Bible Version Questions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Nicholas25, Oct 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nicholas25

    Nicholas25
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted on another thread that I purchased a NLT (New Living Translation) Study Bible and that I really like it. I do attend a church that is King James Version only, althought it's not mentioned often in the church. I know the KJV is the only Bible version around that comes from the Textus Recptus. Why do you think NONE of the more modern versions come from it? Would it be possible that the Bible versions through the years (KJV and prior) that came from the Textus Receptus were kept around by God because it is the better, best, or only true Bible/manuscript? I am not KJV only. I enjoy all the different Bible versions and will probably have all of them purchased eventually. This is just a very interesting topic to me.

    Why are so many verses not in the Alexandrian Text type versions? What do you think about the theory that the Alexandrian Text was found in good shape and found to be older, because no one wanted to use them because they were wrong/corrupt? The theory says the Textus Receptus is just as old, but because it was used frequently, many copies were ruined.

    I do not think a Bible version has anything to do with salvation because that would be legalism, but do you think there is any chance at all that we could stand before the Lord one day and have to answer for our choice of Bible versions?
     
  2. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely not. We will answer as to where we stand with Christ...and the NLT, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, and other faithful translations provide us with the crystal-clear answer.

    If anyone does think we will stand before the Lord and answer for our Bible versions...just wow.

    Nicholas, if anyone in your church teaches that (I'm not assuming they do, just making a statement here)...if if were me, I'd run the other way, to a healthy church. But that's just me. You do what the Lord tells you & you'll be fine. :thumbs:
     
  3. Nicholas25

    Nicholas25
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    That IS NOT taught in my church. I am sure there are some people here in East, Tennessee who feel that way, but it's not taught in my church. My pastor has been at my church for almost a year and he has only mentioned it a few times, and even then he said he would use another translation if he thought there was a better one than the KJV. He just does not feel there is, and that's his opinion and I do not have a problem with it. I did have a preacher (not from my church) tell me when I was 19 (I am 27 now) that I may miss heaven because I used a New International Version Bible. =)
     
  4. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds more like your church is King James preferred. No worries here...I have no problem with that mindset. Glad you're happy.

    As to the (ahem) "enlightened individual" who claimed you might miss Heaven due to version choice...let's just say I'm glad you aren't in his church.
     
  5. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nicholas, the NKJV is also translated from the TR. It seems like I've been talking a lot about it lately and maybe that's because it's my favorite translation :) but it may also be because the NKJV gets a bad rap. I don't know why KJV people are so against it. My church is also mostly KJV. My pastor says its the best but doesn't judge those who use other translations. Thanks goodness, or I would probably leave the church.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Amy just mentioned the NKJ.Jay Green came out with the MKJV and LITV.The experts here will give you more details later on I'm sure.

    By "modern" perhaps you mean in the last generation or so. But if you mean after the 17th century -- Webster had one which differed very little from the KJV in 1833.It wasn't based on the TR though -- just based on the KJV.
     
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    People who believe in any Onlyism regarding Bibles are legalists, no matter how they try to get around it.

    What's the biblical premise that a person is going to be judged on the Bible they used?
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the KJV is the only Bible version around that comes from the Textus Recptus.

    Correct.

    Why do you think NONE of the more modern versions come from it?

    They are from Alexandrian texts.

    Would it be possible that the Bible versions through the years (KJV and prior) that came from the Textus Receptus were kept around by God because it is the better, best, or only true Bible/manuscript?


    That is how we get the true Bible. William Tyndale was a martyr. He prayed to God, “Open the King of England’s eye.” God answered his prayer. That is how we get the KJV. The KJV is most accurate translation for English-speaking people. The KJV was derived from 5210 of 5255 MSS -- 99%.

    Why are so many verses not in the Alexandrian Text type versions?


    Gnostics and heretics mutilated many Scriptures in them. That is how modern versions followed their method.

    What do you think about the theory that the Alexandrian Text was found in good shape and found to be older, because no one wanted to use them because they were wrong/corrupt?

