Jesus or God?

I will try to get time to respond to you in a PM. but I am finished discussing bible translations on the board.

AJ

 

I have heard all of the intellectual arguments to defend MVs, and I dont believe them.

MV defenders deny that KJV was inspired by God because of the shady charaters involved in translating it. I believe that sometimes God uses shady characters to bid His will.

So, most people on this board and I will never agree about the core issue of what is inspired and what is just a man-made version to generate book sales, so there is no need to discuss it any further. The question of specific verses is moot since i believe the whole translation to be fabricated.

The last time I discussed this on the board I was belittled and ridiculed, so this is my last post on the subject. In fact I dont even plan to read the posts on this thread any further.

PS....dont be upset with me cause I respect you greatly for the work you are doing educating folks about the New Age movement/occults.

AJ

 

Jesus is God. Even the TNIV makes this abundantly clear in its rendering of Romans 9:4:

 

That was just interesting that you made that comment.

 

No false accusation! I agree with AJ’s quotation. The Gnostics replaced “Jesus” with “God” during they produced their manuscripts in around 300 AD. This is where modern versions were derived. MV translators followed Gnostics’ steps.

 

WRONG! Where do you get malarkey such as this, Askjo? Modern Bible translations are normally based on manuscripts older and therefore more reliable than the later manuscripts on which the KJVs are based. Sorry to burst your bubble!

BTW, Askjo, just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's true. You agree with the myth that the KJVs are the only true word of God in English. Your agreement does absolutely nothing to make the myth turn miraculously into truth.

 

Proof of that? Or a retraction?

 

AJ;

I tend to not post in such threads for the very same reasons that you have put forth here. Be strong brother and blessed.

Mel

 

Older texts are closer in time to the original autographs. Therefore, as time went on and more and more copies and copies of copies were made, the newer texts had more errors and insertions than the older texts.

Do YOU have proof this is incorrect, Baptist4life? If you have concrete proof the older manuscripts are less reliable than the newer manuscripts then I'll gladly retract my statement. Until concrete proof is offered that older manuscripts are less reliable than newer manuscripts, there is nothing to retract.

 

You CANNOT make a statement like ............"Modern Bible translations are normally based on manuscripts older and therefore more reliable than the later manuscripts on which the KJVs are based"...................and then say because I can't prove it's not true you see no need to retract it? :BangHead: You made the statement. You have NO PROOF that it's true, but you want me to prove that it isn't? Are you catholic? That's the argument they use!



I believe Moses rode a flying donkey. Since YOU can't prove this is wrong, I see no reason to retract it!


Your "logic" is ridiculous.

 

My logic is no more ridiculous than yours, Baptist4life. Tell you what - you believe what you want to belive about the reliability of NT manuscripts and I'll believe what I believe. You're the one who asked for proof of something but yet you're unwilling to offer any form of proof that I'm wrong. I offered a common-sense reason for why I believe what I believe and all you want to do is ridicule me. That's not at all Christ-like, Baptist4life!

:tonofbricks:

Believing the older manuscripts are more reliable than the later manuscripts that make up the TR is only common sense, Baptist4life. Believing the later manuscripts are more reliable after all the changes that took place over time is ridiculous.

BTW, Baptist4life, I'm not going to ridicule you if you want to believe Moses rode a flying donkey. But there's absolutely no scriptural support for this theory of yours, just like there's absolutely no scriptural support for the KJVO position.

Who put poo-poo in your Wheaties this morning, Baptist4life?

 

I'm sorry, but the number that this preposterous statement would describe is microscopic.

Most (if not all) of us here defend all faithful translations...the KJV, NAS, NIV, et al...as God's word. To say we "deny inspiration" is absolutely preposterous.

 

Keith M, I'm not going to ridicule you if you want to believe older manuscripts are more correct just because they are older, but there's absolutely no scriptural support for this theory of yours.


YOU made the statement, and it seems YOU are getting upset because I asked YOU to prove it, which YOU cannot!

 

You made that statement. You have NO PROOF that it is true. I asked you for proof. I'll ask again, either PROVE that statement is true or site it as "just my opinion". Thank you.

 

Sometimes I think some people believe that the KJV came from just one Greek manuscript, and every word was translated from that and has been kept intact only in english form. That is simply not the case, if we look at Erasmus's work he used no more than five Greek manuscripts, not one of those containing the entire Greek testament. Of those no two agreed perfectly in wording so he, just as many have since him have had to do was use textual criticism and choose which wording he thought best represented the original. He had no manuscript of Revelation, so he borrowed one from a friend, but it was missing the last sheet entirely, so he translated the last verses from Latin back into Greek himself in order to complete the New Testament. I am not in any way taking anything away from his work, it was a great work and a true blessing to the world, especially considering the limited amount of manuscripts he had to work with compared to what we have today. He published the Greek New testament in 1516.

Later on Robert Estienne built on this work by printing a Greek NT that used about fifteen manuscripts about three times as many as Erasmus had available to him. Estienne's third edition was important because it also used footnotes enabling the reader to see different variation from the one chosen in the text, and reasoning behind that choice. He also added the breaks in the verses that is still used today.

Theodore Baza published nine editions of the Greek NT between 1565 and 1604.

First Edition of the KJV of 1611

Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir published what is known as the Textus Receptus in 1633.

Textual criticism has been used from our first Greek NT to our most current ones. There is no one single complete "copy" that led to the publishing of the KJV, and everything since then is just a pick and choose on a whim. On the contrary modern versions used Textual criticism the same as those scholars before them, the difference is that they have many more, and much older dated manuscripts to base their decisions on.