Take the NIV Challenge

Ezra · Mar 29, 2003

Yesterday at 12:37 PM OldShepherd said this in Post #158 And theos appears in several manuscripts. [/B]

Dean Burgon personally researched 1 Tim. 3:16 throughout the existing manuscripts and confirmed that even in Codex A, the word was theos not os. If you haven't read his Revision Revised, it's worth getting.

The Thadman · Mar 30, 2003

Yesterday at 07:40 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #159

There is no credible evidence that the entire N.T. was written in Aramaic. Four of the ECF record that Matthew was written in either Aramaic or Hebrew.

How do you define "credible" and have you looked through my website?

Shlomo! (Peace!)

filosofer · Mar 30, 2003

Yesterday at 09:51 PM Ezra said this
For all intents and purposes, you can confidently consider the KJV 1611 A.D. as *the Word of God* in English, and be totally confident that there are no attempts here to paraphrase or to incorporate corruptions into the Word.  ALL other modern English versions are corruptions because they rely on corrupted underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. The AV (KJV) and ALL Reformation Bibles go back to the Masoretic [traditional] Text in Hebrew and the Majority [traditional] Text in Greek. 

When you define the issue then the only outcome is what you want.

But aside from that, have you translated the Hebrew and the Greek and compared it with the KJV (and I don't mean an interlinear look, but actual translation)? (And I am not talking about those sections where there might be manuscript differences). Do you know how to translate? Do you realize that not even the KJV is word-for-word in every passage? I have translated all of the NT except parts of Hebrews and Jude, and several sections of the OT. There are no translations that are strictly word-for-word; they cannot be - because of differences in syntax, structure, vocabulary.

Since most of us are not students of Hebrew and Greek we can rely on the word-for-word translation in the KJV, which even italicizes [slants] the words added by the translators to complete the thought or to help the reader.  In other words, you could even omit reading the italicized words if you so chose, although rarely if ever is that necessary.

So, for those of us who do read the Hebrew and Greek?

All modern versions go back to the emended Kittel's Biblia Hebraica for Hebrew and the modified Westcott-Hort texts for the Greek. These are corrupt.

Again, when you start with this as the definition, no wonder...

DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT ANY BIBLE VERSION IS O.K. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE, and I have personally researched this.

Good. Now we don't have to take the word of the KJV, we have your word on this!? After you learn Hebrew and Greek, can read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT with more than a one-word-gloss interlinear and spend 25 years working and using the languages and understand how to translate, then we can discuss some more.

What have you researched? Websites that only present partial data to support their positions? Sadly there is so much junk on many of those web sites that it is difficult for most people to sift through the good material and logical arguments from the sometimes illogical, and even spurious "facts" that are paraded to defend KJV-Onlyism. And even worse, the value of the KJV as a translation is lost because people try to make it something that not even the KJV translators tried to do.

filosofer · Mar 30, 2003

Yesterday at 09:55 PM Ezra said
Dean Burgon personally researched 1 Tim. 3:16 throughout the existing manuscripts and confirmed that even in Codex A, the word was theos not os. If you haven't read his Revision Revised, it's worth getting.

The same Dean Burgon who wrote 125 years ago? The one who died before the last 115 NT papyrii have been discovered?

Keep in mind that many manuscripts used shorthand for the word THEOS - namely OS with a line over the top of the two letters. Suppose that line is obliterated. Then what might be (THE)OS is read as OS - which is the relative article.

OR

Maybe the original was the relative pronoun OS, and later scribes wanted to clarify the referent and therefore drew the line over the two letters, and now it becomes the abbreviate form of "God" (THE)OS.

So, which is original and which is right?

Hmmm, might have something to do with manuscript differences that are not "spurious" or "corrupt" but legitimate readings based on an added line or missing line.

Jesusong · Mar 31, 2003

Filo,

      I'm so glad you made your point about 1Tim 3:16. I was trying to do that yesterday morning and when I went to submit it my computer froze up and I lost it. ( AUGGH!!!  )  I remember reading and seeing an example of the shorthand you mentioned in one of James White's books, and I could see exactly what could have happened, especially when you see that there are no spaces between the words.     

The argument that Ezra brought up about Dean Burgon and Codex A, is that the mss that a later scribe put the line in over the os to either conform to the shorthand of theos, or to clarify the marking because of wear? ( makes me want to slap that scribe off the head for doing that )

Jephunneh · Apr 1, 2003

24th March 2003 at 11:07 AM Susan said this[/url]

This thread's nominated.

