Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm of the view that a one person translation of the Bible is not as healthy as using a committee of translators for checking accuracy. Therefore, I don't recommend The Message as among the better Bible translations. I'd stick with the ESV, the NIV, NASB, and the New Living Translation. For me the best at the moment is the English Standard Version. However, as long as one understands the dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) translation style of the NIV, it also is an excellent translation. I used it for many years.Anybody know what (relative to this thread) originals Eugene Peterson worked with, coming up with The Message? Same as the Catholic Bible, KJV, or what?
## Especially as that "soul", who was far from "lost" by the sound of it, is actually called Origenes Adamantius. Origenes = 8 letters = number of perfection (I think; if one is going to play these games).What the modern world HAS been sold is that "new" is better than "old." If you want to find a legitimate argument in favor of using the AV, spend some time looking into how "new" is nowadays synonymous with "good," and "old" with "bad." Don't waste your time with this nonsense you've written. Please, support the AV, and please, find a historically and logically responsible way to do it. It is a beautiful translation, albeit with shortcomings, but certainly the best devotional read of the English translations -- second only to critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, and in those cases only for purposes of academic study.
Let's have a brief look at your "history lesson."
Couldn't help that, minus the AV, your name is made up of six letters too. Your numerology fails to impress.
## And if we call him Moshe, that is still only five letters.So, by the same token, Moses (five letters) was born in Egypt, and we should conclude... what? that he is a servant of death as must as Origen was?
## And it was Catholics, a whole Church of them, who presided over the process of the canonisation of the NT. The evil Catholic Augustine is one of the principal theologians of Calvinism. So that's the Calvinists done for. And as for the NT, it's a post-Biblical abomination, as is evident from the Bible AKA OT. There is not a scrap of evidence that Jesus wanted one.The Bible condemns "love of knowledge"? Say it ain't so! (You'd better read through Proverbs a few times, friend.)
Well, YOU believe that the very people who institutionalized the doctrine of Christ's full divinity and humanity AND the Trinity were in fact "evil, evil Catholics," so who are you to judge someone's orthodoxy?
## And why write in the wicked Koine, which was already perverted by having been put to evil use ? No true Christian would do that. Since the Apostles were godless Biblep-contradictors, they used the Koine. Simples.Not many numbers left, are there? Why write in Koine Greek when the dialect had already died away? Is the AV similarly written in the "more complicated" Elizabethan English, vis-a-vis "the common spoken language" of people nowadays? Should we therefore ditch that version in favor of, what, the Street Bible?
## Considering that Origen had died in 253/4, Eusebius' journey to see him is quite an achievement6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, I know just the place! So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, Ive done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column. (5 the number of you guessed it)
It would be just awesome if you could substantiate this claim with actual evidence.
## Reading Jack Chick does not do an awful lot to promote the critical faculties - the sale of sick-bags, possibly; but not the critical faculties. And Chick is the great promoter of this Egypt/Origen/non-KJV-Bible-bashing.I like how anti-catholic you are -- how it makes you assume that Catholicism in the fourth century is the same as Catholicism in the sixteenth century is the same as Catholicism in the twenty-first century. Do you, by chance, see every German and Japanese person you meet in terms solely defined by the second world war?
## The KJV NT is influenced by the (Catholic) Rheims NT of 1582, though the Rheims NT was not among the versions to which the the attention of the translators was explicitly directed. William Reynolds, one of men who produced the AV, had a brother named John, who was one of makers of the Rheims-Douai Bible. (The Douai OT came out too late to influence the OT of the AV.)13. These bibles were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.
## That, or Fundamentalist paranoia - I think the latter is often at work. Aggravated perhaps by "exceptionalism". The Pope has probably not even heard of the AV/KJV.It would be just awesome if you could substantiate this claim with actual evidence.
It would be just awesome if you could substantiate this claim with actual evidence.
I don't think Rome gives a ratcrap about the thousands of translations we have, and to assume otherwise may be the result of mere egoism.
Anyway, you seem to be pretty committed to the idea that the received text is a more reliable source for reconstructing original readings, so I'm not even going to attempt convincing you otherwise, but I hope that you will keep searching and find a more effective way of upholding the AV as one of the great literary works of the English language, and encouraging people to read it for its strengths, not because of the (often forced) supposed weaknesses of the alternatives.
