Bible Translations

This is a riot. It shows the absolute dishonesty and fraud yet again of this side. Note the following. Erasmus died in 1536 (for proof see: Erasmus ). How did a man who died in 1536 have access to a version published in 1582??

It is outright and utter dishonesty to say that he had access to a version that was not published until more than 40 years later. Outright and utter dishonesty.

But it shows that some people have no regard for the truth. They will say whatever they want becuase their minds are corrupted by false teaching. Is it really too much to ask for simple honesty?? It is from this crowd, as we have seen time and time again.

 

Actually there is another hole in this statement.

The Douay-Rheims was translated from the Latin Vulgate (btw, there is even a DRO group claiming the Latin underlying the DR text to be “purer” than the Greek and Hebrew).

http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html

HankD

 

AV Defender said:

Erasmus had access to the Douay-Rheims of 1582

ROFLMBO!

There's that KJV-only "proof by time travel" again.

You gotta laugh.

. . . .
. . . .

 

If you cared to check you would see that the underlying greek texts of those books match the TR family not the modern version family.</font>[/QUOTE] I have for the past 7 years or so and what you suggest is not what I have found to be true. Since I don't have formal education on the various facets of this argument, I read and consider arguments based on their alignment with scripture, their documentation, their integrity, and their logical consistency (or lack thereof). When I find someone building on a false premise, I discount their arguments immediately no matter how attractive or reasonable their conclusions sound. That's why I am no longer KJVO.

What I have seen watching the debate on which text type is the oldest is that the older the mss are the closer the text types are to each other. This leads me to believe that the originals were a blend of the two major text types, not identical to either. However, the testimonies of patristic writers are strong evidence against the very late Byzantine (LV tainted) as represented by the TR.

Many people from Burgon unto today have shown they weaken doctrine.</font>[/QUOTE] What is or is not the Word of God does not stem from its agreement with what we consider good doctrine. It depends wholly on what God said in the originals.

There are versions that use the TR every bit as faithfully as the KJV such as the LITV and NKJV.

"Profaners...profaners... PROFANERS!???" What could be more profane than those who held the doctrines and practices of the CoE in the early 1600's? They made the king their pope. Taught baptismal regeneration. Baptized babies. And topped it off by making a Baptist the last Englishman burned at the stake for heresy in 1611.

I am positive that no modern translation committee is perfect but those behind the NKJV, NASB, and even NIV are much closer to our beliefs than the KJV translators... and the MV translators don't even believe that those who disagree with them in religion should be persecuted. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ October 30, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Hey,I goofed,OK!!?? I was not watching what I was doing;never the less,Erasmus had access to the variations found in Vaticanus.

 

Hey,I goofed,OK!!?? I was not watching what I was doing;never the less,Erasmus had access to the variations found in Vaticanus. </font>[/QUOTE]i think this is the basic prob of KJBOism. out to defend a false doctrine, they'll play fast n loose w the facts in a hopeless bid to prop it up.

hey, it's easier to accept God's Word as it is than to purvey a false (although perhaps temporaraly more assuring) Version-onlyist belief.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But what really gripes me is when people try to smack you upside the head with theirs...and this is the biggest beef that I have with the KJVOnly crowd.

I mean, after all, how many people are intimate with the backgrounds of the translators of the various translations? Much less than 1% would be a fair estimation.

But my point is this: If you believe that the KJV is God's Only Bible, that's fine with me. It's your right to do so. BUT, it is also my right to NOT believe it. I would appreciate it if people would stop accusing me (and anyone else, for that matter) for using a translation other that the KJV. I get sick and tired having to put up with the snide remarks that unbelievers make about us "holy-rollers" and "Jesus freaks", much less the ranting attacks by people who want to shove their beliefs down my throat (that happens to be one of the reasons that I was dead-set against Christianity most of my life).

You have a right to your beliefs, and I have a right to mine. How about some mutual respect?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

How did they make the king their pope? Did they believe he had the power to grant absolution for sins or any other abominable practice of the popes? As to pedobaptism, it didn't start until 1640. And where did the KJV translators teach baptismal regenration or burn baptists?

As to the modern versions, the NIV had two sodomites (admitted by the NIV committee) on the translation team and a spiritist(in the writings of the editor). The NKJV had people from the ungodly NIV team, and change readings to conform to the minority/critical text and the NASB consistently perverts doctrine. Micah 5:2 non pre-existing Christ; no bodily resurrection in Lk 24:40; no believing in Christ in Jn 6:47; and then the most ridiculous of translations in the margin of 2 Tim 3:16 "Every Scripture inspired by God is profitable." Glad to hear these people are closer to your beliefs. For they are as far away from the beliefs of godly men as the stars are from the ground.

It is amazing what a little research can discover. The fact that Modern Textual Criticism is based on german rationalism which is also the basis for Nazism. The fact that the Chester Beaty and Bodmer collection of papyrus are well known to have a multitude of errors, (even Metzger acknowledges this) itacisms, deletions, transposition of vowels and over 200 erroneous and ludicrous readings. The fact that Aleph and B both have blanks for Mk 16:9-20 proving that it existed in the text behind both of these. The fact that aleph and b and all other alexandrian texts are based on the same corruption that is in CB and Bodmer and therefore that whole family is completely discredited. The fact that there is NO evidence of a Lucian recension in history though MTCs assume it is true; and even if it was it would prove the byzantine text was recognized by the whole church as being the true word of God and that it stems from 250AD to 350AD. But where are the facts in support of the anti-tr side? And of course what of the deceit on the part of Geisler and Nix in claiming that many MSS leave out Mark 16:9-20; when it is only 2 out of 5; Or the faulty claim that a vast number include it when what they really mean is 15 out of 15, and the claim that most miniscules include is truthfully rendered 600 out of 600. Once again, those of you who subscribe to the position of MTCs are sitting at the teet of false teachers, and never once have provided any facts, merely assumption and supposition. Ready, study, and think. It is obvious that you are not doing any of these.

 

Erasmus realized that Vaticanus manuscript is bad. He sent it back to Rome.

 

Erasmus realized that Vaticanus manuscript is bad. He sent it back to Rome. </font>[/QUOTE]hmm. never heard of that one. got some references (other than fr the funnies, like "Dr" Gipp ;) )?

 

maybe they let him sneak the Apocrypha between Malachi n Matthew.

o really. document it pls.

1. shew me the ungodlies.

2. where did they conform to the minority text? 1 John 5:7 maybe?

3. shew me the perversions.

but they didn't forget to assert the Lordship, Mediatorship, Messiahship, n Eternality of Jesus at Jude 25, did they?

trace it back a little further, n u'll get Erasmus, whose text some stockinged English quing sanctioned for his "authorized" version. hey, sounds like the same root to me ;)

which "corruptions" in the Bodmer were Aleph n B based on? any of the following 'multitude of errors, (even Metzger acknowledges this) itacisms, deletions, transposition of vowels and over 200 erroneous and ludicrous readings' that u listed?

otherwise, perhaps it's time to take the temperature ;)

whoa, r u claiming there r only 5 MSS w any Marcan ending at all? or is it 2/5 of the total no. of MSS? got the total no.?

i think u may have missed the point. it's not a blind count (otherwise 1 John 5:7 wld never have made it, wld it?). u have to ACcount for why there r 4 different ways the MSS end in Mark. there's a longer ending, a shorter ending, n i think 2 others--look up Metzger's Textual Commentary.

the same can be said of KJBOs. it's not a case of sitting at the feet of Metzger or Ruckman; we need to read both n weigh the evidence.

 

How did they make the king their pope?</font>[/QUOTE] They believed in prelacy. The English monarch was the earthly head of both the Church and Government. If you were really as studious as you claim, you would know this simple fact of history.

No. They never got quite as far as Rome. However, the monarch and only the monarch had the authority to condemn heretics.

Here's the 27th of the 39 Articles (1563):
"XXVII. Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ."

The martyr's name was Edward Wightman. This website http://www.21tnt.com/archives_sermons/englishandamericanbaptist.htm says this about him: "...Edward Wightman, the Baptist martyr of Lichfield, England, who was burned because he denounced "infant baptism."

Here's some more detailed info: http://www.wightmanfamily.com/wgtedwrd.html

I am not a fan nor user of the NIV but none the less, please name these "two sodomites" and "spiritist". Oh, and maybe cite your sources. I have long been cautious of the NIV because of charges against the committee's members that I didn't think had fully been answered... but those you bring are new.

Please name them and cite your evidence that these individuals were ungodly.

Well, Let's see...

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.(KJV)
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."(NASB)
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."(NKJV)

The KJV and NKJV are almost the same other than the verb tense which is in italics in both versions and therefore assumed. The NASB while slightly different means the same thing unless you are predisposed to argue otherwise... which of course you are.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.(KJV)
40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.(NASB)
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.(NKJV)

I guess when you accuse me of not studying the issue thoroughly you mean that I confuse myself by actually checking out references rather than just swallowing what some KJVO tells me then regurgitating it all over the pages of a debate forum.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.(KJV)
47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.(NKJV)

Are you checking any of these references out before making a fool of yourself?

And as for the NASB's "omission" of "in Me", the context makes it clear both what and who must be believed.

Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

I have a copy of both versions and neither of them say this.

If the Lockman Foundation gave permission to a publisher to include such a note, it would be remarkable considering the following:
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbtrans.php
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/tlf/tlfabout.php

You have yet to prove even a single one of them ungodly much less to impugn the whole group. You are bearing false witness by making charges for which you have assumed guilt rather than proven it.

Yes. Why don't you try some... maybe start by "proving" the KJVO non-sense you've been swallowing rather than just believing it blindly.

Which of course is not a fact. Lower textual criticism separated from higher criticism very early on and was a significant dividing line in "The Fundamentals" by Torrey et al.

