dozen copies, at most - some only in one. The text of the Greek NT is witnessed to by over 5,000; and there other languages and versions which help to restore the text: Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, Syriac, Gothic, and others. The Greek texts are not the only evidence for the text, by a long way.

And that is only scraping the surface...

Fourthly, if the Holman Christian Standard Bible is "a standard for YEARS TO COME", then why do they also claim that EACH GENERATION NEEDS a new translation, or even one every 10 or 20 years "to reflect biblical research"? The shelf life of the modern bible versions isn't very long, is it? If the "scholars committed to inerrancy" finally produced an inerrant Bible, then they wouldn't need to keep churning out one new version after another, and they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?

## They are the people to ask about what they meant - how can anyone else know ?

An inerrant Bible is no good if it's not understood, or if it's underlying text is defective. Even if an inerrant Bible translation existed, it could still become out of date, and need replacing. Being inerrant, & being understood, & being useful for its intended purposes, are three different things, not one.

There is also the question "For whom is this version intended ?" A version useful for scholarly purposes may not be suitable for public reading; a version for people whose first language is not English, may or may not be suitable for the young. Some Bibles include plenty of info about variant readings; & even when the text underlying two versions is identical, there is still plenty of room for disagreements about how best to translate it. That's not caused by unbelief - it's caused by the facts that Greek & English are different languages, working by different ways; and, that the culture of the NT texts is very different from that of English-speakers. Life would be much simpler if everyone were a first-century Palestinian Jew - but that's not how things are.

For further documented information about the Holman Standard, please see my article here:

HolmanCSB - Another King James Bible Believer

This same mentality of "every man for himself Bible Versions" is seen in Daniel Wallace's NET bible, the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), the TNIV (Today's NIV) and in the New KJV as well.

Luke 22:43-44 and Daniel Wallace's comments. "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

The hypocrisy of the modern versions is shown by how they deal with these two verses. They are found in the Majority of all texts including D, the Old Latin copies, Syriac Pešitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. Vaticanus omits all these words. Sinaiticus original contained all these words; then a scribe omitted them, and then another scribe put them back in again!

## Breadth of distribution - however impressive - is only one argument for the genuineness of a reading. Harmonisation is a possible cause for the adjusting of a reading in one gospel,to agree with others. No one text or text-family or version is the unique locus of Divine inspiration or of preservation of the readings. All leave something to be desired, all are useful, none is perfect.

Even though Vaticanus omits all these words, and the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV omit thousands of words from the New Testament primarily because of the Vaticanus readings, yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV,ISV and Holman (in brackets) include these two verses in their versions.

Daniel Wallace's NET version also includes them, but in brackets, like the Holman Standard. He then reveals the mindset of many scholars today in his footnote. Mr. Wallace tells us: "Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus' humanity and an angel's help. But even if the verses are NOT LITERALLY AUTHENTIC, they are PROBABLY HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC... Nevertheless, because of the SERIOUS DOUBTS as to these verses' authenticity, they have been put in brackets."

So, in other words, even though God may not have inspired them, and they were later added by mere human hands, it may be OK to keep them in our bibles, but we should continue to call them into question!!!

## That is not what is being said. Those verses are a well-known textual crux, and his decision is as reasonable as any - there is no way of knowing whether they should be there or not. It's rather hard to believe that anyone loses any asleep over exactly which words belong to the NT - and quite rightly: it doesn't matter. Christians are Christ-ians, not Biblians.

The 2001 ESV

This revision of the revision of the Revised Standard Version refers in its Preface some 12 times to "the original text" as though it were something they actually had before them when making their new translation. They go on to tell us of "the currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text". You see, the ESV has not rejected the Hebrew Scriptures QUITE AS MUCH as the older RSV and NRSV, BUT they still reject it dozens upon dozens of times, and not always in the same places as do the NASB and NIV.

The ESV translators further tell us: "In exceptional, difficult cases (not true at all) the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Pešitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted...to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases (again, not true at all) in the New Testament, the ESV has followed A GREEK TEXT DIFFERENT FROM the text given by preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition."

Actually, the ESV omits even more whole verses than the 17 the NIV omits, while the NASB omits fewer than the NIV, and none of these modern versions always follows the same Greek texts as the others all the way through any single book in the New Testament. Then the ESV editors conclude by telling us: "We know that NO Bible translation is perfect or final."

For further documented information on the ESV, please see my article here: The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer

The ESV, just as all the modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, RSV, and the NIV keep on changing their English text, and sometimes even the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, from one edition to the next, and they do not let the reader know what changes they have made from one to the other. These “Now you see it, and now you don’t” fake bibles keep on changing all the time, and they have no settled text.