    Between the date of autographs of the OT and the NT and the date of B and Aleph MSS separated 300+ years away. Alexandrian texts were produced by heretics and Gnostics. Those Alexandrian texts were wrong and corrupt because they were not used for many years like that you left stuffs in attic for long time or throw them in trash.

    The theory says the Textus Receptus is just as old, but because it was used frequently, many copies were ruined.

    Correct. Heretics destroyed many preserved copies from the beginning. Polycarp had apographs (meaning, “copies”) of the autographs. When he wrote his letters to Philippians church, his quotations in his letters were found in copies of the autographs 50 times. When he was a martyr, they were ruined. However His letters to Philippians church were not destroyed. An example of Romans 14:10 saying, “for we shall stand before the judgment seat of CHRIST” is found in his letters. Modern versions changed from “CHRIST” to God. The KJV has this phrase on this verse and identified with the wording of the autographs.

    I do not think a Bible version has anything to do with salvation because that would be legalism, but do you think there is any chance at all that we could stand before the Lord one day and have to answer for our choice of Bible versions?


    Our Lord will judge anyone who produced their new corrupted versions against the warnings from the Scriptures. For example, King Jehoiahkim mutilated the Scriptures. God commanded Jeremiah to re-write God’s Words. Another example is Polycarp (69-155 AD) who was a disciple of the Apostle John and a martyr. He warned, “whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord, that one is firstborn of Satan” and “those who pervert the oracles of the Lord…let us return the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning.”
     
  9. Nicholas25

    Nicholas25
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a very powerful post, and although I am not "KJV Only," I have never really heard a real rebuke to comments such as the ones above.
     
  10. Nicholas25

    Nicholas25
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a very powerful post, and although I am not "KJV Only," I have never really heard a real rebuke to comments such as the ones above.
     
  11. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fiction can be very powerful. I find the final quote especially disturbing:



    Jehoiakim's actions have nothing to do with the KJV. Neither do Polycarp's words. But the writer chose to assign a new meaning to these accounts. I find the assigning of new meaning to Scripture to back up one's preferences especially distasteful.

    Carefully re-read the opening of the aforementioned quote:

    God never addresses KJV's versus MV's...and for someone to insinuate that He did is simply wrongheaded. The intent of the above sentence--to indict all MV's from a Scriptural standpoint, cannot be done without engaging in misuse of the Scriptures themselves.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nicholas25 to Askjo's post #8: // This is a very powerful post, and although I am not "KJV Only," I have never really heard a real rebuke to comments such as the ones above. //

    Oops, Freudian slip. Askjo never heard a real rebuke, nor anything else -- For our Dear Brother Askjo is deaf.

    There are over 30,000 posts in the versions/translations Forum - I suspect at least 20,000 of them rebuking the type comments above. I don't really know how to find the number of archive posts on this subject, but I'm sure it is greater than 10k posts. It is probably more likely that somebody hasn't spent much time reading the posts in this forum???

    Earlier post: // I know the KJV is the only Bible version around that comes from the Textus Recptus. //

    Askjo: // Correct. //

    ED "Wrong!" the nKJV was written using KJVO requirements, and now the KJVOs won't admit specifying the specifications. After the nKJV was dissed by minority KJVO religious right-wing-nuts - the religious conservative translators started ignoring the KJVOs. The result is the HCSB which was translated largely by Conservative Religious scholars (Baptists, Assembly of God (AoG, charismatic Baptists), Lutherans (German Baptists who haven't figured out how to govern themselves yet), and Presbertians (Scottish Baptists who use Presbers insteads of elders).

    Earlier post: // Why do you think NONE of the more modern versions come from it?

    Askjo: // They are from Alexandrian texts. //

    Ed: "1. There are some more modern versions using the Textus Receptus. Two are mentioned below: nKJV & HCSB.
    (BTW, Textus Receptus is a plural noun - a plural Latin noun that is used as a singular term but ends in 'us' a Latin singular term)"

    Ed: "2. Modern versions, especially those completed in the last 30 years, do use all available sources: no matter which language. and no matter which Revisionist historians slay the history of Bible Development. Such sources include the so called 'Alexandrian Texts'. The KJV Translators also used the translations that they had available to them. Like modern version translators that document the variants they find, the KJV Translators originaly used Translator Margin notes to explain the difference. Lame KJV changers dropped the Translator Margin notes - to the disgrce of change makers. I recently went through an exercise where I found 9 different KJVs before I found one that reached a specified standard KJV. I checked a 10th as well, not like any of the others???


