"There are no conflicting bibles"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry says "There are no conflicting bibles." Dr. Bob says all the versions are inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

    Let's examine the reasonableness and logic of their conclusions by a series of Scriptural examples.


    Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

    An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

    "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

    The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

    There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

    Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

    John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

    David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."


    John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

    However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".


    Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

    Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

    The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

    New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

    Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

    1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

    New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

    Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

    Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

    The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."



    Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

    This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

    God has given us His inerrant words and placed His seal of divine approval on them. They are found in the Authorized King James Holy Bible. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    Will Kinney

    [Title edited. Personal names not allowed]

    [ March 26, 2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  2. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's think of the four Gospels, Will, and apply the same logic. Now then, are you a Matthew Onlyist? Mark Onlyist? Luke Onlyist? John Onlyist? "Things that are different are not the same" [​IMG] (yeah leave it to Orvie to say something nutty like this) :D
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is serious problem with theological method in this post (as we see in virtually all of Will's posts). He sets out with an end in mind and then looks for ways to prove it. Rather than believing that the Bible is true, he accepts an unprovable tenet (that the KJV is the only word of God) and attacks God's word in order to maintain that example.

    The problem here is that Will did not honestly look at the text of Daniel to see what it says. Let's start there, shall we??

    Somebody doesn't know Hebrew ... The Hebrew reads: ve'ein lo.

    Let's first explain it for the sake of our author here as well as others who don't know Hebrew.

    Ein is a Hebrew particle meaning "There is not" (It's opposite is yesh, meaning "there is.") Both yesh and ein are considered as a sort of "verbal particle." They are properly translated "There is" and "there is not" regardless of whether there is a stated verb. (In fact, I do not know of an example of where either is used with a verb. So Will's statement that there is no verb here is ... well ... "duh" ... there never is with this word.) This is found in Lesson 13 of Ross's Biblical Hebrew Handbook (a very good first year grammar -- yes that is right, anyone with half of the first semester of Hebrew should already know this). Ross says

    He gives several instances such as "yesh li isshah" (there is to me a wife; i.e., I have a wife) or ein lo bayith (there is not to me a house; i.e, I don't have a house). This construction in Daniel 9:26 is used with this preposition "le." Let's look at that.

    Lo is a preposition with an object suffix. The "le" part of it mean "to or for;" the "o" is the 3ms singular object suffix. It is literally translated "to him" or "for him."

    So let's put this together: vein lo means "There is nothing for him," or more properly, "He has nothing."

    So we see that understanding simple first semester Hebrew grammar shows why "he has nothing" is the proper translation. The Hebrew construction is wrong for any other translation (cf. Wood). The text literally reads "there is nothing for him." It means that he has nothing.

    Now look at the context (since that is how we should study Scripture rather than studying it to find errors and attack it). Here you have a Messiah, a king, an anointed one. What should a king have? A kingdom, glory, honor, riches, etc. This Messiah is cut off. What does he have? Nothing. He is cut off in shame and agony.

    Larkin (as bad as he is on some things) says, "Jesus was rejected as Messiah and "cut-off" without anything. Instead of sitting on the Throne of His father David, and reigning in peace over the whole earth, He was crucified between two thieves, and had none of the earthly dignities and glories to which, as ISrael's promised Messiah, He was entitled. He recieved no crown, except the "Crown of thorns," no Throne, no Kingdom. Thus was foretold by Daniel the Crucifixion of Christ, and the postponement of the Kingdom."

    It might mean he will have no followers (i.e., "no one"). He certainly did not have that. They all fled from him (cf. Archer).

    So we see that Daniel did know what he was talking about and in fact made perfect sense with it. We further see that the modern versions did get it right.

    Now what about these other translations. It is a possible translation, but it is a strange use of the words to be sure. The context does not deal with who Christ died for, but rather how he died. He died with nothing, not even a grave. His only earthly possession was apparently his coat which the soldiers gambled on.

    Is this a contradiction? No, the two translations say entirely different things. That is they are talking about two different things. They are not both saying different things about the same thing. They are talking about two different things. Here's an analogy: If Will has a car and I live in Michigan, those two things are not contradictory. They are in fact unrelated and both true (since I assume Will has a car). In translation we have to make decisiosn about what the author was saying. That is not always easy. But it is apparent yet again that Will is unqualified to talk about this and has has his only purpose to make attacks on teh word of God. Both are unfortunate. In an age where information is so readily available, it is inexcusable not to avail oneself of it.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Will, are you a "Samuel Onlyist"? A "Kings Onlyist"? A "Chronicles Onlyist"? All three of them give different versions of the same events, within the same Bible version. According to your standards, only ONE can be right. WHICH ONE, Will?
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Every "version" conflicts with other versions. This is a fact about the KJV and its major and minor revisions.

    Any change from the "inspired" and "perfect" AV1611 conflicts with other revisions.

    Then you have a myriad of other valid (and some invalid) English translations. None of them agree with each other.

    Conflict is in EVERY version, revision, etc. And on the BB Version Forum!
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it! [​IMG]


    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  7. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Larry, you post: Rather than believing that the Bible is true, he accepts an unprovable tenet (that the KJV is the only word of God) and attacks God's word in order to maintain that example."

    Larry, when you speak of THE Bible, are you referring to the multitude of conflicting, textually different, and hundreds of verses that do not mean the same thing from one version to the next? Is this your "the Bible"? Of course it is.


    Larry&gt;&gt;&gt;(In fact, I do not know of an example of where either is used with a verb. So Will's statement that there is no verb here is ... well ... "duh" ... there never is with this word.)

    Larry, I was merely pointing out that there is no verb. One can sometimes be supplied to fill the sense, but in this case there is no need to put in a verb, because the KJB and all the other versions put out by equally qualified scholars as yourself disagree with your viewpoint.


    Larry,&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So we see that understanding simple first semester Hebrew grammar shows why "he has nothing" is the proper translation. The Hebrew construction is wrong for any other translation (cf. Wood).

    Larry, again you merely refer us to those scholars who happen to agree with you (which I also do). But there are a whole lot of Bible translators obviously who see this passage and the Hebrew construction differently than you do.

    Larry&gt;&gt;&gt;Now what about these other translations. It is a possible translation, but it is a strange use of the words to be sure. The context does not deal with who Christ died for, but rather how he died.

    I disagree with you Larry, and apparently a lot of other Bible translators do too. Look at chapter 9:24. It speaks of 70 weeks determined "to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness." Now how was this accomplished? The Messiah died in place of His people to make reconciliation. He was cut off BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF.

    Larry, you have your view, but as I posted, there are a whole lot of well known Christian commentators who differ from what you think and how you personally would translate the passage. You are your own final authority. The King James Bible is mine.


    Larry&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Is this a contradiction? No, the two translations say entirely different things. That is they are talking about two different things. They are not both saying different things about the same thing. They are talking about two different things.

    Very well put, Larry. No contradiction, they just say two entirely different things. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


    Larry&gt;&gt;&gt;In translation we have to make decisiosn about what the author was saying. That is not always easy. But it is apparent yet again that Will is unqualified to talk about this and has has his only purpose to make attacks on teh word of God.


    Contrary to your position that focuses on man and his varying abilities and different points of view, with the resulting very different versions with totally different meanings, I believe in the sovereignty of God to give us a perfect, complete Holy Bible that contains all His words with the correct meanings.

    We differ from each other on our whole approach to this issue.

    Thanks, though, for your comments and for explaining how you view this passage and the Bible version issue.

    God bless,

    Will Kinney
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    How to make a Messianic prophecy disappear

    Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations

    One of my favorite hymns, O Come, O Come Emmanuel, has the line "O come Desire of nations, come." Handel’s Messiah also has this line taken from the King James Bible in it. "And the Desire of all nations shall come. But who may abide the day of His coming? For He is like a refiner's fire." This line comes from Haggai 2:6, 7 "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land: And I will shake all nations, and THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

    There are also references to this event in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews says in 12:26: "Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Also in Hebrews 10:37 we read: "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."

    Matthew Henry comments on Haggai 2:6-7:

    "He shall come as the desire of all nations — desirable to all nations, for in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed with the best of blessings — long expected and desired by the good people in all nations, that had any intelligence from the Old-Testament predictions concerning him."

    Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on Haggai 2:7:

    “So Hebrews 12:26, which quotes this passage; the apostle compares the heavier punishment which awaits the disobedient under the New Testament with that which met such under the Old Testament. At the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, only the earth was shaken to introduce it, but now heaven and earth and all things are to be shaken, all kingdoms that stand in the way of Messiah's kingdom, "which cannot be shaken," are to be upturned. Paul condenses together the two verses of Haggai 2:6-7 and 2:21-22, implying that it was one and the same shaking, of which the former verses of Haggai denote the beginning, the latter the end."


    They continue: "There is scarcely a prophecy of Messiah in the Old Testament which does not, to some extent at least, refer to His second coming."

    "While the Jews as a nation desired Him not, the Gentiles, who are plainly pointed out by "all nations," accepted Him; and so to them He was peculiarly desirable. The "good tidings of great joy" were "to all people" (Luke 2:10). The Jews, and those in the adjoining nations instructed by them, looked for Shiloh to come unto whom the gathering of the people was to be, from Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49:10). The early patriarchs, Job (Job 19:25-27) and Abraham (John 8:56), desired Him."

    "fill this house with glory-- As the first temple was filled with the cloud of glory, the symbol of God, so this second temple was filled with the "glory" of God (John 1:14) veiled in the flesh at Christ's first coming, when He entered it and performed miracles there ; but that "glory" is to be revealed at His second coming, as this prophecy in its ulterior reference foretells.”

    John Gill comments on Haggai 2:6-7 (Caps are mine):"and the desire of all nations shall come; NOT THE DESIRABLE THINGS OF ALL NATIONS, or them with them, as their gold and silver; and which is the sense of Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra; but this is contrary to the syntax of the words, to the context, Haggai 2:8, and to facts; ... but one far more glorious and excellent, is intended, even the Messiah, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed;... his personal coming; his spiritual coming; his coming to take vengeance on the Jews; and his last coming, of which some understand the words particularly."

    John Calvin remarks on Haggai 2:6-7 "But we may understand what he says of Christ, Come shall the desire of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory. We indeed know that Christ was the expectation of the whole world, according to what is said by Isaiah. And it may be properly said, that when the desire of all nations shall come, that is, when Christ shall be manifested, in whom the wishes of all ought to center, the glory of the second Temple shall then be illustrious."


    Other Bible versions that agree with the King James Holy Bible "and the desire of all nations shall come" are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Green's interlinear, Darby, Douay 1950, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation into English, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (el Deseado de todas las naciones vendrá), the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster’s 1833 translation, KJV 21st Century Version, and Third Millenium Bible.

    The NIV is pretty good here with "and the desired of all nations will come."

    Miles Coverdale 1535 gives the same idea with: " the comforte of all Heithen shall come"

    God's Word to the Nations version 1995 - "and the one whom all the nations desire will come." This gives the same sense as that found in the King James Bible.

    Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 also reads like the KJB - "and the delight of all the nations, shall come in."

    However things begin to go awry in the NKJV with its: "and THEY shall come to the Desire of All Nations." This is incorrect because it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is coming to us, not we who are not going to Him.

    But with the NASB, RSV, ESV, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation everything has changed, and this is no longer a prophecy about Christ at all. The NASB reads: "And I am going to shake all the nations and THEY WILL COME WITH THE WEALTH of all nations."

    The Message - "And I'll shake down all the godless nations. They'll bring bushels of wealth and I will fill this Temple with splendor. GOD of the Angel-Armies says so."

    RSV, ESV (2001 English Standard Version) "and I will shake all nations so that THE TREASURES OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME IN, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts."

    The word used here for "desire" #2532 khem-daw, does not mean "wealth", as the NASB says, nor "treasures" as the ESV, RSV have it, and it is not THEY who will come, but Christ, the Messiah. The NASB has only once translated this word as "wealth", and yet has the same word as "desire" in Daniel 11:37 - "he will show no regard for... the desire of women".

    This noun "desire" comes from the verb "to desire" # 2530 and is used in 1 Samuel 9:20 referring to the first king over Israel, when Samuel said to Saul "and on whom is all the DESIRE of Israel?" and again in Isaiah 53:2 "and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should DESIRE him." The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, at His first coming in the flesh.


    The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who now works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and results in total confusion.

    Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong.

    Will Kinney
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then shows us where the KJV says you should use only the KJV. If it is your final authority, then you should be able to show us. If you can't show us that, then we must assume that you have some other final authority.

    Of course, you have proven many times that your final authority is your own mind. You were shown unequivocal proof about this passage and you reject it. What else is there to say??

    But you have yet to show us where this sovereign God teaches what you teach. You use God's name in vain by attaching it to a teachign that satisfies the lust of your own mind. You desire this kind of Bible and so you have created it and attached God's name to it. But as you have aptly demonstrated, God did not such thing. Instead of believing God's word, you resort to endless attacks on it.
     
  10. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Larry. I was on the other board where he posted the same article.

    I basically said the same thing you did and I have never had Hebrew, As a matter of fact, I've never been to seminary. But I have enough brains to figure that out by using Strong's.

    How do you feel about the way The Message paraphrases this passage?

    Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--the end of him.
     
  11. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Pastor Larry,
    Why is the phrase in the KJV rendered '...but not for himself'?

    Not arguing, just trying to understand the reason for this.

    This does seem different to my way of thinking than saying he shall have nothing.

    We see in John 17 He prayed for the restoration of his glory. Is saying 'he shall have nothing' then limited to the view of how unbelievers see Christ, what do you think?

    We know by faith if nothing else (and I don't think blind faith) that His glory was certainly restored to him as it was before his incarnation.

    Just some questions from a non-Hebrew.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim, If that the Message, then I don't like it. I don't think that is the point of the verse.

    Dallas, I don't know why they translated that way. It doesn't make a lot sense to me. It certainly is explainable from an exegetical/theological standpoint, but I am not convinced that is what Daniel was saying.

    I think "he shall have nothing" is in contrast with the prince of the people who is to come who has everything, seemingly. The Messiah was cut off in shame and degradation, so much so that the he was a stumblingblock to the Jews as 1 Cor 1 tells us. The Messiah should not be crucified. He should not have nothing. A king simply doesn't receive that kind of treatment. Taht is why God's wisdom is foolishness to the world.
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Pastor Larry,
    That was the point of my questioning. You said it better.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Will, every old civilization had a desire for a mighty leader to come & lead them to whatever they conceived heaven to be, but most of them didn't know who this leader would be, or from where he'd come.

    Plainly, Hitler thought he was that leader, and that the German people were the salt of the earth, & that they should dominate the world under his own leadership. He believed Jesus was a great failure, not because He was a Jew, but because He was an "Aryan" who failed because He associated with, and lived among, the Jews.


    Since JESUS is He whom the nations looked for, even unknowingly, the "desire of all nations" is one of His many titles. I agree with your basic logic here.

    However, I DISagree with your take on Daniel 9:26. We know that in OT Scripture, "cut off" often means "destroyed, killed, eliminated, or exiled". No one was cut off for himself.

    When Jesus died, He had no material possessions by man's reckoning. His tomb was donated. His clothes & sandals were most likely removed by the Romans before His physical abuse began. Whatever money He may have earned was kept by Judas, the group's treasurer. truly, by man's reckoning, He had nothing. I agree with pastor Larry, both by checking what he said about the Hebrew, and by applying common sense, especially in light of the facts about Jesus' crucifixion, that "had nothing" is a better translation. However, the KJ rendering isn't entirely wrong.
     
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Roby, thanks for your comments and thoughts. As I pointed out to Larry, there are a whole lot of well known Christian commentators whose linguistic abilities at least equal Larry's or most likely surpass his, who disagree with him and side with the King James reading.

    I believe God gave us His inerrant words in the King James Bible, and neither he nor you hold the same opinion. That is just the way it is.

    Here are a couple more of hundreds of examples I have showing that the statement "There are no conflicting bibles" is foolish at best.


     Job 22:29,30


    KJB "When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, THERE IS LIFTING UP; and he shall save the humble person. He shall deliver the island of THE INNOCENT"

    NKJV "When they cast you down, and you say, 'EXALTATION WILL COME! Then He will save the humble person. He will even deliver one who is NOT INNOCENT"

    NASB "When you are cast down, YOU WILL SPEAK WITH CONFIDENCE. And the humble person He will save; He will deliver one who is NOT innocent."

    NIV "When men are brought low and you say, "LIFT THEM UP!" then he will save the downcast. He will even deliver one who is NOT innocent.

    ESV “For when they are humbled you say, IT IS BECAUSE OF PRIDE, but he saves the lowly. He delivers the one who is NOT INNOCENT.”

    When men are cast down do you say "there is lifting up" because God has lifted you up when others are cast down? Or is it "exaltation will come"(it hasn't yet gotten here) or do you "speak with confidence", or do you demand of someone "Lift them up"?. Perhaps you will say: “It is because of pride”. All five are different.

    Bishop’s Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587 - “When the wicked be cast downe, thou shalt say, I am lifted vp: and God shall saue the humble person.”

    Revised Standard Version - “For God abases the proud, but he saves the lowly. He delivers THE INNOCENT MAN; you will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands."

    Are the innocent delivered, as in the King James Bible, the JPS 1917 Hebrew-English translation, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, Douay 1950, RSV, NEB 1970, New American Bible St. Joseph, Webster’s 1833 translation, Bible in Basic English 1961, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Geneva and Bishop’s Bibles, and the English Standard Version, or the "not innocent" of the NKJV, NIV & NASB? Hey, they are all the inspired words of God, right? What difference does it make?

    Unbelievers mock at Christians because we say the Bible is inspired, yet there are literally hundreds of verses that read totally different in all of these versions.


      NIV all messed up Hebrews 11:11

    There is no Greek text anywhere that allows the NIV bible to render the text of Hebrews 11:11 the way they have it.
    The KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV read in a similar way except the NASB removes "and was delivered of a child".

    Heb. 11:11 "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised."

    The NIV says: "By faith ABRAHAM, even though he was past age-and Sarah herself was barren- was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."

    NASB "By faith even SARAH herself received ability to conceive, even beyound the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised."

    In the NIV the subject is Abraham, not Sarah. She conceived and became a mother. In the NIV it is Abraham who became a father. Sarah believed God in the KJB, NKJV, NASB etc. but in the NIV it is Abraham who believed God. Something is surely amiss here. Which one is the real word of God?

    "There are no conflicting bibles" OOOOOkay.

    Will Kinney
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Will Kinney:I believe God gave us His inerrant words in the King James Bible, and neither he nor you hold the same opinion. That is just the way it is.

    I believe the same, except that God did NOT retire in 1611 & that he continues to provide His word in the languages of this day.

    As for your comparisons-you MUST apply the same reasoning as is applied to the conflicting readings within the KJV or any other valid BV-that the various accounts, which differ among themselves, of the same events-were written by different men in different times or places. Otherwise, you're using a double standard.

    One would expect SOME differences among BVs because each one is a separate version, but differences between the narrations of the same events IN THE SAME VERSION have MUCH more weight than do the differences between versions. Therefore, whatever explanations are used to cover the differences within one version carry MUCH more weight in explaining the differences between versions.
     
  17. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    And just exactly WHAT makes a "BV" valid?? If it is the plan of salvation,then the NWT would be valid;even the most grossly corrupt "bible" contains the plan of salvation.

    What does it take for a "BV" to get your "valid" seal of approval???
     
  18. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    What was translated as "island of the innocent" in the KJV is better translated as "not innocent." ('i naqi). The KJV missed it, I think, but does this really change doctrine? Either way, Eliphaz is the one speaking this, and we know from reading the whole book of Job who he is.

    The ones I know mock that people use a Bible that in made of an langauge that they don't readily understand. Never have I seen someone mock the Bible because of this - Never. Even unbelievers with half-a-brain understand that translators are translating from original languages. If you've ever met someone who didn't come to Christ for the sole reason that he didn't understand all the conflicts in the different languages, send them to me. I can clear up that misconception in about 3 minutes.

    Yawn. Is this the best you have, Will? Pull out your Greek and see if you can find out the difference.
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJB Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."

    The part: "from his right hand went a fiery law for them" is found in the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901 (according to the NASB introduction, known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty- I don't believe it for a second, but if so, then why did future NASBs alter it so much?), in the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, the Douay, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew - English versions, Spanish Reina Valera, and Darby. Now let's see what the noted scholars of today have done with this passage.

    NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what is in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".)

    NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM." Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", or "from the south"? Who really cares. As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?


    Zechariah 13:5 KJB "But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; FOR MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP CATTLE FROM MY YOUTH."

    Bishop’s Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV 1982, the 1936 Jewish Publication Society of America translation, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Webster’s 1833 translation, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all read the same as the King James Bible.

    NIV-"I am a farmer; THE LAND HAS BEEN MY LIVELIHOOD SINCE MY YOUTH."

    NASB "I am a tiller of the ground, FOR A MAN SOLD ME AS A SLAVE IN MY YOUTH."

    Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta: “AND A MAN MADE ME ZEALOUS TO PROPHESY from my youth.”

    New English Bible: “I AM A TILLER OF THE SOIL WHO HAS BEEN SCHOOLED IN LUST from boyhood.”

    RSV 1952 “FOR THE LAND HAS BEEN MY POSSESSION from my youth.”

    Catholic Douay 1950 “ADAM IS MY EXAMPLE from my youth.”


    KJB Zech. 13:6 "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS?

    NIV- "What are these wounds ON YOUR BODY?"

    NASB "What are these wounds BETWEEN YOUR ARMS?" (where exactly is "between your arms", anyway?) By the way, the word is clearly "hands" from the Hebrew, same as in the next verse "I will turn mine hand upon the little ones".

    Job 6:6

    “Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? OR IS THERE ANY TASTE IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?

    This is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, TEV, Geneva bible, Living Bible, Darby, Lamsa, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

    But let’s take a look at what other eminent scholars have come up with while translating the same Hebrew texts.


    RSV (Revised Standard Version)
    “Is there any taste IN THE SLIME OF THE PURSLANE?

    NRSV, ESV
    “Is there any taste IN THE JUICE OF THE MALLOW?

    Young’s “literal”
    “Is there ANY SENSE IN THE DRIVEL OF DREAMS?”

    Douay-Rheims
    “OR CAN MAN TASTE THAT WHICH WHEN TASTED BRINGETH DEATH?”

    All these “scholars” learned Hebrew and this is the finished product of their advanced learning. See how knowing the original languages opens up the subtle nuances of meaning and allows us to see the true sense? ;)

    "There are no conflicting bibles"
    - noted scholar

    "All versions are inspired by the same Holy Spirit."

    - another noted scholar

    Will Kinney
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    There is only one Bible. The Bible is comprised of the inspired documents not any translations. God did not need a translation to give the Bible writers His version. He gave them the original.
     

Share This Page

Loading...