New Testament Differences

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Kidz-4-HIM, Jun 13, 2004.

  1. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    So??? What is your point? There are many very popular books that have been translated into English from the same manuscripts and yet the translations differ considerably. Check out some of them for yourself.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoever put assembled that web page reveals their ignorance of the issue in this one repeated statement.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Been there. Seen it. Done that.

    Can you prove which is right & which is wrong, Kidz? What criteria do you use? Just saying, "It aint the KJV" won't cut it.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    in the words of the KJV translators in the prologue of the 1611 First Edition KJV:
    Please also note that this was in defense of their marginal notes "where the text is no so clear".

    HankD
     
  6. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    That article includes the Living Bible as a translation. It's just a paraphrase -- why do they have it there? I think that shows either ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

    Guess what? You can translate something in another language several ways. I've studied French, Spanish, German, and Italian (and a tiny, tiny bit of Russian -- rusty in all now). You can take a a few paragraphs from a book in any of those languages and translate it several ways in English. So what's the point of this article? That different translations prove some kind of error? :confused: That's like totally bogus.

    I don't think God speaks only in 17th century English. I asked my hermeneutics professor (who also teaches Greek and Hebrew) what language we would speak in heaven and he said, "Hebrew, of course!" [​IMG]
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet another hit-and-run by Kidz-4-HIM .

    It might be different if the material was actually typed out, and Kidz actually hung around to debate. But the sad truth is that to type out said garbage is a lot of work, and to post a link and run is more the style of a hit-and-run poster like Kidz .

    Sad. Very sad.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV derived from massive MSS, but MVs derived from a few MSS. Between the KJV and MVS, they derived from those 5,000 MSS. The 99% manuscript evidence supports the KJV. The 1% manuscript evidence supports these MVs.
     
  9. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting differences between the KJV and MVs.
     
  10. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    All mss used by the KJV team were all written way after the Alexandrian Text. The KJV actually believe it or not has just as many errors if not more than the MV. Its a great translation but not any more accurate or better than the MV's.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    For example, 42 manuscript evidences on Matthew 8:29 support the KJV. 42 MSS had Jesus. MVs omitted Jesus. Ask yourself why MVs did that. Look at these manuscript evidences and MVs -- the KJV is most accurate than any MVs because these MSS support this doctrine of Jesus Christ. MVs did not support it on this verse.
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo, How many times must you be shown that this is a false statement before you stop making the claim. You know there is a term for someone who knowingly and intentionally says something that has been proven false.

    The KJV for the most part follows the Byzantine majority text. But there are notable exceptions where the KJV does not have 99% manuscript support. There are a few places where it has basically 0% manuscript support. Of course, you know this or at least should since this same argument has been refuted repeatedly.

    Why do you continue to knowingly, willfully make false statements?
     
  13. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rules of King James Onlyism #449:
    If you repeat the same lie enough times, it will eventually be accepted as fact.

    This one of the most used (or is that abused) rules of the KJVOlator movement.
     
  14. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

    QUESTION: Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over Bible versions?

    ANSWER: Undoubtedly.

    EXPLANATION: It is a great irony that many of the critics of the Bible claim rather indignantly that the devil is behind the battle over the King James Bible. In this they are correct. But somehow they have managed to assume that it is the people claiming perfection for the Bible who the devil is guiding. Is this a correct assumption? Let us consider the history of the battle.

    From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in the churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to supplant all of the great versions translated before it. Though it was not advertised in the Madison Avenue fashion of today's versions, it soon swept all other versions from the hearts and hands of the citizenry of England and its colonies.

    With the conquest of the British Empire behind it, it crossed the Atlantic to the United States. Landing here it overwhelmed the double foothold of the Roman Catholic Church planted previously under the flags of Spain and France.

    It then began to permeate young America with its ideals. Its truths led to the establishment of an educational system, based on Scripture, that was unparalleled in the world. It instilled in men the ideals of freedom and personal liberty, thoughts so foreign to the minds of men that their inclusion in our Constitution could only be described as an "experiment" in government.

    It commissioned preachers of righteousness who, on foot and horseback, broke trails into the wilderness and spread the truth of the gospel and of right living. In its wake was left what could only be described..."one nation, under God..." This accomplished, it set out for the conquest of the heathen world. Bible colleges (Princeton, Harvard, Yale) were founded. Mission societies formed. And eager young missionaries began to scour the globe with little more than a King James Bible and God's Holy Spirit.

    But these activities did not go unnoticed by Satan. He who had successfully counterfeited God's church, ministers and powers certainly could not be expected to let God's Bible roam the world unchallenged. Through agents such as Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, he published his own translation in 1884. (The New Testament had been published in 1881.) Though there had been sporadic personal translations between 1611 and 1884, this new translation, called the Revised Version, was the first ever to be designed from its outset to replace God's Authorized Bible. It failed to replace God's Bible, but the arguments of its adherents were the first shots fired in a nearly 400-year battle for the hearts and minds of God's people concerning the authority and fidelity of Scripture.

    In 1901 another round was fired in the form of the American Revised Version, later called the American Standard Version. (An intentional misnomer since it never became the "standard" for anything.) This version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship, met a dismal end when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally rejected by God's people that its copyright had to be sold. (Does this sound like God's blessing?)

    The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised Standard Version. This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable times, resulting in the New American Standard Version of 1960, the New Scofield Version of 1967, the New International Version of 1978, and the New King James Version of 1979 to name a few.

    The process has never changed. Every new version that has been launched has been, without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscript (although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy).

    THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged'' attack.

    While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges.

    Soon sincere, naive, young Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals"√Ąthat non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind.

    Soon stalwartness gave in to acceptance and fidelity to a perfect Bible became fidelity to one's "Alma Mater". Young graduates, disheartened and disarmed by their education, found themselves in pulpits across America parroting the professor's shameful criticism of the Word of God. They readily accepted new versions hot off the Alexandrian presses.

    Then, when some Christian approached them claiming to believe the Bible (one you could hold in your HAND, not a lost relic from bygone days) was word perfect (a belief they had once held before their education stole it from them) they felt threatened. They try to dispel this "fanatic', this "cultist" . Finally they look this faith filled Christian in the eye and piously ask, "Don't you feel that the devil is using this Bible version issue to divide and hinder the cause of Christ?"

    "Undoubtedly," comes back the answer. "But I'm certainly glad it's not MY CROWD that he's using." (!) Whose side are YOU on?

    Additional Note:

    Here's something that you need to think about. If we King James Bible believers have our way, a Preacher would stand in a pulpit to read Scripture and everyone else in the church would read from the same Bible. Isn't that UNITY?

    But if the Bible-(removed due to BB rules) have their way everyone would read from a different bible. That's confusion. And who is the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33)?
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Is the devil behind it? Ultimately, but in the real day-to-day world it is a small clique of weak-minded men (and women, can't forget Gail) who feed on each others faulty "scholarship" and took the Adventist teaching and made it a new Fundamental -- for Baptists!

    In their attempt to deify the translation (and all concerned with it), they ATTACK the Alexandrian and Western manuscripts - God's precious Word! They MALIGN good English translations - some even from their Byzantine texts.

    The devil may be behind it, but misguide zealots are doing the nitty-gritty work.
     
  16. Michael52

    Michael52
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the partial quote above, the reader may be wondering what this it is. Could it be men's God given yearning for freedom, God's Holy Spirit or God's Holy Word? No, its the KJV!

    Yes, this is taken a bit out of context. No doubt the KJV was used to spread God's Word. However, to personify an English Bible version to this extreme is troublesome (scary). I don't understand how people can so confuse the vehicle with the message itself.

    In Christ
    Michael
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    The LDS church, David Koresh and Jim Jones and every KJV or one version Only using cultist had or have this kind of UNITY.

    Unity goes much deeper than the version/translation of the Bible used by Church menmbers.

    There is already doctrinal disagreement and confusion in local churches even KJVO. But the exact oppostite is possible with a variety of translations. Earlier in the thread the statement by the KJV translators was quoted in that they believed that the variety of tranlsations was good to learn the "sense of the Scriptures".

    What do you mean by "Alexandrian philosophy"?
    Heresy and error (if you include these terms in "philosophy") know no boundaries spiritual, denominational or geographic.

    Athanasius was an Alexandrian believer and quite orthodox and The champion of the Trinitarian side of the Arian dispute.

    That scribes have botched the text is a given.
    Which "family" of texts best represent the originals we can't know (apart from an evidence/faith choice) since we don't have the originals.

    Which "errors" are intentional vs unintentional is not always obvious or which variant is correct.

    The AV translators gave the reader the choice by marginalizing alternative readings in the first Editions.

    The KJV translators studied the varying mss and translations they had available to them and made their choices. Not everyone who is "orthodox" excepts those choices.

    HankD
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a classic example of why Gipp and his ilk cannot be trusted.

    The king had the KJV made specifically to replace other versions. When the people did not go along with the plan but rather clung to their Geneva Bibles, the CoE with with the direct power and authority of the English monarch made the Geneva illegal. My rebuttal is documented, factual history that anyone can confirm.

    The first Bibles that were brought to the new world were Genevas, not KJV's.

    BTW, this isn't even an accurate portrayal of US History. The French and Spanish didn't colonize the US. Where they did colonize in the new world, catholicism still thrives... French Canada and Latin America.

    Only a fool would swallow this stuff.
     
  19. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You know I don't know about anyone else but, when I was in school we played a game called Telephone. One person would say a sentence to someone else, and repeat it around a circle. More often than not that sentence would change competley.

    Now if your Bible was traslated by someone who KNEW what the languages were could read and write Hebrew, greek, aramaic, then I say what you have in your had is the Word of God.

    If you can look at that Bible and feel you are holding God's book. Then BLESS you. But, I will tell you this.

    It's up to the individual what Bible they use, and which one they feel comfortable. I know what I believe and I know what is right FOR me .

    It would be like someone saying that Chocalte pudding is the only kind of pudding there is any any other flavor is just NOT pudding.

    Brother and sisters,
    Come on don't we have more imporatant things in the world to do besides sit here and argue texts? If you feel this STRONGLY, Get the manuscripts in greek , hebrew and aramiac read them and then tell us which one is more accurate.

    Please remember hate begets hate. Snide comments only result in more snide comments, and pain.

    We should Love our brothers and sisters, not condemn them for what Bible they decide to read.

    -jumps off my soap box and returns to my knitting -

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Sir Joyful

    Sir Joyful
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said Lea. I don't care what Bible version people use as long as they USE it. Unfortunately, hard core KJVO proponents refuse to be silenced even after the fallacies and logical gymnastics required to believe that way are shown to be false. Therefore threads like this are needed to make sure that no extreme KJVO misinformation goes unanswered.

    (Nothing like jumping right into the fire ;) )

    Doug
     

Share This Page

Loading...