New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)

[Nehemiah6]

So, AD 100, AD 200, AD 300 - corrupt

AD 900, AD 1400 - perfectly preserved.

Yeah, makes sense.

Instead of sarcasm, why don't you read what I have posted and see why it makes perfect sense. If there was no spiritual battle logic would dictate that the oldest manuscripts were the closest to the originals. But the NT already tells us that (1) Gnostics were corrupting the churches, and (2) Gnostics were corrupting the Word of God. This is what Paul said in 2 Cor 2:17:

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.​

And that is exactly what happened. I have quoted F.H.A. Scriverner -- the leading authority on textual criticism in the 19th century -- through The Revision Revised. He made it perfectly clear that the oldest surviving manuscripts were the most corrupt. Burgon proved it through painstaking collation and analysis.

 

[John146]

I have noticed that Burgon is taken by the KJVO like some kind of God's Word. I am not sure why? He is quite irrelevant in this field.

Have you checked his statements?

You can view Mr. White that way as well. Mr. White is against God preserving His word. Mr. White is his own final authority on what God has said.

 

[trofimus]

You can view Mr. White that way as well. Mr. White is against God preserving His word. Mr. White is his own final authority on what God has said.

White is actually an apologist. I am not sure if he is a textual critic.

I saw 3 or 4 of his vidoes, I saw his debate with ... that KJVO guy, I am not sure what his name is.

And thats probably all.

 

[Angela53510]

Learning Greek is not so difficult, so if you have doubts when reading Finnish translations, you can always start to read in Greek

The nice thing about reading Greek, is that there are so many resources available. There are grammars that teach grammar. There are translation books that help you translate passages, which are progressive. So they start with easier passages like John and 1st John and work their way up to Luke/Acts, Hebrews, and the Septuagint and early church fathers. There are word cards, audio tapes, a Daily Dose of Greek.

There are Greek commentaries, exegetical Greek commentaries. If you take Greek from a recognized institution, the professors are always accessible for questions. You can take Greek on-line with Bill Mounce, including face to face classes. Or you can just get various text books and read and study. And memorize! Lots of memorizing! https://billmounce.com/firstyeargreek

But Elizabethean English, not so much! Is there are grammar book or class anywhere? Of course, I could care less about learning how to parse or conjugate what is basically a dead language, for a poor translation from corrupted manuscripts. Why would I want this know obsolete and archaic Elizabethean words, when I can memorize all the Greek words. Or Hebrew, if I was so inclined?

God wrote the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Moses wrote in Hebrew, it doesn't matter what language he spoke to the Egyptians or the Canaanites in. What matters is that God inspired Moses to write in Hebrew, and, yes, Daniel wrote a bit in Aramaic, which is similar to Hebrew. That's why BDAG has a short Aramaic Lexicon in the back!

And the New Testament was inspired and written in Greek, not Elizabethan English. The KJV is not inspired, it has mistakes everywhere, because it is based on 7 corrupted, very late manuscripts, with many passages added by scribes, who being human, liked to clarify, or add margin notes, or feel asleep while being dictated to, resulting in the telephone game, and no, God did not inspire the copies, which get more and more corrupted, the further they are from the original autographs.

I trust God, and the Holy Spirit, who have led me on this amazing journey to know and understand God's Word better. Learning Greek is not for everyone, but learning Elizabethean English? That's for no one except fanatics who do not know anything about manuscript transmission, and have the nerve to say that if someone changed the Greek in the 10th, or 14th or any other century to conform to THEIR brand of theology, then it is inspired, even though it is not what God had the apostles who wrote the New Testament say! Absurd!

 

[trofimus]

The nice thing about reading Greek, is that there are so many resources available. There are grammars that teach grammar. There are translation books that help you translate passages, which are progressive. So they start with easier passages like John and 1st John and work their way up to Luke/Acts, Hebrews, and the Septuagint and early church fathers. There are word cards, audio tapes, a Daily Dose of Greek.

There are Greek commentaries, exegetical Greek commentaries. If you take Greek from a recognized institution, the professors are always accessible for questions. You can take Greek on-line with Bill Mounce, including face to face classes. Or you can just get various text books and read and study. And memorize! Lots of memorizing! https://billmounce.com/firstyeargreek

But Elizabethean English, not so much! Is there are grammar book or class anywhere? Of course, I could care less about learning how to parse or conjugate what is basically a dead language, for a poor translation from corrupted manuscripts. Why would I want this know obsolete and archaic Elizabethean words, when I can memorize all the Greek words. Or Hebrew, if I was so inclined?

