The accuracy of the bible

doggone it, there I go breaking my silence...

So, disciple, we should translate things that elicit the most response from folks?

No, thanks. I'd rather be accurate than provocative.

 

I have relatives in Germany, and communicate with them via email several times per week.

That does appear to be the case. I on two occaisions posted to you in German. You have not responded to them. Wijt U Deutch, of wezt U iets onders?

 

So it's okay to make changes to scripture so long as it gives more glory to Jesus? Your reasonig appears to be flawed and subjective.

How can the NIV have "removed" text, when the NIV source texts predate the KJV source texts by hundreds of years? By your logic, it is the KJV that removed the text you point to.

What's dumb is your flawed and inconsistent reasoning.

Do you not see how ignorant of scripture this statement makes you look? Hell discussed in the NT at length, and accurately. Hades/Sheol are likewise discussed, but mostly in the OT. If you had basic scriptural knowlege in English, you'd know that.

 

xdisciplex:
Many of your questions would be answered if you had some understanding of the Greek language, the language which the New Testament was written in, or Hebrew for the Old Testament. Much of the time there is enough resource material available to us that we don't have to be scholars to find out the information that we need to know. We simply need to be patient students of the Word of God.

If the words Hell and grave in the Old Testament trouble you then take the time to look up what the Hebrew word "Sheol" actually means. You will find that it means "place of the departed dead." It may have a secondary meaning of grave, but if it does it would rarely be used if ever. There is another word for grave used in the Hebrew, "keber." A picture of Sheol is given by Jesus in Luke 16 where paradise is on one side of a chasm and "Hell" is on the other, and no man can cross from one to the other. Sheol is simply "the place of the departed dead." I had one year of Hebrew, but that was long ago. I don't really remember much of the Hebrew I studied and so I rely on the knowledge of others. I study. The Bible commands us to study. We can find these things out for ourselves.
When you come across the word "Hell" see what the word in the Greek (in the New Testament) is being used, then go to a lexicon and find out what that word actually means. Use Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, and commentaries. Study. In the Old Testament there is very little difference in the Hebrew texts that were used in translations. Perhaps there is more difference in the way that it is translated than in the actual Hebrew. So find out the word and look it up and find out what it means.

In the New Testament there is a much greater difference. There are basically two Bibles. One translated from the critical text, and one from the TR. Almost all of the modern versions come from the critical text, and the KJV comes from the TR, along with the NKJV. The dispute arises which text is closer to the originals. I personally believe that God's Word has been preserved in the TR. But that is not a cause for division. I came to that conclusion through my own personal study. I suggest you do the same. Why would the TR preserve more accurately the manuscripts than the critical text. This is textual criticism. You will find many of your answers by reading some of the threads in the Versions forum--both pro and con. First study. And then make up your mind.
DHK

 

well said, DHK, as I delete some of the same thoughts I was currently writing...you said it better anyway.

 

The language is irrelevant. Jack Chick is a liar and a false teacher, regardless of the language. KJVOism, and any type of single-translation-onlyism, are false doctrine, regardless of language.

Very good. That was Dutch. Aber Sie haben meine vorherige Worte noch nicht beantworten.

 

There's no such thing as a "NIV-ist". There's only single-translation-onlyists (most often, KJVOists) and people who are not single-translation-onlyists. Since single-translation-onlyism is not a scripturally evident doctrine, it must not be subscribed to by Christians.

That isn't an issue of translations. It's an issue of your personal weakness in matters of faith.

The only people who claim that there is any confusion are those who adhere to the false doctrine of KJVOism. People who don't subscribe to false doctrines don't have any such issue.

 

I never said he was a liar because he is hated. He is a liar because he lies.

And you pass

I have one, or, should I say, a reprint of one. I used it for study when I learned how to speak German. I have relatives in Germany, the Netherlands (hence the Dutch) and a few other non-English speaking places, like Texas.

 

No it doesn't. Not in the least. There will always be translational issues when translating from one language to another. Thay are unavoidable There is no such thing as a perfect translation.

Having studied the topic in not one, but two bible colleges, I can tell you with assuredness that I am aware of the topic.

 

You originally brought up the issue of KJVOism, and have intermixed that issue with the appearance and disappearance of passages.

Warum antworten Sie nicht die Fragen wie ich auf Ihre Sprache aufgegeben hat? Ich glaube das Sie verstehen mich vielleicht nicht.

Is it in the TR and related source texts? Yes. Is it in the LXX and related source texts? Yes. Case closed. No reason to question its authenticity. You have demonstrated on several posts that you have an ear for rumor and gossip. That is a spiritual issue that you need to deal with. It is, in the very least, a major contributor to your confusion. If you deal with it, then you won't be turning your ear to every opinion you hear as though it were gospel.

 

If I was approached by someone saying, "John 5 is not in the Bible," I would respond in one of several ways:

-For all who would say this: I would ask what they meant by that...for one, because we have no textual evidence that even suggests John 5 shouldn't be in there. Also, I would want to know more about them so I could respond accordingly...

-Lost person: I would dialogue with them about how much we know about scriptures (the number of texts we have vs. other documents of that era, as well as share how God has changed me through His word...an APOLOGETIC aproach.

-Troublemaking Christian: I'd probably say, "Well, actually, the early scriptures were not divided chapter and verse." This would confuse them and shut them up...a FUNNY approach.

-A confused Christian: I'd take them through (in an abbreviated way) exactly why we have these different translations--the different source texts, and how/why they chose to translate as they did...an ENLIGHTENING approach.

Jack Chick (whom you've quoted) uses an "atomic" approach. I don't believe much of what he says...but even if I did, he is so abrasive in his tone & manner, that I don't find it helpful in dealing with non-Christians. But hey, your mileage may vary.

I can't say this enough...I love the KJV. I use it in my study a good bit, and on some occasions with my students (though not as often as I would have twenty years ago). I'm not here to belittle the translation. But I don't want to see other good translations be thrown out.

God Bless.

 

Study scripture, scriptural history, and scriptural source texts. Scripture itself even says "study to show yourself approved". It's what I've been saying all along.

Additionally, most bibles will tell you what their primary source texts are, and what their secondary texts are. They will often go to the additional trouble of noting any textual variations in footnotes.