As I stated elsewhere, once someone demonstrates that they are operating from false premises, I reject their conclusions regardless of how good they might sound.

Really? Which one of us actually looked up the scripture references you gave above?

 

You are mistaken about Mic. 5:2 in the NASB, which *does* teach the pre-existing Christ --

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity." (Mic. 5:2 NASB)

You are mistaken about "no bodily resurrection" in the NASB, which is clearly taught in the preceding verse --

"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Lk. 24:39 NASB)

And you are mistaken about "no believing in Christ" in the NASB, since it is implied in Jn. 6:47 and clearly taught in the preceding verses --

'Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."' (Jn. 6:29 NASB)

'Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."' (Jn. 6:35 NASB)

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (Jn. 6:40 NASB)

So your claim that the NASB "perverts doctrine" is false.

In other words, the Beatty and Bodmer papyri are just like every other Greek MS in existence, including those with a Byzantine text; and just like the early printings of the TR and the KJV. So what does this prove?

Yes, Aleph has a blank space at the end of Mark. Aleph has a blank space at the end of Matthew, Luke, and John too. And the blank space at the end of Matthew is even larger than the blank space at the end of Mark. Does this mean that the scribes of Aleph knew of a "longer ending to Matthew" and suppressed it? Or does it simply mean that the scribes of Aleph chose to start each new book with a fresh column, even if it meant leaving a large space?

And yes, B has a blank column at the end of Mark. B also has a blank column at the end of at least one book in the OT. Does this mean that the scribes of B knew about missing OT text as well? Or simply that the scribes sometimes left blank columns?

Actually there is historical evidence of a Lucianic recension. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome makes reference to the "manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, the authority of which is perversely maintained by a few disputatious persons.... It is obvious that these writers could not emend anything in the Old Testament after the labours of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture already exist in the languages of many nations which show their additions to be false." In a letter to Sunnias and Fretela, Jerome states: "You must know that there is one edition which Origen and Eusebus of Caesarea and all the Greek commentators call the koine, that is the common and widespread, and is by most people now called Lucianic...." (Letter 106.2.2). If there was a Byzantine recension -- and there certainly seems to be enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that there was a recension of *some* sort attributed to Lucian of Antioch -- then it helps explain (1) how the earliest form of the Byzantine text originated in the early 4th C, and (2) how the Byzantine text which *originated* in the *Eastern* church came to be adopted as the official ecclesiastical text of that region.

First of all, there's no "anti-TR side;" however, there are those who believe that the TR is not the best text of the NT. The facts and evidence supporting this position have been presented here over and over and over, and have yet to be answered.

Consider the number of MSS that do not have the Longer Ending to Mark: Aleph, B, 304, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Old Latin k, numerous Coptic MSS, and over a hundred Armenian MSS. By any standard, this constitutes "many MSS." And since most of the remaining MSS include it, that means it is correct to say that the "vast number" include it. And since minuscule 304 does *not* have it while the rest of the minuscules do, then it is accurate to say that "most minuscules" do have it.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement?

 

AV Defender said:

Hey,I goofed,OK!!?? I was not watching what I was doing;

I think you meant to say, you got caught in a very silly lie.

 

Askjo said:

Erasmus realized that Vaticanus manuscript is bad. He sent it back to Rome.

Look here, another KJV-only "goof."

Erasmus couldn't have "sent it back." He never had Vaticanus in his possession. He relied on a correspondent, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, to supply him with readings.

 

This is very typical of the shoddy, and oftentimes dishonest approach of the KJVOs. They do not care about facts and truth; they only care about ramrodding their position. This was a fact that was very easy to check. Chances are, you got this "fact" from someone else, and rather than checking out, you simply believed a false teacher. That is how this KJVO blight spreads ... people don't think, they don't study, they just repeat stuff.

Erasmus himself said he used 7 texts for the first edition of the TR. None of them were Vaticanus. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant anywa. Erasmus was a man who made errors, as it evident by the five editions of teh TR in his lifetime in which is made changes and corrections in every one of them. Again, knowing the facts would prevent these very silly mistakes.

 

These are lies that keep getting repeated that have been refuted by Ken Barker. People who say this show either their dishonesty or their lack of diligence in study of the issues.

There is no evidence that the NIV translation team was ungodly and there is no evidence that any readings from the TR were changed to the eclectic text reading. Again, simple failure to know what you are talking about.

Where?? Many people keep saying this but no one can come up with an instance of it. What a sham ... lots of accusations but no beef ...

How would you know??? You very clearly have not done anyway. You have listened to men who are saying untrue things. Research the issues. It is amazing what a little research can discover. As someone else said, Ready, study, and think. It is obvious that you are not doing any of these.

 

"It is also well know the AV translators had access to it, and discarded it, knowing it was the product of gnostics. "
The AV translators can't have had access to it. It is a property of the Catholic Church and they weren't friends with the Anglican AV translators back then.

 

Please name them and cite your evidence that these individuals were ungodly. </font>[/QUOTE]You do not know who they are because of your unbelief.