## Then they have been "taught" by ignoramuses.Lets stir it up a bit - A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods theyve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information.
## "All modern versions" ? Not so. Apart from anything else, no-one who presumes to talk about modern versions can afford to be ignorant that the division of text-families worked out by W & H is no longer found adequate.All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest some may find them worthless but thats fine.
## As his name was Origenes Adamantios, that number-play is beside the point. Not all the Fathers of the Church spoke English. Actually, none did.1. Origen 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,) Origen 6 letters number of man
## Since the native & Classical names for Egypt:2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt 5 letters number of death - (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didnt even want his bones to stay in Egypt)
## No - a catechetical school. Not quite the same thing. And Colossians is not going to be much help here - it was written much earlier, & not for the benefit of Christians in Alexandria.3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).
4. Origens beliefs didnt believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible
5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business;
## What a revolting description.That's like saying St. Paul "got into the...business" of writing moral uplift.
came up with a 5-column hexaphala (5 the number of death) had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him 4 being the number of the world. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origens column was the 5th (5 the number of death). The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).
6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place
## The hexaplar [which is the correct spelling] was not very portable - this is rather obvious, as it was a collation of six columns of text. It was far too large to be copied complete, which is why only fragments of it remain.
## That is a most impressive achievement.because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, I know just the place! So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, Ive done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column. (5 the number of you guessed it)
## God is lacking in the hand department, so that is hardly surprising. And "intact" is one word, not two. As for not being read - they were designed to be read in church, by the reader; not by the average person.7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origens 5th column and brings them back to Constantine.
Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them God didnt have His hand on them.
## Papyrus is less durable in a damp climate than vellum. Papyrus is fine in a hot dry climate (such as that of Egypt), but not in a damp one. And unlike papyrus, which presupposes the availability of reed-beds, vellum is obtainable provided one has a sufficient supply of sheep - IOW, "it's dependent on the economy..."The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them in other words God used them.
8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).
9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).
## But nowhere else, obviously - so much for the rest of what is now Europe, & those island just north of what became France. Silly Church historians for thinking Codex Amiatinus was written at Jarrow.
## At least get the name & date right10. In 1400s or so these manuscripts become the Duhay Rheims (Roman Catholic).
## Quite unlike the entirely peaceful westward expansion of the US, of course. No Indians killed, no treaties broken, no need for reservations. Since the New World was opened up by Spanish-speakers (apart from Brazil), an English translation of the Vulgate would not have been much use to them.11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.
## Ignorance like that is ineducable12. The rest of the Alexandrian bibles stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didnt want them circulated to the common people anyway.
## Since Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by von Tischendorff in an Orthodox monastery in Egypt in the 19th century, this is improbable. It's difficult to use manuscripts of which one has no knowledge.13. These bibles were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.
14. In 1881a conference was called to update the AV1611. Two Christian bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.
## There was nothing sneaky about the use of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus - as a knowledge of the discussion of the Biblical text long before 1881 would make perfectly clear. But there is no protection against fantasies
15. From this committee you got the RV 1881
16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.
## With several exceptions. The NEB, the Moffatt Bible, the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, the Confraternity Version, & many more, are related only incidentally if at all to the versions descended from the AV & its successors. The AV NT is indebted for many of its renderings to the Reims New Testament of 1582 - something the poster's source left out.
## I think you'll find the CC has better things to do than to worry about an antiquated English translation of the Bible the vast majority of Catholics have probably never heard of.Well there it is Im sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and Im sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it the new versions are basically Catholic bibles Im sure Rome is tickled.
## 'Fraid not, sorry - I've never seen that version, so I have difficulty telling him from Eugene Nida (of "dynamic equivalence" fame).Anybody know what (relative to this thread) originals Eugene Peterson worked with, coming up with The Message? Same as the Catholic Bible, KJV, or what?
## "Michael" has 7 letters - so I'm safe. Shouldn't "Timothy" become "Timotheos" to be numbered ? That gives you 9 letters - 3 times 3OK, now that's one too many letters. 7 is the divine number.
Take my name, for instance: Timothy. It has 7 letters, you can draw your own conclusions from that.
## As "Timotheos" = "fearing God", that makes the OP either a proselyte, or an angel (which fits the reference to Judges 13).If it does, then he really is "the nameless one" and therefore divine.
