The difference but the same!

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Askjo, Jun 2, 2003.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NASB and the KJV are not cult Bibles, but the NWT is the cult bible. Let me give you one verse for example.

    KJV on John 1:18 said, "the begotten Son ."

    NASB on John 1:18 said, " the bogotten God ."

    NWT on John 1:18 said, "the begotten God ."

    NASB and NWT agree each other on this same passage, but they disagree with the KJV.

    If NASB and NWT agree each other, is the cult NWT the Word of God?

    The Greek text of NASB disagrees with the Greek text of the KJV, but the Greek text of NWT agrees with the Greek text of NASB.

    If NASB's Greek Text and the NWT's Greek text agree each other, what are their Greek texts?

    Many different modern Bible versions differ each other, but their Greek texts are gone back to one same text.

    The Greek text of the KJV is the TR, but the Greek text of NASB and the Greek text of NWT are the Westcott/Hort text.
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Their text derived from Vaticanus,Alexandrinus,and Sinaiticus,(AKA the WBV waste basket version).
     
  3. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good try, but not quite. First, it is not the WH text, so please present truthful facts, not twisted half-truths. Second, if you want to play an association game, you have a problem. See, Mormons use the KJV. Not a different translation from the same Greek text, as JW's do, but the same translation. Do you really want to go down that road?

    Also, one of the major problems that I understand with the NWT is like in John 1:1. It does not read like the NASB or follow the Greek. The NWT needlessly disregards the appropriate translations at times and inserts slanted views into the text. So your whole premise is wrong. It is not the Greek text that is the problem. It is the translators.

    And what of the places where the KJV reads like the Latin Vulgate? If you want to associate things, then the KJV is definitely associated with the Vulgate. In your attempt to put down other translations the methods you use can be used for the KJV just as much, if not more.

    Neal
     
  4. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    What of it? there are many instances where different manuscripts agree with one another,big deal.
    I think not!The manuscripts that underly the Latin Vulgate,being Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, did not even have the book of Revelation in it's canon,it borrowed readings from Papyri that support/read with the KJB/TR readings.
    You really should take you're own advice before posting.
     
  5. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    So why do you give other translations such hard times? And this is not manuscript evidence. This is the KJV getting these readings from the Vulgate, not a common Greek text.

    Could you point me to a reference to the underlying texts of the Vulgate? I believe it was a translation made in the 5th century. And if its underlying text did not have the book of Revelation, how did it get in the Vulgate? And you miss the point. The Vulgate (and KJV and NKJV) depart from the Greek in these parts. There is very little, if any, Greek support anywhere for these readings.

    What methods was I using? Could you point out what you are talking about? I wasn't trying to undermine anything, just pointing out facts that are being conviently overlooked and showing the inadequacy of the argument at hand.

    Neal
     
  6. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Their text derived from Vaticanus,Alexandrinus,and Sinaiticus,(AKA the WBV waste basket version). </font>[/QUOTE]True, Westcott and Hort worshipped the Vacticanus manuscript because they hated the TR that the KJV was derived.
     
  7. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a heap of papyri that support the AV readings,the Vulgate got those readings from the same source,including the Old Latin(Greek Vulgate).
    It was borrowed! Just like ALL MVs "borrow" the same ending for Revelation from the Byzantine manuscripts due to the FACT there underlying text does not contain the book of Revelation.

    I think if you would look into it a little,all manuscript "families" depart from there underlying texts from time to time.
    What you will find is that no manuscript falls completely into any one "family" of manuscripts. Even the Alexandrian manuscripts have Byzantine readings in them from time to time.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many "family" manuscripts do we have now?
     
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean & Byzantine types are ones that come to mind.Plus a world of Papyri.
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean & Byzantine types are ones that come to mind.Plus a world of Papyri. [/QUOTE]

    Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean types were derived from the Byzantine family MSS because they took the Scriptures from this Byzantine family MSS and twisted them.

    85% of papyrus fragment agreed with the Byzantine readings. 15% of papyrus agreed with the Alexandrian readings.
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guilt by association is a fallacy which can be easily used to undermine the KJV by the same logic you're using, ASK and JYD. Therefore, it ought not be acceptable.
     
  12. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please point me to the heap that reads like the KJV in Acts 8:37, I John 5:7-8, and Revelation 22:19, just to name a few, please.