    Askjo: // ... The KJV was derived from 5210 of 5255 MSS -- 99%. //

    Ed: " I seriously doubt those numbers. I think (can't check the number while typing) that the KJV Translators only had some 800 sources.

    A correct statement is made by Ed Edwards: "The KJV NT was derived from MSS agreeing with the most common 5210 manuscripts existing now."

    Ed: "The 'Textus Receptus' is Greek and related early sources mostly from the 12th Century (1101-1200) and 13th Century (1201-1300). There are now (2008) over 5,000 source fragments nearly all of which are (may be only spelling) DIFFERENT but close. The other 15 manuscripts (Critical Text = CT) are generally 3rd Century (0201-0300), or 4th Century (0301-0400) but differ quite a bit (some an actual 8% :) )."
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Askjo simply lied. I'm sure he believes it to be truth, but each point has been proven time and time again to be a proven lie. When someone will not accept the truth and passes on false teaching, it is at BEST a "lie"; at WORST it is an attack on the Word of God and an attack on new believers. Feel free to look at other threads on the Translation forum. You'll see quickly.

    If I could stop the only sect from lying, I'd think it a great legacy. But at least, when you read his post, understand that he is not telling the truth. It is fanciful thinking without an iote (iota) of validity. Very sad. :(
     
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    A "double posting" of inaccurate information does not make it any more valid. ;)

    Ed
     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    As mentioned already, this is not really true (technically, the TR only applies to the New Testament). I own at least 9 different TR-based versions.
    There are not so many: there are about 16 complete verses found in most TR-based versions that are not found in most NU-based texts; in addition the final 12 verses of Mark 16 and the Pericope Adulterae (the 12 verses of the Woman taken in Adultery story at John 7:53-8:11) are often [bracketed] in NU-based versions. There are approximately 7,957 verses in the KJV NT. At worst, that is about .5% difference (40/8000).

    Why? Mostly it is the result of conflation in the Gospels; 35 of the questioned verses are located in the Gospels (only 4 verses in Acts, one in Romans). Hmmm. Look at two of the so-called 'missing' verses: Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." These two verses are exactly the same as Mark 9:48. I think that its very possible that the genuine verse simply was duplicated into the text two additional times at some point. A scribe may have thought that three times makes for good symmetry! After all, he didn't really add anything (new) to God's Word, right?
    I think that this theory works just as well in the opposite direction. That is, these Alexandrian copies were so valuable that they were protected and cared for as their cherished possessions. How do you treat your Bible?
     
    #15 franklinmonroe, Oct 8, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2008
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suggest you might want to consider an addition to your residence, eat plenty of WHEATIES® (The Great Bible weighs in at about 40#), plus have a good size bank account, to boot, as there are some 200 versions out there in the English language, alone, with likely double that number of editions, to be found, with some of the rarer early ones found to be a mite pricey, and not exactly cheap. [​IMG]

    BTW, a coupla' versions are available "on-line" only, and you will not be able to ever purchase them, in hard copy, under their present format. ;)

    Ed
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sorry, Askjo, ya got it all wrong, as is usual for KJVOs.

    The NKJV also came from mostly the TR, but the other mss weren't ignored. And never mind that the TR has been revised over 30 times!

    The Alex mss have NOT been proven wrong.

    The KJV is no more accurate than any other valid version. It has clear booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10.

    The "gnostics & heretics" thingie about the Alex mss is pure guesswork.

    This stuff about some Alex mss being physically in such fine shape because they weren't used is nonsense. there are a few pristine copies of the AV1611 around today. Does that mean the AV1611 wasn't used? Of course not. It just means those particular copies weren't used to the point of wearing out. 'Tis silly to think that the extant copies of those Alex mss were the only ones ever made.

