More accurate?

This is a logical error. Your questions give a meaning to 'corrupting the Scriptures' which does NOT agree with your given scripture:

2 Corinthians 2:17 (DBY = The Darby Translation):

For we do not, as the many, make a trade of F18 the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ.

FOOTNOTES:
F18: Or 'adulterate:' properly 'to retail.'

Thus your 'truth' is invalid - In fact, you almost prove the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY.

Here we go, with the Polish from Bing.com :

Dla mamy nie, jak wiele, dokonać handlu F18 słowo Boga; ale jako sincerity, ale jako Bożego, zanim Bóg, mówimy w Chrystusie.

Here is another version:
2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV, un-identified edition at crosswords.com )

For we are not as many, which corrupt F7 the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

FOOTNOTES:
F7: corrupt: or, deal deceitfully with

Again, in Polish from bing.com:
Dla mamy są nie tyle, co uszkodzony F7 słowo Boga: ale jako sincerity, ale jako Boga, w wzrok Boga mówić mamy w Chrystusie.

PRZYPISY DOLNE:
Uszkodzony F7:: lub radzić sobie z deceitfully w z

While the margin was wupped by the text in early KJVs, English has changed, so now the KJV margin is better.

Back in 1611 'corrupt' was changing from 'traded' to 'ruined' -- that is why the margin note was given in the KJVs. Even a Polack knows that :godisgood:

 

Here is some things to consider.

“It is my own personal conviction and belief, after studying this subject since 1971, that the WORDS of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are the very WORDS which God has PRESERVED down through the centuries, being the exact WORDS of the ORIGINALS themselves. As such, I believe they are INSPIRED WORDS. I believe they are PRESERVED WORDS. I believe they are INERRANT WORDS. I believe they are INFALLIBLE WORDS. This is why I believe so strongly that any valid translation MUST be based upon these original language texts, and these alone!” – Dr. D.A. Waite (Defending the King James Bible; 1992; Pages 48, 49; all emphasis by Dr. Waite)



“No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God’s Word taken from them or falsified, so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God grant that we and our descendents be not witnesses of such a calamity. Let us not lose the Bible, but with diligence, in fear and invocation of God, read and preach it.” – Martin Luther (1483-1546; German Reformer)



“The King James Bible is the only Bible in print today translated on a Verbal Equivalency [Ed. Note: word for word] basis. Every other version in America is based on a [translation] technique of Dynamic Equivalency.”

James Lloyd (The King James Controversy: Which Bible Is The Word of God; 1998; Pages 19, 20)



“The publishing and distribution of modern translations of the Bible is a sacred cash cow that the major commercial media entities want to protect at all costs.” – James Lloyd (“The King James Controversy”; 1998; Page 19)


“Dynamic equivalency” (Per James Lloyd, author of “The King James Controversy”; 1998; Page 19): “Practitioners of ‘Dynamic Equivalency’ take what they think the writer meant and translate the text along those lines.”



Good God Almighty.The translators of dynamic equivalency put in modern bibles what they think it should say.How do you know what they are thinking?

Yes the Jesuit order is crafty indeed.

Mr Jesuit sorry to tell you the KJV still stands and is still Gods Word that condemns Romes heretical system.

No thank you.

Steven.

 

Martin Luther did not have the KJV- and you would deny that what he did have is a Bible.

 

Also, in any edition of Luther's Bible the equivalent of :"testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One" is not present from 1 John 5:7-8.

 

Better watch your cursing.

 

Absolute bunk. What about the interlinears? What about the NKJ and NASBU? You are quoting misinformed people.

 

But this is EXACTLY what the translators of the King James had to do too!

Do you understand the issues involved with translation? Really I need to know. Particularly because you aren't talking about a straight "this is the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic which means exactly ____________ in English."

It isn't feasible to create a direct translation from an inflected language like Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic into a non-inflected language like English. Plus given the semantic difficulties in properly understand pre-1st century idiomatic language.

