Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

Michelle, you've never addressed the issue of why the original AV1611 had roughly 8,000 footnotes. Why would a perfect, word-for-word translation of God's Word provide frequent alternate renderings of the underlying TR text, or have instances where the translators themselves expressed uncertainty over their translation? Were they confused, at times inept, or just being honest in their handling of the text?

If you fault the NKJV for having marginal notes or footnotes, why wouldn't this same criticism apply to the AV1611?

 

Your mouth speaks out, "I am conservative," but you with your feet stand on the liberal side. Look like a Hypocrite?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
How do you know why it fell out of use? History tells us it had alot more to do with the rise of Islam and the waning of Christianity in the Middle East/Asia minor region.
--------------------------------------------------

How do I know? The fact it wasn't preserved for every generation as God has promised us. This is how I know. God allowed it to come out of circulation within the early stages, as it is attested to by it's very date, and those that claim is the reason it is the most reliable. Apostacy crept into the very beginning of the churches. Paul attests to this and warns us about those who would corrupt the word of God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

No. I am not reading nor studying the Bible looking for something to be wrong. I approach the Bible with faith and knowing two things- God's Word (which He promised to preserve) transcends the words of men (which He did not promise would be perfect) and that copying/translating is the work of fallible men.

Absolutely. That's why it is comforting and reassuring that even though men make mistakes in copying and translating, I can trust that I have God's Word because the various versions and texts agree in what they teach.

I would never want to base my life and walk with Him on something that really wasn't God's Word, now would I? But since the faithful versions teach the same doctrines, practices, and reveal the same God... I have confidence that I won't go wrong following the KJV, NKJV, NASB, WEB, and others.

My understanding and belief have only been enhanced since I started using other versions along with the KJV. I have more clarity on what He said and much more confidence that He did indeed say it.

If you were asked a question that you life depended on, would you be more confident in 5 or 6 witnesses that all agreed with each other or only one witness that others said disagreed with all other witnesses?

Praise God I don't have to figure it out for myself because the faithful versions of God's Word teach the same things. They some times say them differently. Some times one version says it more often than another... but they compliment rather than contradict one another.

 

Please, folks, let's discuss the "additions" or "subtractions" depending on your point of view. If we can have examples posted, then we can discuss them individually. Anti-Alexandrian posted a few on my other thread. Any MVer's want to make comments. Tell us if they are in the original texts whether TR (or what we consider as TR manuscripts), CT or MT, etc.

 

Any MVS and their Critical Texts affected these names of our Lord Jesus in the New Testament alone 200 times!

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
If you fault the NKJV for having marginal notes or footnotes, why wouldn't this same criticism apply to the AV1611?
--------------------------------------------------

Because it is evident, that God saw to it they were taken out/and or fixed. Again, it was a translation to the english language from the TR. The NKJV sees fit to put in footnotes that refer to an altogether differenct textual basis, and thereby not only sowing doubt to the reader, but validating the critical text which is contrary to that of the TR. It is a subtle deception done on their part, to decieve the unwary. It obviously has worked.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Any MVS and their Critical Texts affected these names of our Lord Jesus in the New Testament alone 200 times! </font>[/QUOTE]What part of "specific" example is unclear? Chapter & verse please.

 

2,000 adulterated words in the NKJV were not derived from the TR, but from where?

 

That doesn't answer "why". It fell out of widespread use sometime between 500 AD and 1000 AD. That's an historical fact. But you have not shown that it was because it was ultimately rejected. The most plausible explanation is that Christianity in the area where it was dominant was over run by Islam.

Michelle, you are avoiding a main issue again. The Alexandrian text type was used longer than the TR has been. It was used by Christians for almost a millenium. The TR has been used for less than 500 years and has largely been replaced beginning when it was less than 400 years old. New copies of CT based Bibles vastly outstrip new copies of TR based Bibles today. This fact no more proves the superiority of the CT than your contention that Christians at some point and for some reason started using primarily the TR.

But you really don't want to go there Michelle. The people almost exclusively responsible for transmitting the Byzantine texts were apostate. They venerated Mary and worshiped icons and shared most of the doctrinal errors of Rome.

The early copies of both traditions were produced by more pure churches than the later copies. However, we can be confident that even these later copies are not corrupt in the sense that you imply. How? By comparing the whole of the mss evidence to include ancient versions and patristic witnesses.

 

They weren't "taken out"- rather they are simply commonly omitted from subsequent publishings. If you believe someone "took them out", by whose authority were they removed? Would they have been taken out in the same way that the books of the Apocrypha were eventually removed from the KJV?

Why would a perfect translation need to be "fixed"? If you believe it was "fixed", at what point in time did it become perfect?

 

You are wise to speak out for the truth.

 

2,000 adulterated words in the NKJV were not derived from the TR, but from where? </font>[/QUOTE]Possibly from the same place that numerous unsupported words in the KJV, not derived from the TR, came from?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Praise God I don't have to figure it out for myself because the faithful versions of God's Word teach the same things. They some times say them differently. Some times one version says it more often than another... but they compliment rather than contradict one another.
--------------------------------------------------

But isn't this in effect what you are saying you are doing? You don't need to rely upon only one Bible, as I can and do, but you must rely upon a different variety of translations and to take the time and effort to look them up, when your time would have already been well spent focusing your attention, time, energy, with no added costs, to reading God's words to you in one Bible, with understanding from the Holy Spirit of truth and a dictionary. Reading a variety of Bibles to get the full understanding of what God is saying to you, is making more work for yourself, when God has already provided it for you and many others for hundreds of years. Do you not see the cirlce you put yourself in, in trying to understand God's word? All you need is the Holy Bible that he provided for you, study it, and rely upon the understanding He gives to you. Do you need others to interpret it for you? Why not let God do the interpreting for you? And why does God need you to use a variety of translations, when he has already preserved one?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Exactly! Why should we have to resort to "trying to understand God's Word" in the English of 1611, when we can get a clear understanding of God's Word in the English of today?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

I am not ignoring your questions, I just wanted to let you know that, but today I just do not have the time to do as you have asked, which I do not at all find as an unreasonable request. I have provided the scripture references of some of the problems, indicated in another post many weeks ago, to which no one responded. I do not own any modern version of the Bible, and therefore can only give you the book,chapter, vs. references. I however, will have to do this another day. I am busy this afternoon. For this I do apologize. You might want to check out the links I provided on this thread in an earlier post from today. These people cover some of the issues, I think very well, and much better than I could do.

Until the next time, may the Lord richly bless you all!

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

So then, according to your criteria, a JW who "believes by faith" that the NWT is the ONLY PERFECT BIBLE is correct and cannot be questioned and does not have to offer any evidence to support his so-called "faith!"

I did. He showed me that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. He also told me that you have no faith in Him or His word.

You keep saying you can show that evidence, but so far you have failed to do so. I have showed you that the "TR" you claim to believe is Preserved did not exist prior to 1894, or about 110 years ago. You never have responded to that annoying little fact.

What evidence? You still have not posted any evidence! And you still have not posted why bibles translated from the same textual tradition as the KJV are not acceptable, such as the NKJV, BTM, 21CV, etc.

 

How can you prove it is true?

Does God promise to preserve one version or one text? If so, where. Post the chapter and verse.

Then why do you refuse to post it? Please post the verse or verses which say that God has preserved one text only or one version only.

I didn't say he wouldn't. Are you making things up again?

No, I am guilty of implying that YOU are a liar. God is truth, but you lie every time you post. You keep saying you have the verses to prove that God preserved one text only or one version only but you have never posted those verses, and that makes you a liar.

If you really loved the Lord Jesus Christ you would love Truth and stop telling all those terrible lies.

 

When trusting even the most earnest, honest, scholarly endeavors of men... we are still dealing with fallible men. So I gain the greater assurance that I am truly understanding what God is saying by using multiple versions. The Bible forbids making a judgment in any matter without at least two agreeing witnesses.

I have found that my time and efforts are far more profitable by using multiple versions when doing in depth study. A dictionary is not the Word of God and cannot account for weak or even errant translations.

... is exactly what the KJV translators said one should do to get the true sense of scripture.

Not really. I have seen KJVO's labor over passages unnecessarily when they could have more easily compared versions. It really takes no additional effort at all with the software that is now available.

God providentially provided me with a number of good translations so that I could compare them and get the best sense of scripture. It would be a sin for me to reject the resources God has provided for me to better know Him through the written Word.

I see clearly the circle I used to be in while I was KJVO. I rejected godly resources and inhibited the Spirit's work in me by study of the Word.

That's what I use... the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and WEB primarily- versions of the Holy Bible, all.

Interpretation is a different matter than translating or even reading. I do try my best to submit to the Spirit's leading on interpretation. None of us do so perfectly so long as we remain in the flesh but that is my attitude.

However, interpretation by the Holy Spirit's leading can only come after you read and clearly understand the text. Clarity of understanding is greatly enhanced by comparing versions.

He didn't preserve any one translation any more than He did any other. We have the KJV by God's providence but also the NKJV, NASB, Geneva Bible (on CD), ESV, etc. Without any doubt, some translators do a better job than others. I agree with some scholars' premises more than others. But at the end of it all, God has provided all of these versions for us to compare and more fully know His Word.

 

I did. He showed me that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. He also told me that you have no faith in Him or His word. </font>[/QUOTE]This goes too far skan. God didn't tell you that about Michelle.