Susan, I love you, you always show forth such a sweet spirit of Christ!

Susan · Apr 1, 2003

1st April 2003 at 06:32 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #166

Susan, I love you, you always show forth such a sweet spirit of Christ!

Veiled flames hurt as much as open flames.

Jephunneh · Apr 3, 2003

What has happened to verse 37 in the NIV?, " And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

And why would anyone want to take THAT verse out??? Unless of course that someone might be Satan.

NIV
Acts 8
35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

40Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

KJV
Acts 8
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

"Things that are different are NOT the same."

Jesusong · Apr 4, 2003

Acts 8:37 is found in very few Greek mss dating no further than the 6th century. Erasmus inserted this verse into his Greek text because it was found in the margin of one of the mss he had in his possession ( kind of like how you would find it in the NIV huh? ) and also it was in the Latin Vulgate.

The Thadman · Apr 4, 2003

Jeph,

Why does the KJV "ommit" Acts 6:16?

12 So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13 They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us."
15 All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel. 16 And Stephen heard in his head, "Stay fast, my servant, and know that Jesus is the Son of God!"

Shlomo,

Jephunneh · Apr 5, 2003

Sorry Js, 99% of households do not speak or read or even have a (or one of MANY) so called "Greek Text".

NIV
15 All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

end of chapter 6
No Verse 16 here.

© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

----------------------------------------------------

KJV - Acts
15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

end of chapter 6

The Thadman · Apr 5, 2003

5th April 2003 at 09:26 AM Jephunneh said this in Post #171

Sorry Js, 99% of households do not speak or read or even have a (or one of MANY) so called "Greek Text".

NIV
15 All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

end of chapter 6
No Verse 16 here.

Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

----------------------------------------------------

KJV - Acts
15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

end of chapter 6

That's the thing is it? Where'd the verse go?

The fact of the matter is that there is no such verse as Acts 6:16, I made it up. ACTS 6:16 IS NOT SCRIPTURE.

Those verses the NIV took out serve the same purpose: They were added in later and the KJV included those additions in it's translation.

NOW, if I were to publish an edition of the Bible with the ADDED Acts 6:16, would you even LOOK at it?

The KJV has many more insertions than my single one, and passing off said inserted verses as God's Word to people who don't know any better is DANGEROUS.

Shlomo,

Jephunneh · Apr 5, 2003

You might be right if God had no hand or interest in His written word.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Remember that 99% of Christians do not speak or read or even have a (or one of MANY) so called "Greek Text".

----------------------------------------------------
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

God has used the KJV because it is His Word, which He has providentially watched over. Even though the KJV only goes back to 1611, nevertheless it is based upon the text and versions which preceded it. These texts and manuscripts are the ones that Bible believers have used down through the ages. It is a known fact that 85% to 95% of all ancient manuscripts are in basic agreement with the KJV, but not with the modern versions.

The Thadman · Apr 6, 2003

Yesterday at 11:32 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #173

You might be right if God had no hand or interest in His written word.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Remember that 99% of Christians do not speak or read or even have a (or one of MANY) so called "Greek Text".

----------------------------------------------------
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

God has used the KJV because it is His Word, which He has providentially watched over. Even though the KJV only goes back to 1611, nevertheless it is based upon the text and versions which preceded it. These texts and manuscripts are the ones that Bible believers have used down through the ages. It is a known fact that 85% to 95% of all ancient manuscripts are in basic agreement with the KJV, but not with the modern versions.

If 85% to 95% of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do so, too?

The fact is that 85% to 95% of Greek MSS are LATE additions to the MSS tradition.

I can show you an Aramaic MSS that has been used for 2000 years without translation that is free from textual additives (i.e 99.9% MSS agreement INDEPENDENT of age).

Wouldn't it be too easy for Satan to convince humans that a human translation of God's word is infallible? How do you know that he doesn't have you fooled already?

Be careful,

Jephunneh · Apr 6, 2003

Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Notice how the NIV changes book of life to tree of life (what part would we

even have in the tree of life?), then they confuse the last part of the verse,

by dropping "and" and running the verse together, it is weakened. The

warning is weakened. This is what the NIV is all about.

It corrupts, omits, weakens and changes God's inspired word.