 

Once you correct the errors of time, the changes in word meanings from 1611 et al, remove some of the inaccuracies, the King James VERSION of the Bible will serve any well meaning Christian in what we perceive to be the Bible.

Preservation has yet to be established by anyone. We have never declared anything to be the actual word of God except the original documents, and we don't have them available to us.

If people spent more time studying any version of scriptures we would be a far better church body in this present world.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

This is correct, but that was not exactly what I was speaking of. The 'fight' of John Wycliffe with the 'Roman church' of that day, so depleted him of strength that he was effectively greatly weakened physically, and most probably died many years before such would have been expected, otherwise.

Hence that I why I phrased it as "gave their lives and souls for the Bible", for this description certainly fit John Wycliffe. One does not have to die a martyr's death, in order to give their life for something.

Ed

 

This quoted statement by pilgrim2009 is actually worse than "absolute bunk", for it is a complete falsehood, whether or not it was so intended.

Several versions, including but not limited to, the TYN, MCB, GRT, GEN, WES, WBT, and YLT are in print (actually photographic reprint) today, as well as the two versions of the NKJV and NASBU Rippon mentioned. In addition, the ASV is still in print and KJ21, MKJV, AKJ, and LIT, and TMB, among others, are also in print, all of which are translated on the principle of "formal equivalency" and several of which, notably the YLT, ASV, NASB, and LIT are even more in line with "verbal equivalency" than the KJV ever was, or was even intended to be.

Ed

 

The text used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches has always been the Aramaic Peshitta.In the first century Jesus and his earliest followers certainly spoke Aramic for the most part although they also knew Hebrew.Therefore Eastern Scholars as well as a few western ones fully agree the Gospel message was first preached in the Aramaic of the Jews in Palistine.

Modern scholarship tells us that the originals of the four Gospels and other parts of the New Testament were written in Greek;this is disputed by the Church of the east and by some noted western scholars.

Regardless of which view one holds Aramaic speech is an underlying factor and it is unquestionably true documents written in Aramaic were drawn on by writers of the New Testament the basic inspired form of the Christian message.

Aramaic wasthe language of the Church that spread East almost from the beginning of Christianity from Antioch and Jerusalem beyond the confines of the Roman Empire.

Greek was never the language of Palestine.Josephus book on the Jewish wars was written in Aramaic.Josephus states that even though a number of Jews had tried to learn the language of the Greeks hardly any of them succeeded.

Josephus wrote [42 A.D.]I have also taken great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks and understand the elements of the Greek language;although I have so accustomed myself to speak our own tongue that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness.For our nation does not encourage those that learn the language of many nations.On this account as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this Greek learning there have yet hardly been two or three that have succeeded herein who were immediately rewarded for their plans.{Antiquities XX,XI 2.}

Indeed the teaching of Greek was forbidden by Jewish rabbis.

Yes I understand the translation issue involved it a difficult task.

That is why the KJV Bible is a miracle in English as you will see.

Example:

When the King James translation was made western scholars had no access to the East as we have today.In the 16th century A.D.the Turkish empire had extended its boarders as far as Vienna.One European country after another was falling under the impact of the valiant Turkish army.Europe was almost conquered.This is not all.

The Reformations Controversies in the Western Church had destroyed Christian unity.Moreover the Scriptures in Aramaic were unknown in Europe.The only recourse scholars had was to Latin and to a few portions of Greek Manuscripts.

This is clearly seen from the works of Erasmus.Besides the knowledge of Greek was almost lost at this time and Christians were just emerging from the Dark Ages.

Many people say well if this is so then why did not the King James Translators
use the Peshitta text from Aramaic or the Scriptures used in the East?

The answer is:there were no contacts between the East and West until after the conquest of India by Great Britian and the rise of the Imperial power of Britian in the near East-Middle East-and Far East.