    Jehoiachim didn't "mutilate" any Scripture; he destroyed the copy Jeremiah sent to him. GOD added to it when He re-quoted His words to Jerry for Baruch to write down. God can change His own words same as any of us can. Proof? Just compare Isaiah 42:7-8 and 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21, calling it "this Scripture".

    Now, perhaps those single-version supporters had oughtta think of the possible consequences of THEIR actions. They COULD be FIGHTING GOD by trying to limit how He may present His word in English. Does God limit Himself in this respect? Absolutely NOT! Therefore, who is mere man, to try to impose such a limit upon GOD?

    You can see that most of Askjo's post is composed of GUESSWORK & WISHFUL THINKING, mostly devoid of proven fact. Just remember that if a Bible translation closely follows the recognized ancient Scriptural mss, it's a valid version. many differences between versions occur because of the many possible correct renderings of many, MANY Greek or Hebrew words & phrases.

    The AV translators themselves, wrote:

    (To the Reader, preface of the AV1611)

    (This preface is conveniently omitted from most current KJV editions.)
     
  18. 2serve

    2serve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    N25. If I may I would like to take a stab at this one.
    *1.) There are over 200 different english Bible Versions today, I cannot speak for all of them however every time I find a different version at a garage sale or something where I can get them cheap I will buy them and put them in my library for an illustration I use. When I get them home I try to do some study on them, and the very best that I understand from all of my study thus far ( about 10 years on this subject) there are no english versions other than the A.V. that come from the M.T. and T.R. and those solely. As a matter of fact allow me to qoute from the preface of two of them, the NKJV and the NIV, (lest I be accused of lying).
    ( NKJV )-- "Readers of the Authorized Version will immediatly be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. ....... For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 stutgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica based on the Asher text, while frequent comparisons were made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Valgate also were consulted. ... The New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves."
    (NIV)-- "...Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text it's self. .... The translators also consulted the more important earlier versions - the septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate;the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebriaca of Jerome. Readingsfrom these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. ... Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not in the judgement of the translators represent the correct vowels for the originalconsonantal text. ... To achive clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts"

    *2/3.) The reason they all either adopt the "corrupt" text and ignore the M.T. and T.R. or at best use both, is in my opponion related all of the way back to Alexandria and Phylo (Knosticism) which suggests that it is the thoughts and not the individual words which are most important.
    (NIV preface) -- All of this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion reguarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. ..... The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.
    Matthew 4:4 "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that procedeth out of the mouth of God"
    And by the way, if the words never change the thought never changes, so if you wish to change the words then it stands to reason that it's because you want change the thoughts ( ie the meaning ).

    *4/5.) This is exactly what I think. Consider P.66

    *6.) You are absolutely correct, Salvation has nothing to do with anything other than whether or not you have trusted Christ as your Savior.

    *7.) I don't know for sure, what I do know is this.

    2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God

    Rev 22:19 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.

    The bottom line is that the original Manuscripts were inspired of God and Psalms 12 tells us that God will preserve it for us for ever. The question that you are really asking is which Manuscripts are the preserved ones. My answer is the M.T. and the T.R., the others are corrupted by Phylo, or clement or Jerome or Eusubeus or any of a host of others. But don't take my word for it do the research for your self, I am convinced that anyone who will research it on their own without any preconceptions will arive at the same conclusion. But at the same time I don't have any letters in front of or behind my name so who am I, I'm just one of those wierdo people who took the time to educate myself, like, oh I don't know, Abraham Lincoln.
    :tonofbricks: waiting on the stones
     
  19. 2serve

    2serve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0

    Never mind the fact that Clement was declared an Heretic and excomunicated from the Church.
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    No stones here. Just want to ask why everyone has to drag the Psalm 12 (which does not refer to Bible versions or translations unless you twist the Scriptures to make it seem so) deal out when there are much stronger verses in the Bible that DO deal with preservation- Psalm 119:152,160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 12:48; 1 Peter 1:23-25- for instance?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...