Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

Wouldn't the Textus Receptus NOT be based off of an original? But a copy based off of other copies dating only as far back as the 12th Century??

 

Sorry Charles, I have no problem with you using only the KJV - but if you believed oldest is best than you should probably change English translations based on this bit of info in your post.

 

No need to get an ego....you copy and paste really well. Especially when your typing and grammar suddenly change drastically.

Listen, I love reading about history as much as you seem to love copy and paste. I'm not saying I know more than you. What I'm saying is that this shows nothing about your comments...that the KJV is "closer to the word of God", or that newer translations are based off of what someone else thinks.

 

Interesting point C4K.....very interesting indeed.

 

A version, as in the KJV, is a translation of a translation. Anytime you have a translation, you have interpretation... no way around it. Ask anyone who is multilingual. When you have a translation of a translation, you have interpretation of interpretation. This is not to say that any VERSION is not reliable... I love my ESV. None are without error except the original.

Anyone who says that their translation/interpretation is perfect....... well, that is their opinion. Everyone has one.

 

Charles, there is a book that you may find interesting (or you may burn it in a bon fire, who knows).

It's called "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. I'm sure everyone around here may be familiar with it. You may probably already be familiar with it. But it is an interesting book.

 

I would certainly love to have the privilege of seeing some old Bible manuscripts sometime, NT or OT.

Ed

 

Read the entire article at http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

This was from an article by Dr. Laurence Vance. I felt it only fair that he get some credit for it...

 

That's funny that it came from a site called av1611.org.

Nevermind Charles, I think you'd hate that book I recommended. I still challenge you to take a look though!:thumbs:

 

me too...but I couldn't read them in the original languages, could you? I remember staring at the Magna Carta in Salisbury, deciphering one word here and two words there. I am glad someone made it easier to read, but I wouldn't want a paraphrase, I want an accurate translation.

To me (again, this is my opinion) reading the NIV after reading the KJV is like drinking skim milk after drinking fresh cow's milk. I love the fullness and richness of the product that is closest to the original - You can still get all your vitamins and calcium from the skim, but for flavor and satisfaction, I prefer the fresh whole milk.

Again, I cannot spout theology. I only know what is in my heart, thank you Jesus for your saving grace!

 

Does anybody know where a free, on-line Tyndale's Bible is available?

Does anybody know where one can download a
free electronic copy of the Tyndale's Bible?

The Tyndale's Bible is even three hundred years older
than the KJVs

 

Free, on-line Tyndale Bible

Apparently you can read it online or download it from http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

(First link on Google after a search for tyndale bible)

 

As C4K pointed out, in another post, do you happen to notice any apparent contradictions in some of what I have emboldened? I certainly see some. You might take some note of your own statements to the effect that "older is better". As rbell pointed out, if this is the case why do you not use a Geneva Bible? I'll go a bit further, if this is the rationale. Why do you not use a Tyndale Bible? It was first printed in 1530, or eighty years before the KJV which you claim you use. Is not an additional 80 years preferable? Or better yet, why not use the Wycliffe'Purvey Bible?? It goes back 225 years before the KJV. That 1380 date definitely is "older" than any 1611 date.

The three sentences I have underlined, in the material you quoted, represent factual errors, as well. I have in my hot little paws, even as I write, the Second Edition of the United Bible Societies, Novum Testamentum Graece. (UBS2) It has the date at the time of its completion/revision of September, 1968. The First Edition (UBS1) has the date in the preface of August 26, 1965. UBS3 has a date of 1975, and UBS4 has a date of 1993, if I am not mistaken. Therefore the NASV, now known as the NASB, could not possibly have been translated from the UBS4. First factual error.

Secondly, the NASV New Testamant was first printed in 1963. (Yep! I have one of them, too.) Guess what??? The NASV NT was not translated from ANY UBS text, for they did not yet exist, and would not for another two years.
Second factual error.

In fact, I believe the Greek text employed in the NASV NT was either the Nestle-Aland 23rd or the N/A 24th Edition. While this text is similar to the UBS texts which followed it, it is still not the same text. There is an axiom which states that two things that are different cannot possibly be the same. This applies, here.

And the OT is not translated from any Greek texts, considering the OT is written in Hebrew and Chaldee/Aramaic, to begin with.
Third factual error.

It is not asking too much for one to check their sources, to see if they are factually correct, and not just to see if one can somehow buttress their arguments and preferences, IMO. And that is what I am doing in this post. I do not particularly care what version one uses, as to his or her preference. But please do not misrepresent what is being done, and I would also request that opinions not be presented as supposed "facts".

The version/copy of the Bible I use has the words "Holy Bible" (just as I would think most of the ones, that most of the rest of the posters here use, do, as well), on the front cover, assuming one is using a "hard copy". Those words and that designation should mean something, whether it is a KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, or any other versions/editions that have been named, that I forgot.

Tyndale, John Hus, and a host of other Christians gave their very lives to defend the Holy Bible.

Richard Wurmbrand, Harlan Popov, Watchman Nee plus I have no idea of how many others, all were imprisoned for the Holy Bible, and during the Twentieth Century, with Nee dying in prison, for the Holy Bible.

And imprisonment and martyrdom is still happening today, in some parts of the world, even including in our own USA, where Cassie Burnell at Columbine HS was gunned down, for standing up for the Holy Bible.

These lives and memory deserves better than to be put down for standing for the Holy Bible.

And to my knowledge, only Hus and Tyndale, of all those I've mentioned, were queried as to "what version" was their version of choice!

Let's give "Holy Bible", in any version the respect it deserves. And that by all of us.

Ed

 

Actually, Tyndale's Bible (~1535) is about 75 years older than the KJV (1611) Bible. Uh, unless you really mean the "New and Improved KJV, 1769 Edition", in which case it would be ~ 235 years.
First factual error.
I do it for one; I'm gonna' do it for all! :tonofbricks: :BangHead: :type: :laugh:

Ed

 

Fresh cow's milk is a little too warm for my tastes. But my cats loved it that way. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Anybody else notice that Ed Edwards voted for every possible answer to the poll?:laugh:

 

I do give the Holy BIBLE the respect. I Love the HOLY BIBLE and just because I fill the old ones are better that is my belief. I do not down you for reading your new and old bibles. I can not read a New one because I have read a old one. And I am reading older one then the one I have. Just because someone don't read New ones just because you do or others do does not mean that they are a bad person. If you want the truth of the real words of God are you going to read a new one or go and find the oldest one. I am going to see if I can find the oldest one. If you had read what I posted about the king Jame verson 1611 and how they translated it you had read that they did not do it for there glory but for the glory of God. It was translated not for them. But it was written of HOLY MEN OF OLD as the HOLY SPIRIT MOVE on them. It said what it said in rev. right does that give us the right to make it better. Just because a man thinks it is not translated right does not mean it is. Maybe God gave them men that first translated it the wisdom to make a book of what God wanted it to be. There for I stand in what I believe older is better FOR ME.

 

An old faithful English Bible, the Tyndale Bible of 1530 reads like this
(thanks to Readmore I have a copy of the Tyndale Bible on
my computer):

New Bible changes quoted in Post #28:

Cut & Paste comentary:
Actually the KJV1769 Edition reads like this:

Re 22:7 (KJV1769 Edition (Standard):
Behold, I come quickly:
blessed is he that keepeth the sayings
of the prophecy of this book.

So it wasn't quoted right, but I cut some slack, it was just Cut or Pasted wrong???

I note that the old Bible says Jesus will come back "shortly" but
the new Bible says "quickly". The new Bible is NOT as accurate
in the 21st Century (2001-2100) as the old Bible is. 'shorty'
means 'not long from now' but in the 21st century, the new
Bible reading of 'quickly' can mean 'not long from now' or
could mean 'once it starts it will come dowin
fast'. Having two meanings, they could mean different things.
The one meaning that both have in common give an idea
of what the understanding of this verse is. It is always better
to have more than one reading to facilitate the capability of
the Holy Spirit to make us see what is going on in the Scripture.

 

Ed notes (to all) that the first appearance of the words
'ignorant' , 'unlearned' , and 'incapable'
(in this topic) was made
by Brother Cutter. Perchance the opinions
about Brother charles+creech78 are the opinions
of Brother Cutter & not the opinions of other
posters who quote Brother charles_creech78?

Oh well, Brother Cutter has a generic appology
so I guess we all should make a generic acceptance
of that appology.

 

kai; ejavn tiß ajfevlh/ ajpo; tw'n lovgwn tou' biblivou th'ß profhteivaß tauvthß, ajfelei' oJ qeo;ß to; mevroß aujtou' ajpo; tou' xuvlou th'ß zwh'ß kai; ejk th'ß povlewß th'ß aJgivaß, tw'n gegrammevnwn ejn tw'/ biblivw/ touvtw/.