1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is God never the author of confusion?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by tinytim, Oct 11, 2006.

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

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "contradictions" you mention are easily rectified and do not affect doctrine. But because you approach this subject with an a priori assumption that MV's are inherently evil, then of course you are threatened by it.

    I've been doing student ministry for 20 years. I've seen hundreds of kids in my churches I served personally come to the Lord. Not one has been "confused" about "contradictions." Several have asked questions, and I (a conservative, Bible-believing Christian) have answered them. They were not questions of a confused believer though; rather, they were questions of one who wanted information.

    You've never answered any of the following questions. Here they are again:

    What was wrong with the Geneva Bible?
    Why was the Great Bible not inspired?
    Why did God not preserve His word through Tyndale's Bible?

    I await...
     
  2. deacon jd

    deacon jd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0

    1. One aswer will really answer all of your questions the 'Vulgate" each bible you mentioned has been corrupted by the Vulgate. In the Geneva Bible (Ps 12:7) is a good example "Thou wilt keep them O Lord: thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever"(GB)

    (Ps 12:7) "Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (KJV)"

    You may say big deal, whats the difference. Well the difference is in the Geneva Bible this verse is taken from the Vulgate which denies Gods ability to keep his word preserved from that time forward. How did they deny it? Simple ,they only change "them"( meaning the words of God) to "him". Many of the MV have also butchered this great verse and perverted the Word of God.

    2. The answer to this question is the same as the first. Coverdale used the Vulgate as well as Luthers German version to translate the New Testament instead of the original languages.

    3. Again the same answer Tyndales bible was completed by Miles Coverdal who again used the Latin Vulgate and German to translate the New Testament.

    I would ask you to compare Ps 12:7 in the many different versions that we now have. It will tell you a lot about their origin and motive.
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    And the AV was also corrupted by the Vulgate (as well as corrupted by the other English translations that were corrupted by the Latin). The KJV NT has been estimated to be as much as 90% Tyndale.
     
  4. deacon jd

    deacon jd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tyndale was about 90%correct its the other10% the KJV made up for. The Tyndale Bible was very close, but not perfect. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and this is what the KJV translators knew and corrected by using the original manuscripts and the Holy Ghost to guide them.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deacon JD:
     
  6. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Echoes ed...deaconJd you're taking the psalms 12 passage out of context. It is not referring to translations, but God's people. Nice try!
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you are claiming that Tyndale's had a little leaven or corruption that leaveneth the whole lump, you seem to be admitting or implying that the KJV took 90% from a corrupt whole lump.

    Are you claiming that the KJV translators had "the original manuscripts" written by the prophets and apostles?

    Are you claiming that William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, and the translators of the Geneva Bible did not have the Holy Spirit to guide them?

    The guiding, directing, and illuminating of the Holy Spirit does not make any believers including the KJV translators, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Jerome, or the pope infallible. Does the guiding of the Holy Spirit make the KJV translators into their own infallible authority so that it becomes wrong to disagree with any of their choice of words and any of their understanding of the Scriptures? The guiding, directing, leading, and illuminating of the Holy Spirit did not make William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, or the Geneva Bible translators perfect in their translating. The guiding of the Holy Spirit which KJV-only advocates recognize in the KJV is of exactly the same sort as the guiding of the Spirit in the earlier English translations. There is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2:11, Acts 10:34). God does not change (Mal. 3:6). Did the guiding of the Holy Spirit supposedly change in 1611? Do the Scriptures actually teach that the guiding or illuminating of the Spirit was different for the KJV translators than it was and is for all believing translators? God is always faithful, and He was just as faithful to William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the translators of the Geneva Bible as He was to the translators of the KJV. Did God fail to do just as much for the translators of the Geneva Bible as He did for the translators of the KJV according to KJV-only reasoning? Do KJV-only advocates discount the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision? Is it being suggested that God did not do enough for English translators before 1611? Is it being claimed or implied that God showed respect to the translators of the KJV? Is it being implied that the Holy Spirit was or was not involved in pre-1611 English translations that were not inerrant? The guiding or illuminating of the Holy Spirit did not make the KJV translators perfect in their understanding of the Scriptures as seen in the Church of England doctrines they believed.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly! That is true. I agree with you because least 10,000 words corrupted in modern versions according to 2 Cor. 2:17.
     
  9. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    You see, most MV defenders always agree with you. :rolleyes:
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. It refers to the Words, not translations. 2. You jumped so far to pick up.
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
    For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
    but as of sinceritie, but as of God,
    in the sight of God speake we in Christ.

    Humm, I don't see the 10,000 poor words mentioned???

    I do see however, a misunderstanding of the
    antique term 'corrupt' here. Here is a MV which is
    easier to understand to those who speak English
    in the 21st Century (2001-2100):


    1 Corinthians 2:17 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ )
    [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For we are not like the many who make a trade in God's message for profit,
    but as those with sincerity, we speak in Christ,
    as from God and before God.

