Bible Translations

I don't have time to look them all up, but a few of them are interesting.

(1) Irenaeus *also* quotes "Isaiah the prophet:"

"Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,” — pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character." (Against Heresies, 3:11:8).

(2) Matthew elsewhere follows the accepted convention of quoting the words of the minor prophet under the name of the major prophet:

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." (Mt. 27:9-10 KJV)

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD." (Zech. 11:12-23 KJV)

This variant has already been discussed in this thread --> link

This is another classic example of using and uncritical text of a church father. The most ancient copies of the Epistle of Barnabas 5.9 read "he came not to call the righteous but sinners." (See Lake's or Holmes' editions of The Apostolic Fathers). Later scribes changed their texts to agree with the later Byzantine text.

(1) Tertullian does *not* quote 1 Jn. 5:7 as anyone who reads the passage can plainly see (though he does quote Jn. 10:30):

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Against Praxeas 25).

(2) We can't be sure Cyprian is quoting 1 Jn. 5:7 because the words he uses are *also* in 1 Jn. 5:8, and we have no way on knowing which verse he was quoting.

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt." (1 Jn. 5:8 in the Old Latin)

"Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et pater unum sumus;' et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'" (Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, 6).

 

Why are you interested in a word, "wiegh"? I will not buy it.

 

UBS/NA edition disagrees with Greek MSS 8,000 times because in the future this UBS/NA will still edit repeatedly. I will noy buy it because it will edited 27/4 times... *future*... 28/5.... 29/6.... and go on. UBS/NA is messed up itself!

Why did Erasmus throw Vaticanus Manuscript out of his office?

Ok, let's see Vaticanus and Sinaitic MSS are older MSS and pure MSS. Look at them that they disagree each other 3,000 times. How pure is their disagreement 3,000 times?

 

The TR was edited many times as well. In fact, the TR currently used today was not even based on Greek manuscripts primarily but rather on teh KJV. That is backwards from how it should have been done.

The reality that the UBS/NA texts (they are different texts by the way) does not differ from the Greek text 8000 times. If you believe that, then you have believed a lie. Every single reading in them is found in the Greek texts and the evidence is at the bottom of every page to show it. You don't have to buy one. You probably can't even read it if you are like most KJVOs. But you should not make up stuff that is untrue about it. Learn to have the decency of honesty.

He didn't according to any information I have seen. Erasmus, by his own admission, oroginally used 7 Greek texts. Later, he edited as he found more texts. Some of the things he included such as 1 John 5:7-8 were included under political pressure from other people who don't like that Erasmus did not believe 1 John 5:7-8 to be authentic. Erasmus well knew that there was no evidence for its authenticity. Therefore, he properly refused to add to the word of God by adding it in. It was only in the 4th edition that he included it and then only reluctantly.

Read what I say before you make silly statements. Start understanding the issues here. This statement should be disregarded as the notions of someone who neither understands nor learns.

 

Sola_Scriptura said:

You missed the point yourself. The modern translations are not the word of God. The facts support this.

This statement coming from a KJVer has almost as much credibility as a tobacco executive saying he does not believe cigarettes are addictive.

 

I do not think you are aware of this fact what I found a source from England. I do not see your honesty reflecting this evidence from England.

God can't lie to preserve His word in Hebrew and Greek MSS where the KJV was translated. God can't lie to use Erasmus because Erasmus found the evidence of 1 John 5:7. Here is the record! I do not see how I lie.

Just your denial! That means a lie! I have this information about Erasmus and Vaticanus Manuscript.

Again -- your denial -- a lie! Erasmus already found it. PTL!!! We do not know how he found it.

 

I do not think you are aware of this fact what I found a source from England. I do not see your honesty reflecting this evidence from England.</font>[/QUOTE]No matter where your information came from, it is wrong. The UBS and NA are different Greek texts. How can a Greek text differ from teh Greek text?? They might differ from another Greek text, but that is an entirely different matter, for the TR differs from other Greek texts as well. I have been perfectly honest. You are the one who is less than honest on this matter.

This doesn't make sense ... "God can't lie to use Erasmus"?? God never promised to use Erasmus. Erasmus did not find the evidence for 1 John 5:7. It was shown to him after he had already made his manuscript.

Neither did God promise to preserve his word in the Greek and Hebrew where the KJV was translated from. You are making up promises of God. That is bad theological method.