## What's "fake" about them ? They are no more "fake" than different editions & translations of any work of which the text is known largely from a manuscript tradition. Is it their fault that the text wasn't stabilised by printing press very early on ? And because it was not, there are these uncertainties. They deserve better than to be accused in this way.

SNIP...

 

[Hairy Tic]

Is this a "The KJV-dropped-out-of-the-sky-in-bonded-leather-after-Christ's-ascension" thread?

## I think so I suppose it makes a difference from images not-made-with-hands falling down from the gods.

Are you sure it was after the Ascension, though ? I think it's far more likely to have fallen down between Gen. 3.24 & 4.1.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Hi Hentenze. Thanks for writing back. You say you believe in plenary verbal inspiration. Great! Do you know what that means? It means complete words inspiration. So far you have not even told us what "your" translation is. Can you tell us? Do you believe your translation is completely inspired in all the words it contains? That is what 'plenary verbal inspiration' means.

Obviously you have already eliminated the King James Bible from your list of infallible bibles because you think it has errors in it. So, please tell us where we can get one of your "plenary verbal inspired" bibles, OK? Thanks.


Now to address your other point. You say: "BTW- This is not a silly error but one where the writers of the KJV did not have the correct information and assumed. All archaeological evidence supports that Egypt and Assyria where allys against Babylon."

Sister, it looks like you did not take my advice and refer to those Bible commentaries I suggested. There is not error in the King James Bible. Here is why. You must be reading too much Al Maxey, another NIV user, who does not believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God.

Necho against Assyria

2 Kings 23:29 "IN HIS DAYS Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up AGAINST the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him."

Mr. Maxey uses the NIV and it says: "WHILE JOSIAH WAS KING, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River TO HELP the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but NECO (not in text) faced him and killed him at Megiddo."

No text says with the NIV "while Josiah was king". This is a paraphrase. Even the NASB says "in his days". However the NASB says Pharoah Neco went up TO the king, but the NKJV joins the NIV and says: "In his days Pharoah Neco went TO THE AID of the king of Assyria." There is no Hebrew text that says "to the aid of" or "to help".

Those versions that read along with the KJB that "in his days Pharoah Necho went up AGAINST the king of Assyria" are both Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Wycliffe 1395, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Brenton Translation 1851, Lesser Bible 1853, the Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Hebrew Names Version, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Young's, Darby, Douay 1950, Luther's German Bible 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, and the 1997 La Biblia de las Américas - "En aquellos días Faraón Nechâo rey de Egipto subió contra el rey de Asiria al río Eufrates", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996, and the French La Bible du Semeur 1997 - "De son temps, Pharaon Néco, roi d'Égypte, monta contre le roi d'Assyrie", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "Durante il suo regno, il Faraone Neko, re d'Egitto, salí contro il re di Assiria sul fiume Eufrate.", the Portuguese Almeida - "rei do Egito, contra o rei da Assíria", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, 1961 Bible in Basic English, and Green's 1984 interlinear.

As we shall shortly see, Mr. Maxey confuses the king of Assyria with the king of Babylon, who was referred to as the king of Assyria after he conquered it.

John Wesley notes:

The king- The king of Babylon, who having formerly rebelled against the Assyrian had now conquered him; as appears by the course of the sacred, and the concurrence of the profane history; and therefore is here and elsewhere called the Assyrian, and the king of Assyria, because now he was the head of that empire.

The 1982 edition of The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge also confirms this view that the king of Babylon, having conquered Assyria, was then called the king of Assyria.

John Gill

In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; to Carchemish, a city situated upon it; see2 Chronicles 35:20, the king he went against was the king of Babylon, who had conquered the Assyrian monarchy, and therefore called king of it.

Matthew Henry

"The king of Egypt waged war, it seems, with the king of Assyria: so the king of Babylon is now called. Josiah's kingdom lay between them. He therefore thought himself concerned to oppose the king of Egypt, and check the growing, threatening, greatness of his power; for though, at this time, he protested that he had no design against Josiah, yet, if he should prevail to unite the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates, the land of Judah would soon be overflowed between them. Therefore Josiah went against him, and was killed in the first engagement."

In any event, Mr. Maxey and his NIV, and the NKJV are certainly wrong and the King James Bible is correct, as always.

Will Kinney

## What 18th century commentators wrote is beside the point - they were not in a position to know anything about the last days of Assyria from the native sources, sinces these were not known in their time. They had the OT, so they used that - but it does not give the whole story. If the 1982 "Treasury" does no more than quote out-dated info, then it has no more weight than they. A reprint in 1982 of a book published in (say) 1800, is a guide to what was known in 1800, not to anything known in 1982.

The duty of a translator is to translate - not modify the text so that it matches external reality. If the text gets its facts scrambled, the translator has to translate what it says - not what it would be nice for it to say; if it doesn't say that. And unless there is a reason to suppose the reading of the text as it stands does not reflect what the author wrote, it must be translated as it reads, regardless of whether the info is right or wrong.

So what 2 Chronicles 35 says is beside the point - that it says X is the case, does not prove that X is right. If it contains a sentence that is in error, that is what must be translated, because that is what the text says.

Babylonia was under Assyrian overlordship from the last quarter of the 8th century, to the end of the 7th - c.120 years. Babylonia had its own kings. Nabopolassar, who founded the "Chaldean" dynasty, become king in 626. The Baylonians and Medes besieged and destroyed Nineveh (during 614 to 612), and, some time after 609, Harran. Result: no more Assyria to be king of. The inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar, son & successor (in 605) of Nabopolassar, do not include mention of Assyria.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Hi Jig. That you supposedly "skimmed" my article on the "science" of textual criticism and can still ask these questions as to why I believe it is more Hocus Pocus is quite interesting.

Did you see what Wilbur Pickering said?

Here it is again.

Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?

Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.

## Is that meant as an objection ?

Since the Textus Receptus on which the AV is based represents only one form of the text, there is no reason for it to be regarded as the gold standard, let alone as somehow the unique bearer or locus of revelation.

So when there are differences from it, it is the TR, not the Bible, that is differed from. If readings not in the TR seem more likely to be what was written, those readings are the ones that should be chosen. What the TR or translations using it as their base might read, is neither here nor there. That the TR & some modern edition or translation disagree, could not matter less.

The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.

Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.

A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "more than five hundred changes" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition. The same committee of five editors prepared both!!!

## What of it ? Why aren't they allowed to change their minds ? New textual evidence is only one potential source of new readings. Fresh editions of writers who & texts which are witnesses to the NT text are another.

W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over five hundred places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are just guessing." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.

## That might mean something, if these differences were specified. Many differences are trivial, not affecting the meaning in the slightest: such as whether "and" appears, or whether the reading is "Jesus Christ", or "Christ Jesus". Sometimes the divergence comes from whether the reading is, say, ou (= not) or hou (= of which) - improved means of reading a manuscript can make a difference to what is read. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of textual criticism will know that readings that differ greatly in English, can be based on very slight differences in the texts. Such knowledge is not hard to acquire:

Bruce M. Metzger:

• The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration

In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Hort's magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think if you follow the instructions in the bible, and let God open your eyes regarding the scriptures, then it won't matter what bible you're reading out of, because you'll see He speaks and teaches through everything He has created . and people cannot get in the way of that .

the fact that you are relying on something that people can corrupt is proving according to the text of the bible, it was not what God intended.

 

[Jig]

Hi Jig. What we are saying is NOBODY seriously believes any of your modern versions ARE the complete and infallible words of God.

Don't think you are unique. You may be correct about the modern versions, but there have been people in the past who have claimed that their version of the Bible was the complete and infallible words of God - just like you.

For many years, especially in the 1500's and 1600's, Roman Catholics defended their translation of the Bible [the Latin Vulgate] as being inspired and perfect. What reasons or arguments did Roman Catholics use in defense of their Latin Vulgate-only view?

Roman Catholics argued that the church's long use of the Latin Vulgate proves it is the correct and best translation. In their preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament, the first reason given for use of the Latin Vulgate was that "it is most ancient." Gregory Martin, one of the Roman Catholic translators of the Rheims, asked Protestants: "Will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church above a thousand years?" (Fulke, DEFENSE, pp. 77-78). Again Martin wrote: "In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole church?" (IBID., p. 84).

Another claim of Roman Catholics was that the Latin Vulgate was equal to or even superior to God's Word in the original languages. The preface of the Rheims N. T. pointed out: "It [the Latin Vulgate] is truer than the vulgar Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." Thus, Roman Catholics set aside the superior authority of God's Word in the original languages to maintain the authority of their preferred translation--the Latin Vulgate.

