What is wrong with the modern versions?

Please cite evidence for this claim. I am not assuming that it is not true but I have not been able to confirm that it is true.

The main reason the RCC wasn't happy with Erasmus was not his Greek text but his writings critical of churchmen and their practices. As far as we know, Erasmus died believing the doctrines of the RCC. He was apparently an opponent of Luther's teachings on salvation by grace alone.

 

Phew, thanks for clearing that up. I thought only Nicodemus had to be born again. :rolleyes:

Kidding aside, I do see the benefit and improved accuracy of number-specific pronouns, and wished more Bibles indicated this in some way. One solution is to use upper-case "YOU" for plural (but a sligthly smaller font so it's not distracting), and lower-case "you" for singular.

Singular plural puts some interesting perspective (and I believe corrects a common misconception) in the following verses:

1 Cor 3:16 Know ye not that ye (plural) are the temple (singular) of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you (plural)?

1 Cor 6:19 What? know ye (plural) not that your (plural) body (singular) is the temple (singular) of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Cor 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple (singular) of God is holy, which [temple] ye (plural) are.

2 Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye (plural) are the temple (singular) of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I believe this is saying we, as a group/body/whole are the temple of God. I don't think these verses are saying that we (plural) are temples (plural), but a temple (singular). But perhaps this is more for another forum.

God bless,
Brian

 

ArcticBound said:

ONE MORE THING.....PLEASE DON'T LAUGH AT THOSE WHO THINK GOD CAN PRESERVE HIS WORD!

Can we laugh at the ones who think it isn't preserved if God didn't do it their way?

 

The Geneva Bible of what I recall (it's been awhile since I've studied out the Bible Versions Issue....I had to find out what I believed when a teenager and once I got it settled I Got it Settled! Now this discussion is making me do more research again....which is A good thing! The problem is I have over 30 books on the subject but they are all put away in storage.)
But back to the Geneva Bible If I recall, the Geneva Bible is very close to the King James Bible!

To Jesus quoting from another version, I would have to disagree.....Jesus is God and it is HIS WORD and He is the BEST COMMENTATOR on IT!
Jesus called the big fish a whale and I believe it is a whale (that is for another forum )

 

If you name me a specific version, I could get you some examples. If you have a KJV and another version, do some study on your own; it's definitely what I recommend!
Many versions call Mary a young woman, but I know many young women with children who are not Virgins. Some will say that "according to the Greek, it should be young woman and not virgin." You tell me what the correct translation should be? In some places Son of God is changed to Son of man. Worst of all is the doubt that comes from reading in your Bible that the "majority of the manuscripts do not have this verse in them."

The Majority of the manuscripts is a whole other topic! Many today have that backwards!
What more 95% or 5%? 5,000+ manuscripts or 200+ manuscripts. The Bible issue is a very deep study! I'm sound in my position because it is by Faith! If I was to use another version, I would have to by faith accept that one as the Inspired, Preserved, Infallible Word of God! I can't accept anything else from an Infallible and Pure GOD! Here I go rambling on again

 

The Geneva Bible is different from the KJV, althought it was translated from the same basic underlying text. Can a Bible be different from the KJV and still be the word of God?

Jesus did not just quote from another version, he stood up in front of the congregation in his hometown synagogue and read aloud from an actual written copy of different version (see Lk. 4:16-21, cf. Isa. 61:1-2). If Jesus himself had no qualms about using a different version, why should we?

 

Numbers mean nothing if the 95% are descended from a corrupt copy or textual stream and the 5% are descended from a pure copy or textual stream.

 

Amen.

HankD

 

A glaring difference between the Geneva Bible & the KJV is one of the Onlyists' fave verses, Ps.12:7. The GB has it, "...thou shalt preserve *HIM*..."

To Jesus quoting from another version, I would have to disagree.....Jesus is God and it is HIS WORD and He is the BEST COMMENTATOR on IT!
Jesus called the big fish a whale and I believe it is a whale (that is for another forum)

First of all, Jesus stood up to READ in the synagogue to a skeptical, if not outright hostile, crowd. They believed He was just an ordinary human carpenter, and wondered where He got His learning from. He didn't "quote" from Isaiah; He "READ ALOUD" from the scroll handed to Him. This crowd was familiar with the Scriptures, and had Jesus not read the scroll verbatim, they would've gone ballistic at once. Of course, He had the authority to change His own word if He had so chosen, but clearly He didn't do it, and the audience was in complete agreement with what He read, even if they didn't agree with His comments after He'd finished reading.

As for the fish-whale thing, it falls within the realm of Leviticus 11:19 & Deut. 14:18's referring to bats as birds. Did God err? to the Hebrews? No. He knew they generally thought that bats were birds, and His intent was to impress upon them that bats were non-kosher, not to teach ornithology. Same with Jesus with the fish/whale thing. Most people in the area where Jesus lived believed whales and dolphins were some special kinds of fish, and Jesus' intent was to compare Himself with Jonah in some ways, not to teach ichthyology.

 

Yes, it is close. But it is not the same. Was it "the word of God", yes or no?

Archangel7 has already mentioned Luke 4:16-21 and Isa. 61:1-2. The problems with your explanation is this:

1. verse 17 says that the words were "written" in the book of Isaiah - Jesus was not "commentating" on it, he was reading what was "written" - or do you disbelieve verse 17?

2. verse 21 says that what Christ read was "scripture". The Greek word for "scripture" is "graphè" - which literally means a *writing*. Something is not "scripture" if it is not written down. If Christ was just commentating, his words would have not been written down yet, and then could not have been "scripture". When the word of the Lord comes orally, it is not "scripture" until it is written down. Do you disbelieve verse 21?

There are many differences between the "scripture" that Christ read that was "written" in the book of Isaiah, and what is in the KJV at the same passage, most notably the phrase "and recovering of sight to the blind". This phrase of "scripture" that was "written" in Isaiah 61 then, is not in Isaiah 61 in the KJV today.

Jesus was not KJV-only. He used a different version, and called it "scripture".

 

Please cite evidence for this claim. I am not assuming that it is not true but I have not been able to confirm that it is true.

The main reason the RCC wasn't happy with Erasmus was not his Greek text but his writings critical of churchmen and their practices. As far as we know, Erasmus died believing the doctrines of the RCC. He was apparently an opponent of Luther's teachings on salvation by grace alone. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry it took so long to reply, but unlike most people on this board I did some research....You can find it cited in David Cloud's ROME AND THE BIBLE. (wayofliterature.com)


I am settled on my Bible Translation being the Infallible, Inspired, Preserved WORD of God. IF you want to keep reading your Bible that came from a trash can (no pun intented..that's a fact), then go ahead, But I will stick to the RECEIVED TEXT, the ones the Early Churches and Church Fathers have used througout the ages. The Ones that many gave their lives to preserve!

It is plan to me that the KJV comes from Better TEXTS, not sitting in some monastery. It also had some very qualified Translators who could speak GREEK fluently. They believed they were handling the WORD of GOD. Of course, you know that the NIV had a Lesbian sitting on the council...Her name is Virginia Mollenkot(look her up in your local library and read her books about being a Lesbian). I still hope we believe that that is a sin! The Technique the KJV translators used doesn't compare to any other translation ever done. PLEASE READ SOME BOOKS ON THE KJV TRANSLATORS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES :( THEY HAD MANY CHECKS AND BALANCES. Each section that was translated by the translators was reviewed over and over again to make sure the correct translation was done!

I still come back to the same conclusion...IF TWO THINGS ARE DIFFERENT, THEN HAVE CAN THEY BE THE SAME. Don't forget the subtle changes that the new tranlsations make....Many of the translators of the new versions are not saved or atleast don't think they are handling the Preserved WORD OF GOD!

 

Where oh where to begin! So many of the same old, tired, simply false cliches.

Scott or Brian, are you out there & feeling in the mood to address some of this?

 

She did not do any translating and she had a very minor role as a literary critic and she has never sat on the council that created the NIV. She did not disclose her lesbianism until years after the NIV was published. Kenneth Barker, the head of the NIV translating committee, said that had her views been known back then she would never have been used. I suggest you check your sources for truthfullness.

Are you God? Do you really know what's in their heart? Or are you just blowing smoke? This is a prime example of why I left the KJV only movement. That, and the fact that it's just not true.

 

Please cite evidence for this claim... The main reason the RCC wasn't happy with Erasmus was not his Greek text but his writings critical of churchmen and their practices... </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry it took so long to reply, but unlike most people on this board I did some research....You can find it cited in David Cloud's ROME AND THE BIBLE. (wayofliterature.com)</font>[/QUOTE] Unfortunately if all you did is read something published by David Cloud, you still haven't done any research unless you verified his facts by a more objective source.

I have found deception in his work such as drawing conclusions about people or their beliefs that are not warranted by the documents he cites. A good example is his claims that KJVOnlyism existed before the 1950's. At least one of the individuals he cites, Philip Mauro, contradicted KJVOnlyism in the very writing that Cloud cites. Cloud had simply cited the portions that supported his erroneous conclusion. Mauro rejected the RV and the Westcott-Hort text. He did not claim verbal inerrancy for the KJV. In fact, he said that it could be improved.

So, in the interest of fairness, objectivity and truth, please give me Cloud's reference for supporting the claim that the RCC condemned Erasmus' text.