    Oh, I see. Like the last seven verses in Revelation in the KJV were borrowed directly from the Vulgate and not from any Greek manuscripts? I think I understand. :rolleyes:

    My friend, I have looked into it a lot. I am just wondering how a family departs from their underlying texts at times. I didn't know there was an underlying text to a manuscript families. I thought an underlying text referred to the text used to make a translation.

    Okay. But you didn't answer my question. I don't doubt this. That is not my method. You said that I should take my own advice. My advice to Askjo was to think of the argument he puts forward and how it could be used against his position. How is what I posted in my original post used against me? I just pointed out that the KJV has readings from the Latin Vulgate (not the Greek), Mormons use the KJV, and modern versions do not use the WH text. My main point was to show Askjo that using his method of guilt by association would immediately condemn the KJV. But I am NOT condemning it. Just like I don't condemn the NASB for having the same underlying text as the NWT. I was showing him that his line of argument was faulty. So where could I have used my advice, as you told me to. Could you please point it out?

    Neal
     
  13. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some Papyri purchased by Chester Beatty includes p45(A.D. 225),p46(A.D.225),and p47.p47 contained the entire book of Revelation,that is NOT found in any Vatican manuscript.Also,Manuscript 61(15th century)in Dublin,and Codex Ravianus(88&629).
    No,I think you don't understand.The Latin Vulgate's underlying manuscript did not have the Book of Revelation in it's canon;it came from Byzantine manuscripts.Therefore,the Latin Vulgate will agree with the Old Latin(aka,the Greek Vulgate).

    So what?? Alot of whackos "use" the KJB,that does not change what it is.
    Why wouldn't you? They do have the same reading in John 1:18(two gods),and denies that Christ was manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16;read 1John 4:3 for explaination.
    Just like you making the KJB guilty just because the Mormons use it??

    [ June 03, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
  14. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    They don't? how so?
     
  15. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought you said a heap, not a couple.

    No, you are the one who does not understand. I am not disputing that there are manuscripts for the book of Revelation. But the KJV does NOT read like them. It reads like the Latin Vulgate, not Greek manuscripts. It doesn't matter where the Vulgate got them from. It doesn't match up with the evidence we have in the Greek. So the KJV does not follow existing Greek manuscripts at the end of Revelation. Erasmus directly translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. That is my point. In 22:19 the KJV reads "Book of Life" when the Greek evidence we have points overwhelmingly to "Tree of Life." Where did the KJV get "Book of Life?" The Latin Vulgate.

    Okay, I will say it slowly. I AM NOT CONDEMNING THE KJV. Please read my posts, not scan over them. I AM POINTING OUT THAT USING THE ASSOCIATION GAME, WHICH KJVOS LIKE TO DO, THE KJV WOULD NOT PASS THE TEST.

    You just said it didn't matter that Mormons use the KJV. Then you use your double standard and try to associate the NASB with JWs. The NASB does not teach two Gods (study what the Trinity really means), does not deny the Christ was manifest in the flesh (what a weak argument, who else is the 1 Tim. passage talking about if not Christ), and your point with 1 John 4:3? Read the NASB and you will see that it confesses Christ. Why are you spreading lies?

    I will ask one more time that you READ. With comprehension. I am not "making the KJB guilty." If you read what I wrote you would clearly see that. The only way the KJV is guilty is by using your logic of association. But I do not agree with that. So I don't condemn the KJV. But if you want to be consistent, you have to. I can't help it that you shoot yourself in the foot while you try to attack the NASB.

    Neal
     
  16. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look into it. See who compiled the text underlying the NASB, ESV, and NIV.

    Neal
     
  17. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    One question... The KJV says only begotten Son... God declares this is my beloved Son this day have I begotten thee... Yet the other versions say begotten God... Who is right here?... Are you refuting what God has declared?... I'll stay with my KJV and you all can have your other versions... And error is an error!... Brother Glen... Strict KJVO Primitive Baptist [​IMG]
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does John 1:1 say about Christ? It does not say that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the Son. John 1:18 as given in MV's agrees with the overall context of John's opening argument better than as given in the KJV. In verse 1, Christ is called God. In verse 18, Christ is called God. To rightly divide the Word of Truth and reconcile the clear monotheistic teachings with the clear teaching of 3 persons identified as God requires the trinity... whichever way John 1:18 reads.
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glen, you have got to be kidding me. :rolleyes:
     
  20. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Disagree... Did the begotten God die?... No the Son of God died?... and that is the difference!... They are not the same... the KJV says it the way it is suppose to be all other versions are in error... To each his own... But don't get me to buy it... Brother Glen :eek:
     

Share This Page

Loading...