The above facts will be ignored by KJVO as well, Doc, but not by the rest of us! Thanks for looking that up!
Which Bible versions are NOT the Word of God?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by IveyLeaguer, May 19, 2006.
Page 3 of 3
-
-
you didn't address the issue of the missing and altered scriptures...why do you always avoid the real issue by focusing on the messenger instead of the message?
-
dcorbett,
Excellent Post! thanks.
1) If Acts 8:37 is taken as a part of genuine Bible, no one can claim Infant Baptism.
2) If 1 Tim 3:16 is translated from the absolute majority, theos, then no one can deny Deity of Christ.
3) Heb 4:12 is talking about the knife used inside the temple by the priests when they slaughter the animals, with double edges, which was powerful ( symbolically even today to help us to cope with enemies of God, to repent for ourselves). It is powerful.
But I wouldn't say KJV is perfect, though it is the best of all Bibles available in English.
The problems with KJV that I have found so far are:
1) It didn't distinguish between Hell(gehenna) and Hades, which cause some serious confusion in doctrinal issues.
2) It used the general term for Ashera by calling grove.
There can be some more points to be improved in KJV, though I would not find fault with some scribal errors, which seems to be childish criticism, IMO. -
-
-
-
So what is leaven in this context? I would say translation (language) issues, or even MSS issues, on the whole, are not leaven. There is honest, inadvertent error in rare cases, but not enough to distort or manipulate the Word. GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD.
Leaven would be a distortion, misrepresentation, or manupulation of the scriptures introduced by Satan through men. What!! You don't honestly expect Satan to just stand by and not attempt to twist and distort what God has said, do you?
The thing is, God has graciously blessed us with more than a handful of good versions of His Word. We take for granted what a wonderful gift that is. As far as I'm concerned, if there is a little leaven in a Bible version, it is unfit for instruction and I want no part of it, except to expose it. Not because there is nothing correct in it, but because THERE IS NO NEED for me to touch it. I don't listen to Jesse Duplantis, Joyce Meyer, or Robert Schuller not because there is nothing they can teach me about God, but because there is leaven in their teaching. Similarly, I won't read or study The Message because I want nothing to do with Eugene Peterson's thought process. -
If you're not KJVO, there has to be a 'point of saturation' for you unless you accept ALL available versions as the Word of God. -
Obviously, a "bible" that doesn't follow its sources being translated, close as language differences permit, is bogus.
As for the sourses themselves, that issue has been debated since long before any of us were born, and its resolution is still in the future. But I believe GOD is well able to care for His own word, and to present/provide it as He chooses. -
-
Amen. A translation (any, in any language) finds "derived inspiration" ONLY as it remains true to the Greek. Don't fret about the small variations in blended Greek texts for now.
So I could look at John 3:16 in the JW's translation, which is about as corrupt and slanted as they get, and still say that John 3:16 is the inspired Word of God, powerful for salvation.
Why? It is accurately translated. A thousand other verses are not. But John 3:16 is.
My "saturation point" would be reached quickly with any translation that had continued (and most often intentional) errors and mistranslations so that they could not be reliable.
Hence, I opt to read, study and enjoy only a handful of English translations and revel in the Greek instead. Then I get to make my OWN translation . . and others can criticize it! -
I would say The Message contains some of God's word but I would not feel honest in saying it is God's word because in too many places words are added or changed by Petersen. I see a difference in stating it these two ways.
-
BTW, I'm considering this reference right now, http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/639804.trade.html?category=all, the Interlinear Whole Bible by Jay Green of Hendrickson Publishers, what do you think of it? -
I looked at the single-volume edition (huge and smallest print you've seen) and figured I was too old and weak to hold it up and too feeble to read that with my tri-focals.
So have the 4-volume (3 OT, 1 NT) The readability of the NT is phenomenal - best greek font I've seen in a long time. Jay has his own quirks in word choices, but hey, so do I.
I still would opt for Ricker-Berry as it is complete with lexicon, etc. -
I tend to shy away from any paraphrase, like the origional Living Bible and the Message.
Some Bibles shoud not be taken, in any way as God's word. They are manipulated to prove a particular groups theology. These would include the JW's, New World Translation, and the Adventists's Clear Word, which mixes the bible with their "prophet", Ellen G. White's non orthodox theology. If you have to change the word, in order to prove the theology, there is a problem. -
-
-
-
-
Page 3 of 3