Here is the King James Bible miracle:

It is a miracle that the King James translators were able to produce such a remarkable translation from sources avalible in this dark period of time in European history.

Even a 100 years ago the knowledge of Western scholars relative to the Eastern Scriptures in Aramaic and the Christian Church in the East is conjectural.Moreover these scholars knew very little of the Eastern customs and manners in which the Biblical literature was nurtured.

It is amazing how the King James Bible and the Aramaic Peshitta in english agree over 90% percent of the time.


It may be impossible in your thinking to think the Greek {TR}carried over into english can be in such unity but compare the Aramaic Peshitta Lamsa Bible with the KJV Bible.

Divine intervention can`t be explained away.

God bless and Praise God.

In Jesus.

Steven.

 

Yes the Jesuit order is working well.


Secular reasoning.

 

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, behold, the only thingeth that has been puteth in thine mouth is thou foot.

After reading this entire thread, pilgrim, your theories are in ashes.

 

Rather than make a couple of intended smears, why do you not answer the questions oir respond with substance?

Could it be because you have never even actually heard of any of the versions I named?

FTR, of the dozen or so that I mentioned, with the exceptions of the ASV and NASB, each and every other version I named follows the exact same underlying Texts as the KJV, and the first four are the direct ancestors of the KJV. I suggest you could also benefit from actually reading what the translators of the KJV said as well, as well as read the instructions given to the KJV translators as well, for it appears you have done neither.

A lesson or two in Church and Biblical history could be well employed to your advantage, instead of the cut and paste info from the sites you are likely employing.

BTW, it happens to be illegal as well as definitely unethical to use such techniques without giving the proper credit.

Ed

 

People are trying to do that until someone comes up to them and tells them they are reading an "Alexandrian corruption" and that there is a "satanic conspiracy" behind the Bible they are trying to study.

Also Pilgrim, post #72 is filled with so much historic revisionism and inaccuracy its amazing. Its no wonder you believe what you do about Bible transmission and Church history. I pray that you one day see the truth behind all the lies your being fed. :godisgood:

Here in a little while , after I drink enough coffee, I will go through the post and show you where you were misinformed.

 

Pilgrim, I betcha cannot support KJVO with any Scripture from the KJV, or from ANY valid version for that matter.

Without Scriptural support, it's a MAN-MADE doctrine of worship & therefore not true. And it has only ONE ultimate source. And WHO is that source?

Hint: Who wantsta be worshipped as GOD is?

 

Robycop I have scriprtural support that God promised to preserve His Word.

If you say only the originals then God lied.He did not preserve His Word in Roman Catholic edited manuscripts.Amen to that.



HERE ARE SOME RELEVANT BIBLE VERSES:



“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)



“Every word of God is pure… (6) Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5 a., 6)



“(18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (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.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)



((Ed. Comment to the preceding three Bible passages: Woe to those so-called “Bible scholars” who have “cut and pasted”, added to, and “diminished aught” from God’s Holy Word!))



HERE ARE SOME RELEVANT QUOTATIONS:



“The changes, additions and omissions discovered in the new [Bible] versions have [Ed. Note: adversely] affected the health of the body of Christ and taken it step by step away from the image of God.”

G.A. [Gail] Riplinger (New Age Bible Versions; 1993; Page 5)

 

I'm not robycop3, but I have never said otherwise. In fact, I have stated the same thing. I can speak for no other in this, however. But, as robycop3 has posted, this was not promised to be in the English language or the KJV (or in any other particular language or version), anywhere in Scripture. Why would you (and I'm speaking of the general KJVO proponent, if not you specifically) insist on making claims about the KJV which no version of Scripture, KJV (any flavor) or other version, makes for itself, and even the translators of the Bible version generally known as the KJV (whom I'm certain were more sure of what they were undertaking than you or I could ever possibly be 400 years after the fact) ever made?