Please read this article before making any more foolish statements: Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

Then cite it. You have shown us so many time that you have no idea what you are talking about that there is no reason to believe you this time. Show us the evidence.

Then show us this. Your word is worthless. We have proven you wrong over and over again. We have no reason to believe you at all. Show us the evidence; your word is worthless.

 

I do not think you are aware of this fact what I found a source from England. I do not see your honesty reflecting this evidence from England.</font>[/QUOTE]No matter where your information came from, it is wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]And there we have it folks. The pro-AV information is wrong and the anti-AV is correct. Of course no proof is given. But that's fine.

Then of course when those who are against the false versions do provide evidence we are told our evidence is wrong or the godly men who discovered it are unscholarly. Of course the practice of modern textual critics of treating the Bible as another man-written document and not believing it to be the word of God, nor believing in the deity of Jesus Christ, but believing in evolution, and other false beliefs, is perfectly acceptable. I have to wonder about people who claim to be Christian, but sit at the teet of false teachers, who by their own admissions do not believe the Bible to be anything other than a man-written document that can be corrected using the same practices applied to other man-written documents.

If these modern "versions" really are God's word, then where is their godly fruit? No one ever mentions the great revivals of the 19th century and early 20th century having occurred from these new versions.

To those of you who do know that the AV is God's word in English, I suggest you pray for the people on this site who, having itching ears, listen to the textual critics and their ungodly doctrine, that God may open their eyes.

 

To Scott J

If you cared to check you would see that the underlying greek texts of those books match the TR family not the modern version family.

Many people from Burgon unto today have shown they weaken doctrine. As to agreeing with AV, I just want them to agree with the true word of God in greek and hebrew and to be translated by godly people, and not by profaners.

As to pompous, what is pompous is claiming pro-TR/BCMT/AV people have no evidence and claiming it all supports against the AV. No one on this site who is against the TR/BCMT/AV has provided any hard evidence and the same group demonstrates a lacking in research ability.

 

A great site for Pro-AVers to check out, read, and seriously think about.

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whatkjvo.htm

 

As to you anti-AVers, you probably wouldn't enjoy that site. SO DON'T GO THERE!!

And to make clear once again my position.
I believe that the only true hebrew text is the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and not the Ben Asher (son of which? hmmm) which was put together by the anti-semite Rudolph Kittel. I believe the only true greek text is from the antiochian/byzantine line and now is in the Textus Receptus. The many omissions, contradictions, and gross errors in the Alexandrian school, regardless of age, remove this text from being God's word. Also it is well known that the text used predominantly throughout church history has been the Byzantine text type underlying the TR. And it is therefore the height of arrogance on the part of man to claim, that a buried and dormant text type that was consigned to the trash heap all these centuries was actually the true text. To believe such is to believe the church did not have God's word all those centuries and that God is a liar.

As to the english versions, the only english version translated from the TR and BCMT is the King James Version. Therefore only this versions can claim to be the word of God in English. As to Tyndale, Wycliffe, and the Geneva Versions, English did not become set as a language until the early 17th century, therefore these earlier versions, though the word of God in their language, are supplanted by the word of God in set english, the KJV. As to the "corrections" in the AV, it is well known that they were either spelling corrections (spelling didn't become set in english until later, look up the Ojibwe language), punctuation corrections (same as spelling), or correctins of printing errors. This brings to mind a foolish argument used by someone on this site concerning "The Wicked Bible." This Bible had the now infamous printing error: "Thou shalt commit adultery." Now it is obvious that this was nothing more than a printing error, to believe otherwise is just plain foolish.

Now if someone cares to produce a modern translation from TR & BCMT that keeps the 2nd person singular you (thee/ou/y/ine) and 2nd person plural you (ye/you/yours) and keeps the 2nd person singular ending -est, and the 3rd person singular ending -eth, and does not use the modern hebrew and greek lexicons which are corrupted by the likes of Gensenius, Strong, Gerhard Kittel, et al, but uses hebrew and greek lexicons prior to the 18th century, that too MAY be considered the word of God. (And yes it better include Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4 since according to Acts 12:1-3 passover had passed.)

