English

Abell, what part of "I've never seen" do you have a problem understanding? What qualifies you to say what I've seen and what I haven't? Why then do you declare my statement to be "dead wrong?" Beside that, I was talking about cults that started from one of the KJVs - not about a comparison in Bible translations.

The NWT has some readings in common with modern Bible translations. But then modern Bible translations and the NWT have some readings in common with the KJVs. The web page you reference judges all other translations against the KJVs, assuming that different is wrong. The entire premise of "different is wrong" is - well, wrong.

It isn't at all right that some people categorize a deliberate mistranslation of God's word with legitimate efforts to present the word of God. I've never seen a legitimate Bible translation that denies the deity of Christ in John 1:1. But how does the NWT render John 1:1?

Not only does the NWT deny Christ's deity, it also teaches a multiplicity of gods, or pantheism.

The Inspired Version of the Mormons (an update of the Joseph Smith Translation) also denies Christ's deity in John 1:1.

But this has little if anything to do with my original statement...

 

And I love it when a KJVO tries to teach about modern Bible translations! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Not only does the English correct the Greek, it also corrects the Hebrew as well! :laugh:

Salamander, when Isaiah wrote the passage, he wrote what he meant. Matthew quoted Isaiah, interpreting almah as virgin, applying the prophecy directly to Jesus. But by declaring virgin is the only legitimate translation of almah you become your own final authority.

 

There's no doubt Mary was a virgin, no matter how Isaiah 7:14 is translated. Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:26-38 leave no doubt Mary was a virgin. Matthew quoted Isaiah loosely, using an implied meaning to go along with what he had just written 3 verses earlier, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:20 NKJV). Luke's narrative also plainly states Mary was a virgin. Why all the fuss about what Isaiah wrote and its interpretation? Either way, there's no denial of Christ's virgin birth.

 

Aren't you getting your stories confused, Salamander? Wasn't it the "intelligence" or the thinking of the scribes and the Parisees Jesus confronted? The scribes and the Parisees were Jews - not Greeks.

The word "Greek" is mentioned in the Gospel narratives of the KJVs and the NKJV three times: when a Greek woman sought Jesus to heal her daughter (Mark 7:26) and when Jesus' "accusation" was posted on the cross in Greek, Latin and Hebrew (Luke 23:38 and John 19:20). And where's the harmony you speak of, Salamander? We would assume Mark is telling us the order in which Jesus "accusation" was recorded (first Greek, then Latin and then Hebrew), yet John gives a different order (first Hebrew, then Greek and then Latin). If the very word order is so important, Salamander, why are we given two conflicting orders in the two Gospel narratives?

 

That was not my intention, franklinmonroe. I was responding to one of Salamander's posts in which it seemed he was saying that cults derive from the modern Bible translations. His post wasn't very clear - that's why I questioned what he was saying. I merely presented what I thought he was saying and responded to the idea - and I haven't seen either confirmation or denial from Salamander prior to your post (#107) that he was saying what I thought he was saying.

 

Abell, the "omissions" are more likely additions found in the texts underlying the KJVs. Many modern translations are based on texts that are older, and therefore probably more accurate, than the newer texts used in the translation of the 1611 KJV. The fact is that if the older and more reliable texts don't contain something found in the later texts, then the later texts probably have additions added by well-meaning but misguided scribes and copyists over the years.

 

You're going on the false assumption that the NWT is corrupt in every verse, Abell. That's not the case at all. Much of the NWT uses the same underlying texts as the legitimate modern Bible translations. Where the NWT is corrupt is in its denial of Christ's deity. All you have to do is compare John 1:1 in the NWT with any legitimate modern translation (at least all of them I've seen) to see that the NWT denies Christ's deity while modern translations support His deity.

Compare this rendeing with legitimate modern translations...

See how all these ranslations are in agreement about Christ's deity, Abell? They also agree with the 1611 KJV and with other pre-1611 translations.

See the harmony of these many Bible translations in declaring the deity of Christ? Yet the NWT declares Christ was a god. How can you in good conscience and all honesty categorize the NWT the same as other modern Bible translations, Abell?

-------------------

Bible citations taken from StudyLight http://www.stydylight.org

 

If God preserved his word perfectly in the 1611 KJV, didn't He have the foresight to see such errors as you mentiuon and prevent them from happening? Your argument has about as many holes in it as a seive.

 

See post 168.

:tonofbricks:

 

Thats good, I asked him to look at John 1v1 and you made it easy for him

 

Talk about graspong at straws! :laugh:

I am just as confident of God's preserved message when I hold the NKJV or the NASB in my hand.

Actually, Abell, the KJVO "standard" is nothing more than man's standard. If God meant for us to have word-for-word perfection in any English Bible translation do you really think He would allow things like printing errors to get in the way? :laugh:

 

In the KJVs words were added to make the text read "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
See how the words "the brother of" are italicized? That isn't my doing - pick up any printed KJV you have handy and you should see the same words italicized. This indicates the words were added by translators. In other words, if the KJV translators hadn't added their own words that didn't appear in the original texts, then the KJV would read the same as the ESV in this verse. KJV translators apparently tampered with their translation in order to try to cover up the problem. Are we now to believe the added words are also inspired? Building any denigration of modern Bible translations on italicized words in the KJVs isn't very smart, Abell. :laugh:

 

Are you saying it's alright to tamper with the texts in order to try to avoid a contradiction?

 

Keith
I do indeed believe God intended for man to have a word for word perfect English Bible. I believe that Bible to be the KJV. I'm sorry you do not feel God is capable of giving English speaking people His perfect word.

If you do not feel God is able to preserve His word perfectly, how can you expect Him to preserve your soul perfectly? If you doubt God in the small things how can you trust Him in the big things? I'm sorry Keith, but my God is bigger than that. I really do not see your position to be a laughing matter.

 

You don't either - you admit it has printing and typesetting errors. Errors are errors, you don't get to pick and choose.

You don't believe God is strong enough to protect His word from printing presses? If He cannot preserve His word from the printing press do you think He can preserve your soul? If you doubt God in the small things like a typesetter or printing press how can you trust Him in he big things?

 

Abell,

Kindly give us your definition of 'perfection' when it comes to Bible translations.

Then perhaps we can understand how the KJV with it's admitted errors from the beginning can be perfect, and thus God's word whereas a MV is not.

Thanks.

 

Why would anyon in their right mind accept a myth as truth, Sal? Yet that's exactly what you do. It's the myth you accept that's divisive because that myth declares there's only one true word of God in English and casts doubt on all other translations. You're still confused, Sal.

Do you believe the world is flat, Sal? Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy? If you don't believe in these things, then you reject some myths. Why do you reject some myths and embrace the KJVO myth?

 

I'm very well aware why italicized words are in the KJV. Now let me educate you as to why the translators added the words the brother of to II Sam.21:19. First of all, it is impossible for Goliath to be killed by two different people at two different times.

Secondly, if you open the Bible up to I Chron.20:5, you will find the same account as II Sam.21:19. In I Chron. we are told Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath whose name was Lahmi. Here the words "the brother of" are not italicized. Meaning these words are in the originals. They were not added here by the translators.

The translators did not tamper with the translation as you claim. They added those words in II Sam. because Elhanan did not kill Goliath. Not only were the KJV translators experts in Biblical languages, they used common sense which is more than I can say for the translators of MV. If you want to align yourself with people who can't discern who killed who,that's your call. :laugh:

 

I figure if you put something right in front of someone they can't ignore it.