FTR, there are some other groups that proclaim (or have proclaimed) the same effective teaching as the "extreme KJVO" teaching as well, that 'ONLY' one version is the completely accurate transmission (and translation) of Scripture. Those would include the Roman Catholic church - first with the VUL and later the D-R; the LDS 'church' with the JST; and the 'Watchtower' with the NWT.

Frankly, as a Baptist, I am not wanting to particularly be grouped with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses, as to the principles I follow, but maybe that is just me.

I never said any such thing. I can speak for no other.

What I have said and can say is that the "inspiration" of Scripture ('theopneustos' - "God-breathed-out") which is reserved for the authors of Scripture, is not the same thing as the "preservation" of Scripture. For example, "the Law" (or Torah) was 'God-breathed-out' to two individuals, Moses and Joshua, according to Scripture. They and they alone, were the recipients and transmitters of this 'inspiration' from God.

Ezra by contrast, and those with whom he was associated, were directly involved in the preservation (and explanation) of the Torah, but he was in no manner involved in the giving of that Torah, although we believe he was, in fact, the recipient and transmitter of other portions of Scripture, hence he was directly 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit, in those instances.

Can you not see this difference, if you leave off the 'version blinders' here?

This is pure 'double-speak', from you.

Firstly, only you are the one who has implied that Dr. John Wycliffe used the TR, when in fact, Dr. Wycliffe, John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford and Co. used 'only' the VUL for their translations into English. The VUL was not simply one of some allegedly "Roman Catholic edited manuscripts" but is 100% entirely "Roman Catholic" in origin, production and preservation, en toto.

Secondly, there are several places where Desiderius Erasmus used translated readings from the VUL in his Greek text, over and above those found in the Greek MSS he had access to, and I'm not simply referring to the last few verses of Revelation, where his single manuscript of that book was damaged, at the end, beyond recognition. This has been clearly shown in more places than one, although not particularly in this thread, I do not believe. Have you ever heard of the so-called "Johnannine Comma"? Uh- you know, the verse(s) that is most frequently argued that was somehow kept accurately preserved in those faulty "Roman Catholic edited manuscripts" but was somehow 'lost' in the pure 'Antiochian' ones? Sorry! I simply ain't buyin' that argument, for a second!

You simply don't get to argue it both ways, here.

Thirdly, the translators of the KJV did not hold the same view you do, of the work of Jerome, for they cite him approvingly, in some instances. (You really should actually read what they have said, sometime, rather than simply what some KJVO advocate says. You can find this on-line easily, as well, and I will even help you out by pointing out that Jerome and "S. Hierome" are one and the same individual. )

Fourthly, You also might wanna' check sometime, on how many times the KJV actually incorporates a rendering as found in the D-R, instead of those found in the earlier English versions from the TYN and MCB, thru the GEN and BIS. In addition, you might actually check the 'instructions' and 'guidelines' given the KJV translators, as well. (FTR, the 'Whitchurch' is a.k.a. the Great Bible, which is, incidentally, the first 'authorized' version.)

Yes, these same verses are contained in both my preferred Bibles as well.

They happen to be a particular edition of the KJV and a particular edition of the NKJV. Incidentally, I have several other complete Bibles, all of which contain these same verses, too.

Something you are never willing to ascribe to the KJV and TR, obviously. You might actually check on how many times the KJV and the TR editors have actually edited their work(s), rather than merely spout off some 'party line' sometime.

Incidentally, in virtually every instance, of which I am aware, the 'edited' edition is/was an improvement over what preceded it, especially in the emendations of Drs. Blaney and Paris, who BTW, did far more than merely make some 'updated spelling' despite what is often written about these two individuals, by the KJVO crowd.

[SIGH!}

Surely you can find some better source that that of Dr. Gail A. Riplinger, in order to 'prove' your point.

Ed

 

Uh, Ed- that should be "Dr." Gail A. Riplinger. Her degree is honorary.