"Why dost thou ask my name, seeing that it is holy?"
## I'm familiar with the name, have heard of the Second Great Awakening, read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", know he has a high reputation as a theologian, but can't say I know his works at all well. He's quoted at length by William James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience". Is he truly comparable to Origen ? IMO, the only Father whom Origen doesn't overshadow, is St. Augustine. (I think it is disgraceful Origen is not reckoned a Saint.)What, you're not into Edwards?
Of course, I was merely being facetious.## I'm familiar with the name, have heard of the Second Great Awakening, read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", know he has a high reputation as a theologian, but can't say I know his works at all well. He's quoted at length by William James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience". Is he truly comparable to Origen ? IMO, the only Father whom Origen doesn't overshadow, is St. Augustine. (I think it is disgraceful Origen is not reckoned a Saint.)
Lets stir it up a bit - A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods theyve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information. All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest some may find them worthless but thats fine.
1. Origen 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,) Origen 6 letters number of man
2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt 5 letters number of death - (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didnt even want his bones to stay in Egypt)
3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).
4. Origens beliefs didnt believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible
5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala (5 the number of death) had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him 4 being the number of the world. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origens column was the 5th (5 the number of death). The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).
6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, I know just the place! So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, Ive done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column. (5 the number of you guessed it)
7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origens 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them God didnt have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them in other words God used them.
8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).
9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).
10. In 1400s or so these manuscripts become the Duhay Rheims (Roman Catholic).
11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.
12. The rest of the Alexandrian bibles stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didnt want them circulated to the common people anyway.
13. These bibles were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.
14. In 1881a conference was called to update the AV1611. Two Christian bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.
15. From this committee you got the RV 1881
16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.
Well there it is Im sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and Im sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it the new versions are basically Catholic bibles Im sure Rome is tickled.
I have found that a better explanation of the chain of English-related translations (than given by AVBunyan) is found at Translations. There was a prominent KJV revision (the one I used in my years as a new Christian) in 1769. See also, Is the King James Version perfect? and the KJV of 1769.Nice recitation of the side of the table's arguments you are biased towards. Had you studied the opposition to UNDERSTAND them, not to argue against them, and then decided, I don't think you'd have as much reason to be embarassed as you do now.
If the original KJV was the "right version", I guess it would still have the DIDACHE, APOSTLES CREED, and other apocrypha in it. Instead they took it out. If ORIGEN was really responsible, then they would be in there as well, as they are books Origen had on hand.
Are you aware of this link that gives the "assaulted quotes" vs the "accurate quotes" of Westcott & Hort? See HERE.Still waiting for proof that Westcott and Hort were heretics or Apostates.
I have found that a better explanation of the chain of English-related translations (than given by AVBunyan) is found at Translations. There was a prominent KJV revision (the one I used in my years as a new Christian) in 1769. See also, Is the King James Version perfect? and the KJV of 1769.
Oz
razeontherock,
I'm of the view that a one person translation of the Bible is not as healthy as using a committee of translators for checking accuracy. Therefore, I don't recommend The Message as among the better Bible translations. I'd stick with the ESV, the NIV, NASB, and the New Living Translation. For me the best at the moment is the English Standard Version. However, as long as one understands the dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) translation style of the NIV, it also is an excellent translation. I used it for many years.
Regards, Spencer
Lets stir it up a bit - A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods theyve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information. All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest some may find them worthless but thats fine.
1. Origen 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,) Origen 6 letters number of man
2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt 5 letters number of death - (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didnt even want his bones to stay in Egypt)
3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).
4. Origens beliefs didnt believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible
5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala (5 the number of death) had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him 4 being the number of the world. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origens column was the 5th (5 the number of death). The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).
6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, I know just the place! So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, Ive done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column. (5 the number of you guessed it)
7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origens 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them God didnt have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them in other words God used them.
8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).
9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).
10. In 1400s or so these manuscripts become the Duhay Rheims (Roman Catholic).
11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.
12. The rest of the Alexandrian bibles stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didnt want them circulated to the common people anyway.
13. These bibles were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.
14. In 1881a conference was called to update the AV1611. Two Christian bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.
15. From this committee you got the RV 1881
16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.
Well there it is Im sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and Im sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it the new versions are basically Catholic bibles Im sure Rome is tickled.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?