The Thadman · Apr 6, 2003

Today at 08:24 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #175

Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Notice how the NIV changes book of life to tree of life (what part would we

even have in the tree of life?), then they confuse the last part of the verse,

by dropping "and" and running the verse together, it is weakened. The

warning is weakened. This is what the NIV is all about.

It corrupts, omits, weakens and changes God's inspired word.

It WOULD "weaken" the meaning if the NIV were a translation of the KJV.

What was the text of this verse?

19 ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܒܨܪ ܡܢ ܡܠܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܢܒܝܘܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܢܒܨܪ ܐܠܗܐ ܡܢܬܗ ܡܢ ܩܝܤܐ ܕܚܝܐ ܘܡܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܟܬܝܒܢ ܒܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܀

19 And if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are described in this book.--

Note the word "ܩܝܤܐ" (qaiso: tree, timber, wood) instead of "ܟܬܒܐ" (kthobo: book).

The fact of the matter is that the NIV represents the ORIGINAL TEXTS better in this case.

The KJV goofed up with the reference to the Tree of Life.

Shlomo,

Jephunneh · Apr 7, 2003

Have you read the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible?

A JW's New World Translation is essentially the same in the NIV.

The Thadman · Apr 7, 2003

Today at 03:16 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #177

Have you read the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible?

A JW's New World Translation is essentially the same in the NIV.

You obviously haven't read through them both

The JW NT does not follow the Greek either. They add in words all over the place that have NO basis in manuscripts and purposefully mistranslate to fit their doctrine ('In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.').

The NIV is a critical edition of the Greek MSS tradition, providing alternate readings as well as footnotes detailing MSS variances.

STILL, the NIV is from the Greek, like the KJV

Also, if you think they're the same, state your evidence.

Shlomo,

Jephunneh · Apr 7, 2003

Did the Koine Greek Bible result in your salvation, if you are saved?

If God chose Hebrew to reveal His covenants, how did Paul translate O.T. passages into Greek without a loss of inspiration and purity?

Who do you know that advocates that God gave His word in only one language?

If He gave us an inspired translation in Hebrew and as you say Koine Greek, why didn't He give us other inspired translations in other Greeks and modern Hebrew? Did God author the differences in the Greek texts? Where did the differences come from? God?

Fore ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven . . . Ps. 119:89

The Thadman · Apr 7, 2003

Today at 04:54 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #179

Did the Koine Greek Bible result in your salvation, if you are saved?

If God chose Hebrew to reveal His covenants, how did Paul translate O.T. passages into Greek without a loss of inspiration and purity?

Who do you know that advocates that God gave His word in only one language?

If He gave us an inspired translation in Hebrew and as you say Koine Greek, why didn't He give us other inspired translations in other Greeks and modern Hebrew? Did God author the differences in the Greek texts? Where did the differences come from? God?

Fore ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven . . . Ps. 119:89

No, God's the cause of my salvation ;-)

He translated them to Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew and loses nothing in translation. Someone else then translated it into Greek, and like a game of telephone, more and more information is lost over time. Also, Paul's letters' Hebrew quotes are easily looked up in their original language.

No one that I know of thinks that the whole Bible was authored in one language.

I NEVER said that there was an inspired version of the NT in Kione Greek. I only think that a few books of the NT were originally written in Greek, hence when I quoted Revelation above, it was in the Aramaic. The only text type that agrees with the KJV in the verse above is the Textus Receptus, NOT the Majority text.

Here's a quick comment on the Textus Receptus: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html

Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was the standard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive."

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.

...

Erasmus's first edition was a great success; some 3300 copies of his first two editions were sold. The success of Erasmus's edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 -- but although it contained an independent text of the Septuagint (the first such to be printed), its New Testament text was taken almost verbatim from Erasmus, including even the typographical errors. Hence the first truly new publication was Erasmus's own edition of 1519. This featured almost the same text as the 1516 edition, but with the majority (though by no means all!) of the errors of the press corrected. It also features some new readings, believed by Scrivener to come from 3eap (XII; classified by von Soden as e: Kx a: I [K]; c: K)... (Read the rest of the article.)

I'm rather sure that God did not author the differences in the Greek texts, because he wanted no divisions among us. Erasimus admittedly ADDED to the letter of the Bible, particularly, the text that the KJV was translated from. Is that right to do?

Also, note the date: The 1500's?! That's the 16th century. That's VERY late.

The texts I've quoted have been in use since the 1st Century and have no variances.

~Sigh~

Taude,

Take the NIV Challenge

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency