UnHoly hands on the Bible Volume II

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Nimrod, Apr 21, 2003.

  1. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Question: Answer this serious question, all you who add to and subract from the Scriptures( NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV...): When the Holy Spirit applies words to a newly regenerated soul, will they be YOUR words, or HIS words that He applies?

    Firstly, consider that each individual is as different as a snowflake is reputed to be. The same words will not apply to everyone. The Holy Spirit has known each individual since eternity plus 6.2548 months, and has superintended that elect person's life until the moment of regeneration. He KNOWS what to apply to each soul in order to bring forth faith and repentance. Those who rewrite Scriptures DO NOT KNOW what they are doing when they alter the words of God, for they haven't the fainest notion how their changes will affect a single soul. Consider that these same words they have thrust in among the pure and precious words of God will be read by millions and millions of persons. If just one soul is hindered from belief in Christ because they have adulterated the Scripture that would have given relief, then the translator who perpetrated this appalling deed will be held responsible. Yes he will! Listen: "Therefore, behold! I am against the prophets, says Jehovah, that steal My words every one from his neighbor" Jer. 23:30 "But whoever causes one of these little [ones] to offend, it is better for him that a millstone turned by an ass be hung on his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6)

    And as Caius said of those early corrupter of the Scriptures, not one of these modern-day translators can deny that they have added and substracted, distorted and watered down, the words they were supposed to translate. For are these not millions of printed copies which will convict them of what they have done? And have they not themselves announced what Hebrew and Greek texts they will translate? It is bad enough to use a corrupted, scrap-book type of Greek text, but it is even worse to ignore the Greek words chosen and instead insert their own words. A single verse or even a part of a verse in its original purity, appearing in the very words the Holy Spirit crafted, may be used in a doxen different ways with ten thousand individuals, according to their needs. Then they came along and alter those words, or cast one or more of them out of the verse. Are they not guilty of robbing the ninety and nine who needed the verse in its original purity, but do not find in their version what they need?

    p278-279 "UnHoly Hands on the Bible Volume II"
    BOLD, emphasis mine
     
  2. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since you included the word "add," how do you answer this, since your KJV has added in numberous places to the word of God that the Holy Spirit inspired?? So far as I know, no one on our side has taken anything from the word of God so we really can't offer an opinion.
     
  3. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    An even better question, where did you come up with that date for the creation of the world? (3209 BC)
     
  4. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete, it obviously didn't come from an ESV thinline. It must be from some perversion.
     
  5. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me defend myself;
    What version do you use?
     
  6. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    i don't understand. are you referring to my sarcasm?
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa Nimrod, before going into which version everyone uses, answer one question:

    Do you believe it was okay for the KJV translators to add to and/or subtract from the scripture they were translating?

    For arguement's sake, I use the same Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV authors used. I don't stick to a specific English translation.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me defend myself;
    What version do you use?
    </font>[/QUOTE]What difference does it make what version I use? I was questioning the version you use that you condemned when you condemned the versions that add things to God's word. So go ahead and defend yourself.
     
  9. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    NASB
     
  10. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt 6:33

    Later in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt, 6:33, the NASB (together with the NIV) are alone among the other four modern versions in rendering "seek first His kingdom and His righteousness," instead of the Traditional Text, "sekk first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," which is now followed by REB, NRSV, GNB, and NAB. This is because of OLD Nestle Text which is followed by NASB and NIV leaves out of God on the supposed "authority" of Codex Aleph ONLY. For here Codex B is confused, giving, "seek first righteousness and His kingdom." Yet the textual critics follow Dr. Hort(I want to vomit) in regarding this piece of confusion as "extra authority" for the omission, of God . It is sensible at this point to ask not only what sort of reasoning could have led Dr. Hort and the OLD Nestle Text to leave out of God. And should we not also question the NASB translators in a key doctrinal verse? We must regretfully draw the conclusion that the NASB translators deliberately followed a reading wiith NO strong evidence behind it. For they have rejected the Kingdom of God, even though it is vouched for as the autograph by practically 100% of all available evidence; and also it has been adopted by the NEW Nestle Text, UBS3 Greek N.T, and the four recent revised modern versions just mentioned.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    On the other hand the KJV drops the word "while" from Hebrews 2:9 ("while" is present in the Traditional text).

    The NAS and RSV rightfully includes it in Hebrews 2:9.

    KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    NAS Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

    RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

    HankD
     
  12. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since "His" in the context clearly means "of God", the assertion that "[the NASB translators] have rejected the Kingdom of God" looks to me to be libel, and very likely breaking one of the Ten Commandments. If you do not think "His" here means "of God", then please say what you do think it means and why anyone else should accept your bizarre notion. Since the traditional text is not in English, it is impossible to produce an English Bible without changing the words.

    Haruo
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the use of "God" or "His" here is splitting hairs. The KJV translators used the following text:

    zeteo de proton ho basileia tou theos kai ho dikaiosune hautou

    First seek after the kingdom of God and justification (righteousness) thereof.

    It's clear that, when you look at the contextual verbage, God is also referred to in verse 32, so the English usage of substituting a pronoun instead of noun is certainly translationally allowable. There are several places where the KJV does the same type of substitution. One such example is 1Peter 5:3, where the word "God's" is added to the text, 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, even though it does not appear in the Greek. Or, 1Peter5:6 ( Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time) where the KJV authors add the word "he" to the verse.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what? You have not shown that any thing was left out here. If we argue that "God" was added to the originals, you cannot deny that we might be right. You cannot deny the possibility that the KJV added to the word of God. That is, in fact, the most likely possibility. What you have done in this thread is assume without biblical evidence that the KJV is the standard. Church history, both ancient and modern, has not accepted that premise and you should not either.
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    A version would ADD to the actual Words that God inspired?

    God forbid! [​IMG]
     
  16. Faith Fact Feeling

    Faith Fact Feeling
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what? You have not shown that any thing was left out here. If we argue that "God" was added to the originals, you cannot deny that we might be right. You cannot deny the possibility that the KJV added to the word of God. That is, in fact, the most likely possibility. What you have done in this thread is assume without biblical evidence that the KJV is the standard. Church history, both ancient and modern, has not accepted that premise and you should not either. </font>[/QUOTE]Nimrod said that Matthew 6:33 was changed in the MV based only on "Codex Aleph ONLY". If this is true, it seems to me you are failing to acknowledge very straightforward evidence that MVs are wrong here. Is your bias causing you to lose touch with reason? I believe Nimrod has clearly shown an unjustified MV omission.
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see any such "omission". Let me repost what I said earlier:

    It's clear that, when you look at the contextual verbage, God is also referred to in verse 32, so the English usage of substituting a pronoun instead of noun is certainly translationally allowable. There are several places where the KJV does the same type of substitution. One such example is 1Peter 5:3, where the word "God's" is added to the text, 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, even though it does not appear in the Greek. Or, 1Peter5:6 ( Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time) where the KJV authors add the word "he" to the verse.

    This is not a matter of MV's being wrong. It's a matter of KJVO's accusing MV's of something that the KJV also does. So the question should be: why is it allowable in the KJV and not allowed elsewhere?
     
  18. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's just it Johnv, it may not be as clear to others. Just becuase you think it is clear, maybe just maybe, the Holy Spirit knew that not everyone thinks as clear as Johnv does.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please tell me what conclusion you think an "unclear" person might come to by seeing the word "His" in the verse.

    BTW - You failed to point out why the KJV can do it, but the MV's can't.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nimrod has apparently been mislead about this to some degree, as the apparatus will testify. That does not make it conclusive whichever way since truth is not determined by majority vote but by accuracy. As we have often said, one hundred copies of an error does not make it less an error. By the same token, only one copy of truth does not make it less than truth. So if A is the only evidence, and if A is what Matthew wrote, then A is right, no matter who else disagrees. This point is too often missed by the majority text advocates. It is especially missed by the TR advocates.

    The "straightforward" evidence is not so straightforward as displayed by the actual evidence separated from the need to tear down the word of God. I have no bias so it hasn't caused me to lose touch. With "his" or "God" there is no difference. "His" clearly refers to God. The absence of "tou theou" clearly explains how "tou theou" would have gotten there, since Matthew rarely uses basilean without a modifier. That alone testifies to the strenght of the evidence. It is more likely that a scribe would have added "tou theou" than that he would have omitted it. This is a prime case of the harder being more likely to be original.

    In either case, there is nothing at stake.
     

Share This Page

Loading...