    In 1611, when the KJV translation was made,
    'corrupt' mean 'trade for profit'
    in 2006 'corrupt' means that there might be 10,000
    [/FONT]corrupted words. Your verse cannot mean what you
    say it does. Bad, bad, bad (AKA: corrupt):
    reading a 21st Century (2001-2100)
    meaning into a 17th century (1601-1700) word instead
    of a 17th century meaning.

    Who needs an MV?
    Those who cannot properly understand 17th Century English.


     
  12. deacon jd

    deacon jd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some random thoughts:

    Many other great men of God used Luther's Bible...yet we're not. Tyndale used his own translation....I think he qualifies as a "great man of God." I can think of 2 dozen "great men of God" who use a modern translation today. I know a "great man of God" who is a missionary to Kobe, Japan. Ask him about his version. So what's your point?

    Yes it has. Now how exactly does that prove MV's are evil?

    So you're a purist. Great. I think the KJV is an outstanding version for you. But personal preference does not equal Biblical Mandate. You might want to write that down somewhere.

    If you're gonna go there, you do so because imperfect men translated the Word. Thus, you would have to go there with the KJV as well. Do you want to do that? Isn't it possible that God has preserved His word despite men being less than perfect?

    Since you have tipped your hand here, enlighten me:

    What are the "agendas" that the translators of the NIV, NASB, NLT, and HCSB had when they translated the Scriptures?

    Now, don't make wild-eyed accusations here. I'd like some demonstrable evidence. I eagerly await...
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    2 Cor. 2:17 (1560 Geneva Bible)
    For we are not as many, which make merchandise of the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If the KJV translators knew that Tyndale's was supposedly a corrupted whole lump, why did they take anything from it?

    Deacon, you seem to be ignoring the earlier post that clearly shows the serious problems with your claims.
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    A entire paragraph I can agree with! (Of course, I agree with rbell's reply breakdown, too... but I just couldn't resist a rare chance of agreement with deacon jd).
     
    #36 franklinmonroe, Oct 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2006
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Great translation from the Geneva!

    I see many versions use "peddle", "peddler", or "peddling" here (NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT and others).
     
  18. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the claim was made that "corrupt" in 1600's meant "peddle" or some synonym thereof; and since I do not have a ready source for the Oxford Dictionary of the English language where I can show the 1600's meaning of the word:
    Therefore I offer a question and a point of fact.
    First the question.
    Do any of you have a source for the Oxford Dictionary so we can verify this wild claim that corrupt meant "peddle" in the 1600's?
    Second the point of fact.
    The word corrupt in 1828 DID NOT mean "peddle" in ANY of its uses.
    See here:
    corrupt
    CORRUPT, v.t. L., to break. Literally, to break, separate or dissolve. Hence,
    1. To change from a sound to a putrid or putrescent state; to separate the component parts of a body, as by a natural process, which accompanied by a fetid smell.
    2. To vitiate or deprave; to change from good to bad.
    Evil communications corrupt good manners. 1 Corinthians 15.
    3. To waste, spoil or consume.
    Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt. Matthew 6.
    4. To defile or pollute. Exodus 32.
    5. To entice from good and allure to evil. 2 Corinthians 11.
    6. To pervert; to break, disobey or make void. Malachi 2.
    7. To pervert or vitiate integrity; to bribe; as, to corrupt a judge.
    8. To debase or render impure, by alterations or innovations; as, to corrupt language.
    9. To pervert; to falsify; to infect with errors; as, to corrupt the sacred text.
    CORRUPT, v.i.
    1. To become putrid; to putrefy; to rot. Animal and vegetable substances speedily corrupt in a warm and moist air.
    2. To become vitiated; to lose purity.
    CORRUPT, a. L.
    1. Changed from a sound to a putrid state, as by natural decomposition.
    2. Spoiled; tainted; vitiated; unsound; as corrupt air, or bread.
    3. Depraved; vitiated; tainted with wickedness.
    They are corrupt; they have done abominable works. Psalm 14.
    The earth was corrupt before God. Genesis 6.
    4. Debased; rendered impure; changed to a worse state; as corrupt language.
    5. Not genuine; infected with errors or mistakes. The text is corrupt.

    (Taken from Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American Language. )

    I submit for your consideration that the KJV is the only correct Bible as far as the text in question is concerned. We are NOT like they who corrupt the word of God.
     
    #38 av1611jim, Oct 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2006
  19. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way...here is the KJVSL
    2Co 2:17
    For gar we are esmen not ou as wV many poluV, which corrupt kaphleuw the word logoV of God qeoV: but alla as wV of ek sincerity eilikrineia, but alla as wV of ek God qeoV, in the sight katenwpion of God qeoV speak we lalew in en Christ CristoV.

    The bolded word has the ROOT of "a huckster" but is used here by implication "to corrupt" as commonly understood to mean...to adulterate
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, Brothers, but in 1560 was made this translation
    using the same source text. In 1611 I suspect that
    1) the word 'peddle' was WRONG
    or
    2) the word 'peddle' mean 'to make merchandise of'.

    #1 would make the KJVs errant; but I beleive them
    to be inerrant.
    So #2 has to be the answer. Don't need a 1611 dictionary,
    just a 1560 Bible.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...