It was implied or claimed that the Latin Vulgate-only view was necessary because of differences, errors, or corruptions in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Rheims translator, Martin, asked: "What Greek say we for there be sundry copies" (Fulke, DEFENSE, pp. 84-85). Francis Turretin (1623-1687) pointed out the Catholic view: "The question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of the Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this, we deny it" (DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, pp. 113-114).
Therefore, the Roman Catholics implied that there must be a perfect translation. Peter Sutor contended: "If in one point the Vulgate were in error, the entire authority of holy Scripture would collapse" (Hills, KJV DEFENDED, p. 187). The Rheims rgued that the Latin Vulgate was the only authentical Bible. Martin condemned Protestants or Reformers who made the Hebrew and Greek the standard for translations: "They admit only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be the true and authentical text of the scripture" (Fulke, DEFENSE, p. 46). Martin also noted that the Reformers "call the Greek verity and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried" (IBID., p. 43).

In addition, Catholics suggested that their Latin Vulgate-only view was necessary because of the differences and supposed corruptions in other translations. The Rheims preface claimed that their translation was needed because of the "false translations" by Protestants who had corrupted God's Word by "adding, detracting, altering, transposing, pointing, and other guileful means."

Furthermore, Catholics claimed that other translations are corrupt and that they are Satan's bibles. Martin condemned "books which were so translated by Tyndale and the like, as being no indeed God's book, word, or scripture, but the devil's word" (Fulke, DEFENSE, p. 228). Sir Thomas More contended that Tyndale's N. T. was a "cunning counterfeit," perverted in the interests of heresy; "that it was not worthy to be called Christ's testament, but either Tyndale's own testament or the testament of his master Antichrist" (Bruce, HISTORY OF THE BIBLE, p. 40).

Are these claims concerning the Latin Vulgate-only view scriptural? The early English translators including the KJV translators rejected these Catholic claims as unscriptural. Surprisely, KJV-only advocates seem to have revived these same warmed-over Catholic claims as "irrefutable" proof for another incorrect one-translation-only view--the KJV-only view.

 

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by brandplucked

Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, NIV, TNIV, NKJV

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

For those who have ears to hear and can see through the Double-Speak, inconsistency and logical fallacies of modern version scholars, the 2001 Holman Christian Standard Bible provides us with several quotes that exemplify the typical, pious sounding BALONEY promoted by those who do not believe IN FACT that any Bible is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.
​

## None of them is inerrant, none of them contains a text which is flawless - but they are sufficient for their function. What would be the good of a flawless Bible ? People would still find reasons to form sects. Even Churches that all agree in maintaining the total inerrancy of the Bible, disagree - so how would having a Bible perfect in some other way mend matters ? The problem is in men, not in the Bible. Even the least satisfactory version can be a means of God's blessing, if God blesses its use. Without God's blessing, the most perfect of Bibles would be useless.

Hi Hairy Tic, I must say I think your screen name is quite appropriate. The world is full of irony, isn't it.

I read through your posts and you "reassure" everybody that it really doesn't matter if we have an infallible Bible or not and that 39 entire verses is just "peanuts", and essentially seem to be saying 'Why all the fuss? What's the big deal, anyway?'

There is a difference between having an infallible Bible and forming sects. Sects are formed and false doctrine taught using the modern Bible Babble Buffet versions too. But if we all used the infallible Bible - the King James Bible - at least we would all be agreed on what it SAYS, though not necessarily on what it MEANS.

The situation is made all the worse by the conflicting fake bibles you endorse because now people not only disagree on what it means but also on what it says, and the result is that Christians believe any bible less and less. All signs of the times in which we live.

The NT was not written as some form of the AV-KJV - so there is no reason why the AV should be used as the standard for the text. The AV is useful, but not what the NT writers wrote.

And exactly HOW, we may well ask, do you know this? Do YOU happen to have a copy of what the N.T. writers originally wrote? Of course not. And even if you did, you seem really carefree and unconcerned about whether any Bible or translation would contain or omit all those "peanuts" verses that amount to "hardly anything".

I see in all your remarks the typical "Yea, hath God said...?" mentality that seminaries are churning out today, and with "good words and fair speeches" (Romans 16:18) are trying to reassure people that it really doesn't matter much what "the Bible" may or may not say. After all, we can't really expect God to work through history to give us an infallible Book, can we? And even if we had one, it really wouldn't make much difference because there would still be sects and divisions, right?

Hey, wait a minute. If I really believe God and His Book, it seems to clearly say that He will preserve His words in "the book of the LORD", 'the Scripture cannot be broken", "heaven and earth shall pass away but My words shall not pass away" AND the Bible tells me that there will be divisions, false teachers bringing doctrines of devils and that in the last days men will depart from the truth and be turned unto fables.

Let's see now. Whom shall I believe? God and His Book or people like you who tell us that there is no infallible Bible and that 39 entire verses in just the New Testament are "peanuts that amount to hardly anything"?

Hmmmm. Tough call

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney