kjv against the rest. Is it as bad I as I am led to believe?

Looks like the translators of the ESV goofed on this one. Where is the word that is translated offended in the first part of the sentence? They left an entire word out that is critical to the point of the verse?

 

That the King James is a "poor" translation with "egregious" errors. You are truly one of few to hold to that belief.

 

That word is NOT in the version that Jesus used, the LXX. The point of this verse, in the version that Christ, and the first three centuries of the Church used, is the strength of fellowship.

 

I meant the 'refund' part. I simply look at what Jesus quoted, and the fact that the KJV Old Testament does not align with it.

 

So, length of use and use by missions is evidence for your Bible being the Word of God and mine not? Let's look at mine. It is the Reina-Valera translation. It was first published in 1569. It is singlehandedly responsible for millions of missions and conversions from the 16th century to the present. It is the most widely used Bible in the world of any language.

The Reina-Valera has been in consistent use since 440 years, and it is the world's most commonly used translation in the world, with the possible exception of the Chinese Union translation.

So, by your own definition, and in accordance with your own qualifications, the Reina-Valera, not the KJV, is the only Word of God.

 

Also...

Who was the oppressors of ancient Israel, Mr. KJV?

Isaiah 3:12-13 (KJV): "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

Children and Women? Hmm...

From the Septuagint...

Isaiah 3:12-13 (LXX): "O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you: O my people, they that pronounce you blessed lead you astray, and pervert the path of your feet."

In the Septuagint, it is the priests, the religious leaders, who were leading people astray. Wonder why the Anglican translators might want to cover that up...

 

Oh! I didn't realize you were a Catholic. That would have been helpful knowledge. We don't need to engage in the Bible version issue then, as your error runs much deeper.

 

All of this made up on the false premise that Jesus and the Apostles didn't have a Hebrew Old Testament. That takes us into an entirely different realm of argument. I don't think that is helpful. It is not my intention to discuss every individual niche of textual criticism...I'm still reeling from the fact that you have declared the King James Version to be "poor" in translation, and in "egregious error." I'm not sure further discussion would be fruitful with you coming from that angle of argument.

 

Whom are you addressing that to?

 

We can see from the quotes in the New Testament, that Jesus and the apostles were reading from the LXX, in most cases. Even the KJV New Testament agrees in this.

 

That was to you. You use the Catholic version of the Bible, right?

 

In case you are wondering, I'm checking the veracity of that statement. Might take awhile.

 

K. Make sure you don't just listen to quacks like Rucman and Riplinger say.

 

By the way, converted to Christianity and converted to Catholicism are something completely different, but I suspect you would disagree with this statement.

 

Hey, I've been involved in discussion of this issue awhile (check the archives of BaptistBoard). Ruckman believes in re-inspiration of the scriptures through the translators, I don't. I believe the King James Version is an accurate translation and is inerrant, infallible, and the verbal plenary Word of God. Riplinger often uses bad research and tends to get caught up in numerology and word games. No thanks. That being said, it appears that people are all over the board with regards to the Septuagint. Many say it was not even completed until after 100 A.D. Others say that Christ quoted from it. Lots of information out there. This is one of those deals, unless you are getting your doctorate in the subject of textual criticism, that you just have to take a position one side or another on. THAT being said, I'm sure it was the Hebrew that was quoted, and if there are changes from the Masoretic text to Jesus' words, that was HIS prerogative and this does not necessarily imply the quote came from the Septuagint, it just may have gone TO the Septuagint. He wrote it.

So, basically, my answer remains the same. By the way, there is a bit of a leap of faith with regards to the Septuagint as apparently there are no extant copies before about the 3rd century and even those are incomplete and disagree greatly with each other.

 

Where are you getting your information? It is very innacurate.

Firstly, we can reconstruct nearly the entire Septuagint just from the writings of the early church fathers.

Secondly, to say it is a "leap of logic", and then claim that Jesus quoted the Hebrew scriptures, but "changed" it, so that it just mirrored the LXX, is truly the epitomy of covering your ears and shouting "uh-uh".

Thirdly, even the Earliest manuscripts that we have in the Hebrew, do not match the Masoretic text. We have preserved 1st century copies of the Hebrew text: they are mostly in agreement with the LXX.

Fourthly, why would you accept the word of a bunch of Christ hating Jews (Masoretes), over the testimony of Christ and his apostles?

Fifthly, Jesus could add words to Scripture if he desired: but what of the Anglican translators of the KJV? They are not Jesus: why did they add so many words (Many of which completely change the meaning of the verse) which were NOT in the underlying Manuscripts? Who gave them that authority? Certainly not God.

 

Not what I said.

Debatable statement. Scholars disagree with each other on this subject.

Albert Barnes commenting on the example you provided above, Proverbs 18:19:

"The meaning of the first clause is obtained in the King James Version by the insertion of the words in italics, and it seems on the whole to be the best. The Septuagint and Vulgate give an entirely different rendering, based, apparently, upon a different text."

Statement based on the above debatable statement.

Are you holding the KJV to a higher standard than you would the ESV? I think so. There are no words added for clarification in the ESV? If there are, then why is this a negative for you in the KJV? Hey, at least the KJV translators were up front and italicized them instead of trying to hide them.

 

Uh, no. Nice try. The Reina-Valera is the standard Evangelical and Protestant Bible. It's obvious that your KJVO litmus test fails.

 

How can you justify this belief when others have documented that instead of being inerrant it is errant, and in many places.

Check here:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1467971&postcount=1

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1468047&postcount=3

 

Oh, man you talk about a brain freeze. For some reason, I was thinking Douay Rheims. Sorry about that! It's been awhile since I debated online about anything. Got carried away. :embarassed: