1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Where do you say the modern versions come from?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by AVBunyan, Nov 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    By comparing John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 between the CORRECT rendering found in the KJB and it's predecessors and the Alexandrian "bibles" and their predecessors.Strike one.



    Nawp!!

    Read the preface of the RSV........Strike two!



    Acts.

    Absence of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.............STRIKE THREE!!!!!!!



    You're outa here!
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan: //Put the modern versions beside a KJV and one will see that they read different – it is though the modern versions have a different origen or something. All the new versions appear to read similar and then there is a King James Bible.//

    :) Fantastic pun :)

    ORIGEN is the aledged originator of the dreaded Alexandrian cult.
    (BTW, origin' is the word intended above).

    Origen took the following scripture serious:

    Mar 9:43-48 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:
    It is better for thee to enter into life maimed,
    then hauing two hands, to goe into hell, into the fire that neuer shall be quenched:
    44 Where their worme dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
    45 And if thy foote offend thee, cut it off:
    it is better for thee to enter halt into life, then hauing
    two feete, to be cast into hell, into the fire that neuer shall be quenched:
    46 Where their worme dieth not, and the fire
    is not quenched.
    47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:
    it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God
    with one eye, then hauing two eyes, to be cast into helfire:
    48 Where their worme dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

    He had himself castrated so he could devote his time
    to service in God. At the time the period between the acceptance
    of the Lord as Savior and the baptism was 2 years.
    Duing these two years, they were mentored by a Christian.
    Origen spend his early years 18-38 as a full-time Church mentor.

    IMHO Origen got a bad rap by married preachers.
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Put a KJV beside a Geneva and one will see that they read different. The Geneva is not "modern". Neither is Coverdale's. Would any one consider Webster's version "modern"? Webster's reads differently and I'm glad; there is always more than one way to translate a foreign word into English.


    "Most people" of the humanistic world maybe; but not informed people (like the folks on this forum).


    All English Bibles are translated from the discovered ancient Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts, which are then compiled into a complete text. They must be compiled together because no discovered manuscript is a wholly complete Bible in itself; in fact, many are scraps of papyrus with only a few verses. Its a kind of puzzle. Some editors use slightly different shapes or sizes of the pieces, but the completed picture comes out basically the same.


    Well if that was concern, then the OP could have been worded differently.:smilewinkgrin:
     
    #23 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2006
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    i which i could edit complex posts???
    It would make me use less posts.
     
    #24 Ed Edwards, Nov 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2006
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------- oops :(
     
    #25 Ed Edwards, Nov 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2006
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    the 4th time will work, well maybe????
     
    #26 Ed Edwards, Nov 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2006
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan: //Most people believe the modern versions are just updated KJV’s.//


    A poll is held on this question:
    Are MV's updated KJV's?
    and the poll is found at:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35297

    Remember after you
    vote to use your BACK button to come back to this discussion.
    Thank you.
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't believe it takes me four trys to make one hyperlink :(
     
  9. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not sure I've met anyone whose read or studied a MV that thinks that. The people I know think the KJV is an older translation of the Bible and MV's are newer translations of the Bible... and they're correct.

    The faithful ones come from the providence of God just like the KJV.


    The manifestly corrupt ones that do not agree with the others in doctrine and teaching are generally the products of cults or liberals attempting to cause the Bible to say or not say something.

    Several of us have told you where we are coming from and explained ad nauseum. You are for some reason hung up on the notion that only one set of words can accurately and faithfully transmit/translate the Bible.

    Until you stop limited where the facts can lead by assuming your conclusion... there is little any of us can say to help you see where we are coming from any more than you do right now.

    You will have to come with a mind open to the truth and truly follow our reasoning before you'll understand us. That doesn't mean you'll agree, just that you'll understand.

    As for those who've been calling us "liberals", I would invite you to look over the early Baptist confessions especially those from the era that gave us the KJV- the 1600's. These were Baptists truly under duress and persecution who nonetheless signed their names to their beliefs... and they weren't even close to being KJVO or any other version-onlyists.