As to Ruckman and his ilk, why is that man still a "pastor" when he has been unbiblically divorced? Also having read some of his work (Problem Texts, et al) and having dealt with his followers, the man is a nut. Totally off his nut and quite loopy. I do not subscribe to his beliefs concerning the Greek and Hebrew texts or that the AV has improved on the greek and hebrew. I also do not believe as TC believe that the Bible was only inspired in the original autographs. This is foolish. If the Bible was only inspired in the originals, which are lost, then the Bible is currently expired, or dead. Also scripture makes it quite clear "All scripture IS given by inspiration of God." (2 Tim 3:16) The verb is in the current tense and not the past.

 

So basically, the only way we have have a true MV is to use the texts used for the KJV, and only use the tools used by the KJV translators, and only used 17th century syntax? Obi-kabi !

I believe...I believe...Therefore only this versions can claim to be the word of God in English.

That proves that the KJV is the only true Bible of the English language...because Sola believes it! (Personally, I need a bit more proof than that.)

In Christ,
Trotter

 

William W. Combs is a naturalistic writer.

If I give you my answers, I already know you are still a naturalistic man. Should I tell you something that you disagree?

Pastor Larry, I agree with Sola_Scriptura reflecting his answer.

 

"Why did Erasmus throw Vaticanus Manuscript out of his office?"
Desiderus Erasmus never layed eyes upon Vaticanus, so we have no idea how he would have responded to it.

 

This is blatantly inaccurate. It is also well know the AV translators had access to it, and discarded it, knowing it was the product of gnostics.

 

Erasmus had access to the Douay-Rheims of 1582;seeing that it came from Vaticanus,Erasmus,as well as the AV translators had access to it and had sense enough to reject it.

 

What about the similar "omissions, contradictions, and gross errors" in the TR, many of which have been pointed out in previous posts that have been ignored? Are you willing to hold the TR to the same standard?

No, it is not at all "well known." In fact, all the evidence we have tells us the opposite: that every known Greek, versional, and patristic source from before the 4th C. was NON-Byzantine. Even Chrysostom's text was only 40.5% Byzantine, and he was the first Father to use a Byzantine text.

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Both the Tyndale Bible (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1560) were translated from the same basic text as the KJV. And English was as much as "set language" in 1534 and 1560 as it was in 1611.

While this may be true for *some* of the changes, we can't be certain about *all* of them, for two reasons. (1) We no longer have the "originals" (the final draft copy sent by the translators to the printer) to determine what the 1611 KJV text actually looked like, so we can't know for sure whether the subsequent changes didn't incorporate actual changes in the text and meaning. (2) Some of the changes were made long after the KJV translators had died. On what authority and what basis were the 1762 and 1769 changes made? How do we know that they didn't include actual changes to the text and meaning?

Actually, it should do what the Geneva Bible did and properly translate the Greek word πασχα as "Passover" because that's what the word means. "Passover" refers to both the day and the season, as Lk. 22:1 clearly tells us.

 

Not only is it not fine, it is a lie. We have given proof, time and time again. Your side gives none.

This is the question I have asked many times. No one on your side will answer it.

My answer is simple. I don't. I don't sit at the feet of these men. I have never sat under the teaching of someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be a supernatural book.

Come to the churches that use them and see.

I believe that the KJV is God's word in English, but my eyes are open. I know the truth and I know that you do not have it.

 

Answer me this: Did you read the article? Do you know this man?

I am not naturalistic. That is a lie. I am supernaturalistic, moreso that you are. I am firmly committed to truth. And yes, you should always be willing to verify your claims. This "You wouldn't believe it anyway" is usually the cry of someone who cannot show what they are talking about. It is the cry of someone who is dishonest and doesn't want to face that fact.

Now face the fact and prove that you are not dishonest. We already caught one of your cronies in an out and out lie this morning. As it stands now, you have said enough things that are not true that you have no credibility whatsoever. It is time for you to back up what you say with evidence. Your word is not good enough.

 

If you cared to check you would see that the underlying greek texts of those books match the TR family not the modern version family. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, if you cared to check, you'd discover that every Greek, versional, and patristic witness before Constantine was more like the Greek text behind the modern versions than the Greek text behind the KJV. The Aland study I mentioned in an earlier post yields the following data for the early Fathers:

Marcion - 18% Byzantine
Irenaeus - 18% Byzantine
Clement of Alexandria - 15% Byzantine
Origen - 17% Byzantine
Hippolytus - 19% Byzantine
Methodius - 19% Byzantine

This picture is hardly consistent with an early Church that used a TR-type text.