God wrote the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Moses wrote in Hebrew, it doesn't matter what language he spoke to the Egyptians or the Canaanites in. What matters is that God inspired Moses to write in Hebrew, and, yes, Daniel wrote a bit in Aramaic, which is similar to Hebrew. That's why BDAG has a short Aramaic Lexocin in the back!

And the New Testament was inspired and written in Greek, not Elizabethan English. The KJV is not inspired, it has mistakes everywhere, because it is based on 7 corrupted, very late manuscripts, with many passages added by scribes, who being human, liked to clarify, or add margin notes, or feel asleep while being dictated to, resulting in the telephone game, and no, God did not inspire the copies, which get more and more corrupted, the further they are from the original autographs.

I trust God, and the Holy Spirit, who have led me on this amazing journey to know and understand God's Word better. Learning Greek is not for everyone, but learning Elizabethean English? That's for no one except fanatics who do not know anything about manuscript transmission, and have the nerve to say that if someone changed the Greek in the 10th, or 14th or any other century to conform to THEIR brand of theology, then it is inspired, even though it is not what God had the apostles who wrote the New Testament say! Absurd!

Only some few individuals are against learning Greek and saying that English from the middle ages is better. They are not very important in our daily life because their view is simply too absurd.

On the other hand, the underlaying question "which manuscript line is the best" can be challenging. I know you prefer the critical text.

But we must realize that our goal is not to search for the perfect text, but to live as Christ lived. The differences are actually so irrelevant for our transformation...

 

[RamahDesjardin]

Not necessarily, but rather naturally and logically.

There must be some serious evidence that something is really wrong with the older ones.

If not, its natural that the 5th hand-made copy has less errors than the 50th hand-made copy.

Show me in Scripture where this position is mentioned or warned against. Half the OT was passed down through oral tradition, and this argument never came up. This became an issue only after NT forgeries began to circulate.

I'm not here to promote one set of manuscripts over the other. I'm simply here to say that the telephone argument is unbiblical, and the heart of the issue is whether those scribes were copying fabrications or not.

I continue to be baffled that my words are difficult to understand.

 

[Bogadile]

Learning Greek is not so difficult, so if you have doubts when reading Finnish translations, you can always start to read in Greek

I do not got the time or interest in it. The reason being that we have many "greek experts" in the world and they do not seem to agree with each other any more than the rest of us.

 

[preacher4truth]

Some absurd claims I've heard that prove the 1611 is the perfect and only Word of God:

Add together the numbers in 1611. You get 9. 9 is the number of fruitfulness. Paul was saved in Acts 9. A woman is pregnant 9 months. There are 9 elements to the fruit of the spirit. God told Noah in Genesis 9 to be fruitful and multiply. Add up the letters in "King James." Yep. 9 letters.

That proves it.

(You can bet that someone on here will run with this).

 

[Angela53510]

Only some few individuals are against learning Greek and saying that English from the middle ages is better. They are not very important in our daily life because their view is simply too absurd.

On the other hand, the underlaying question "which manuscript line is the best" can be challenging. I know you prefer the critical text.

Yes, I do! Because people who have studied, compared and contrasted each word, try and come up with the most likely option. Of course, for rigid legalists, looking for "perfection" maybe that is not close enough! Except, ironically, when they discount the earlier manuscripts, because they don't agree with the KJV! Circular logic, at its worst! They say the KJV is correct, therefore, it is correct. They say on God's authority, with some imaginary story about God inspiring the KJV, which is full of errors. I know God uses imperfect people, it is all he has! But not likely he inspired a version translated from corrupted, late manuscripts. And the fact that the first edition and subsequent editions of the KJV had so many basic grammar, spelling errors, forget translation errors, in what way was it perfect?

It would be amazing if the original autographs were discovered. Daniel Wallace is in Greece and Instanbul these days, photographing all the uncatalogued and unknown manuscripts in the monasteries that have been there for thousands of years. Who knows what he will find? But until then, I am contentedly reading HCSB, because it is comfortable English. Then, chapter by chapter through the New Testament in Greek, a project which is going quite well!