 

The most grievous of this current line of thought (for me anyway) is calling into question the background(s) of those involved with the translating of the texts.

While I agree concerning the subjective matter of the superiority of the Traditional Text, it has passed through the hands of Roman and Anglo Catholic heretics (according to Baptist theology).

Might I remind us all with words such as Apocrypha, paedo-baptists, anglo-catholic priests who practiced a form of the roman catholic mass, persecuted, imprisoned and even killed Baptists while the KJB was being compiled.

Personally, I believe these things need to be brought up once in a while but lets be fair about the guilty, they are on both sides of this issue.

Do we really need to go down this path again?

HankD

 

Erasmus was not well-liked by a quite a few Catholics during his time. In fact he was VERY not well liked! This was because of his vocal disdain for the many superstitions and corruptions of church and its hierarchy. He is often called the "great humanist" because of his desire to employ logic and learning (of which he was a master in many areas) in purifying the Catholic church. His Greek text was done hastily - the first one that is. He was trying to be thr first one to get it out! Yes it was "banned" - not by the Catholic church necessarily but by many large universities because of his new Latin translation (it was felt to be very presumptuous to retranslate Jerome!) and his footnote comments about the current abuses of the priesthood!!
Some good references for this are LaTourette's history of christianity and Bruce Metzger's "Text of the New Testament".

 

I am satisfied that these things are true of the KJV as well. Infallible in all that it teaches. Inspired by deriving authority from the originals which God directly inspired. Preserved Word of God by the fact that it agrees with the message of the originals and other faithful Bibles before and after 1611.

A fact? Yes and no. The person who put the text into a trash can had no idea what it was. I could just as easily point to this event as a providential act of God Himself to prevent a ROMAN CATHOLIC from destroying a faithful copy of His Word. But to your specific point, no MV is derived from that manuscript or any other single manuscript. They actually come from all of the existing mss. Rightly or wrongly, some scholars have weighted the evidence to favor mss due to age or other factors. I don't agree with some of the logic either... but then again believing something because it is "tradition" is waaaaay too Catholic for me.

If you think this then you haven't researched this subject very well. The patristic witnesses favor the Alexandrian but seem to be a mix of the various families. The older citations are usually more Alexandrian.

In fact, I started a thread that no KJVO took up here: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001105

In short, a new archeological discovery shows that Byzantine Christian laymen from the 4th century engraved a quote from Sinaiticus on a grave in Israel.

By the way, the term "received text" or "textus receptus" was a publishers invention to ramp up sales of their text in 1624. It said something to the effect of here is the text received by all. It is equivalent of a modern advertiser saying "everyone accepts the Microsoft OS as the standard".

Please cite evidence that people gave their lives to preserve whichever mss you think support your conclusion to the exclusion of those that don't.

It is plain to me that someone has deceived you if you think MV's come exclusively from Sinaiticus or if you think a text that was hidden from Catholic manipulation for over 1000 years is by necessity a bad thing simply because someone prevented an ignorant monk from throwing it away. A high mountain monastary manned by people who didn't know what they had, surrounded by muslims, at a great distance from Rome seems like a pretty good place for God to providentially preserve a very important witness to His Word. The timing of Tischendorf's visit borders on miraculous. He got there just in time to save this text from being lost forever.

As do the main MV's.

I don't know about the rest but there has probably never been a more orthodox, biblically fundamental group of translators dedicated to the ideals of biblical inspiration and inerrancy than the NASB translators. Each of them were required to affirm the statement of faith given here: http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/tlf/tlfabout.php

Yep... homosexuality is still a sin. As is executing a Baptist for preaching against the Church-State and infant baptism... Edward Wightman was tried and convicted for heresy by the same Church of England that gave us the KJV. Some of the trumped up charges against him contradicted each other. He was executed on King James authority in 1611.

Most MV's, such as the NASB, use a similar or perhaps better system of review. http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbprin.php

Then how can the KJV be the Word of God when it is not the same as the God inspired originals? Which of the 6-10 mss used by Erasmus to create the TR was the real thing?... then again, how can a new text created from several differing old texts be considered "the same".

Actually, you should read some of the KJV translators words concerning this subject. They said that a king's speech is still his word if translated into another language... even if different translators translated it worse or better due to their skill.

Illustration- If I give instructions for my daughter to my wife to give to my son who will see my daughter before either my wife or myself, I am not overly concerned that either my wife or my son use my exact words or if they use the same number of words, reiterations, or phrasing... I don't even care if they use the same language that I originally gave my instructions in. All I really care about (all that is necessary to preserve my word) is whether they communicate the complete essence of my message accurately.

The NASB, NKJV, KJV, and others do this and can therefore be rightly called the Word of God even though they differ in wording and minor, non-doctrinal details.