    We, not you, hold the historic, fundamental Baptist doctrine about the Bible.
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The last comment btw was partly because I can't get over your name "AVBunyan". Bunyan was persecuted by the same church and clergy as produced and "authorized" the KJV then forced it upon the people.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Anti-Alexandrian:By comparing John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 between the CORRECT rendering found in the KJB and it's predecessors and the Alexandrian "bibles" and their predecessors.Strike one.

    Howdya KNOW the KJV's rendering is correct? Another GUESS. Ball One.



    Nawp!!

    Read the preface of the RSV........Strike two!


    I have. I'll give ya that one. Strike One.



    Acts.

    Absence of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.............STRIKE THREE!!!!!!!


    But they ARE Scripture; therefore they support themselves. Ball Two.



    You're outa here!

    Newp! Still waitin' fer ya ta throw a worthwhile pitch. Play Ball!
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wonder if he got it confused with "bunion"?
     
  13. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Brother Scott! Amen! Preach it Brother!

    :thumbsup: :jesus: :love2:
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ouch!

    :thumbsup:
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you mean that they claimed that their translation was based upon the Textus Receptus and/or the Majority Text and/or the Byzantine Text and the translation was actually based upon the Alexandrian type texts?

    If so, which translation (or translations)?

    Please name one translation, cite and document the FULL statement from the translation preface and then give an example from both the GREEK texts (Byzantine, Alexandrian) where in the case of a difference/variance they obviously chose the Alexandrian variant.

    Because unless you document your statement, I for one refuse to believe you and will assume you are simply passing on something you heard or read without taking the time to actually prove it.

    In all my research I have not found a bona fide example of what you are claiming.

    It may be, and if so, please prove it to me with hard evidence.



    HankD
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Obviously, A_A bases his statement upon the following:
    And he skipped this part:
    He evidently didn't read further down:
    The RSV DOES retain much from the KJV, only in more modern English. Whether or not it's a KJV revision or not is a matter of semantics.
     
  17. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe those parts you quoted were conveniently overlooked, Cranston. Then maybe they came from an Alexandrian manuscript...

    :BangHead: :tonofbricks: :sleeping_2:
     
  18. deacon jd

    deacon jd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't you wish that the team of translators mentioned above had been a little more than "influenced" by God. That is a vast difference between the MV bibles and the AV Bible. The translators of the AV were more than just influenced by God they were inspired to do a great work for God and that work has stood the test of time. Brother AV Bunyan isn't it great to have faith in the Word of God. I do not have to question whether my version has been corrupted by the error and hidden agendas of man because there are no contradictions found within the pages of Gods holy Word in the KJV.
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is a drastic difference between being "inspired" to do a great work and doing a great "inspired" work.

    As stated before, the KJV translators were not biblically qualified to receive direct inspiration. They were great scholars.

    Further, they not only didn't hold to the same fundamentals as Baptists... they persecuted and lied about the Baptists of their day who did cling to biblical fundamentals.

    So, I have laid out a couple of concrete objective proofs that say the KJV translators WERE NOT INSPIRED. Can you cite even one proof that they were?
    Jerome's Vulgate dominated the world for 1000 years... Do you likewise approve of it since it stood the test of time?

    The ASV and RSV have been around for about 100 years... is that satisfactory? Other MV's have been around and heavily used for 30 or more years... millions have been saved and sanctified using them... Is that enough of a "test of time" to keep KJVO's from slandering God's Word?
    Really? What is "corrupted by error"? How about 7 verses with absolutely no Greek mss support... like the last 7 verses of Revelation in the KJV? How about repeated use of the term "God forbid" without any underlying text support?
    The KJV like other versions has apparent contradictions that require explanation. Those places, like those in other versions, are few and only a genuine liberal Bible skeptic makes mountains out of them.

    However unlike other versions, you find apparent contradictions in the KJV and the explanations given for them acceptable. That is by definition using two balances to judge...
     
    #39 Scott J, Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  20. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    deacon jd, Why do you guys run from putting forth and defending proofs for what you believe?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...