 

[John146]

God wrote the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Moses wrote in Hebrew, it doesn't matter what language he spoke to the Egyptians or the Canaanites in. What matters is that God inspired Moses to write in Hebrew, and, yes, Daniel wrote a bit in Aramaic, which is similar to Hebrew. That's why BDAG has a short Aramaic Lexicon in the back!

I'll use your logic here. It doesn't matter what language was used as the "originals", the point is, God can take what was said in one language and have it translated into another and it still be the pure and holy words of God.

 

[Bogadile]

I love the King James Bible, it is the only english translation I own as a physical copy and read.
HOWEVER I do feel that it can go from preferance (which I have) to making an idol out of it, where one looks down upon people who prefer other versions.

One thing that interests me the most out of the KJVOnly movement is the claim that it is the word of God for english-speaking people.
Well can someone of you KJVonlyist experts tell me what is the preserved word of God for the finnish-speaking people? Any takers? We got about 3 major translations. I think the one you would choose would be the 1776 that is translated from the textus receptus, well I got bad news, if you think the King James is outdated english, you have no idea how out-dated finnish the 1776 is.
It is incomprehensible in many places. We have different looking letters and words meaning different things, it would be like switching every "S" into a "G" and things of that magnitude.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'll use your logic here. It doesn't matter what language was used as the "originals", the point is, God can take what was said in one language and have it translated into another and it still be the pure and holy words of God.

Which works perfectly in the many English translations we have today.

 

[John146]

Which works perfectly in the many English translations we have today.

When it comes to a language, only one version can be correct or none. You cannot have two different English versions, containing different words, be the holy and pure words of God.

 

[preacher4truth]

When it comes to a language, only one version can be correct or none.

I know, I know, you're incapable of critical thinking, thus your error and KJVO cultism.

 

[Ugly]

Some absurd claims I've heard that prove the 1611 is the perfect and only Word of God:

Add together the numbers in 1611. You get 9. 9 is the number of fruitfulness. Paul was saved in Acts 9. A woman is pregnant 9 months. There are 9 elements to the fruit of the spirit. God told Noah in Genesis 9 to be fruitful and multiply. Add up the letters in "King James." Yep. 9 letters.

That proves it.

(You can bet that someone on here will run with this).

Barney

 

[trofimus]

Yes, I do! Because people who have studied, compared and contrasted each word, try and come up with the most likely option. Of course, for rigid legalists, looking for "perfection" maybe that is not close enough! Except, ironically, when they discount the earlier manuscripts, because they don't agree with the KJV! Circular logic, at its worst! They say the KJV is correct, therefore, it is correct. They say on God's authority, with some imaginary story about God inspiring the KJV, which is full of errors. I know God uses imperfect people, it is all he has! But not likely he inspired a version translated from corrupted, late manuscripts. And the fact that the first edition and subsequent editions of the KJV had so many basic grammar, spelling errors, forget translation errors, in what way was it perfect?

It would be amazing if the original autographs were discovered. Daniel Wallace is in Greece and Instanbul these days, photographing all the uncatalogued and unknown manuscripts in the monasteries that have been there for thousands of years. Who knows what he will find? But until then, I am contentedly reading HCSB, because it is comfortable English. Then, chapter by chapter through the New Testament in Greek, a project which is going quite well!

Maybe he will find the original autographs and they will be word for word like the KJV

 

[trofimus]

When it comes to a language, only one version can be correct or none. You cannot have two different English versions, containing different words, be the holy and pure words of God.

In that case - none Because the KJV is full of errors and what next candidate do we have?

 

[tanakh]

There are practical reasons for reading the KJV

Firstly its cheap
Secondly you can quote from it without getting the publishers permission
Thirdly many Authors use it, particularly in old books and concordances

I like the KJV because I grew up with it I have no particular problem with other translations and own several but I do seen to use the KJV more in recent years than I used to. I put it down to old age setting in!

 

[John146]

In that case - none Because the KJV is full of errors and what next candidate do we have?

There you go, we do not have the word of God, therefore, we are our own final authority. See the book of Judges.

 

[trofimus]

There are practical reasons for reading the KJV

Firstly its cheap
Secondly you can quote from it without getting the publishers permission
Thirdly many Authors use it, particularly in old books and concordances

I like the KJV because I grew up with it I have no particular problem with other translations and own several but I do seen to use the KJV more in recent years than I used to. I put it down to old age setting in!

I quote any translation I want and no publisher ever contacted me