Inspiration of Scriptures

[Enoch987]

REFUTE THIS IF YOU CAN!

Here is an excerpt from my commentary:

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
3 It seemed good to me also, having accurately followed after all things from above, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

having NOT having had This is the perfect active participle NOT the pluperfect!
diligently (or accurately) NOT perfect this is the adverb ἀκριβῶς NOT the adjective τέλειον.
pursued (or followed) NOT understanding this is the verb παρηκολουθηκότι NOT the noun συνέσει.
all things NOT of all things this is the dative NOT the genitive case.
above NOT the very first this is ἄνωθεν not ἀρχῇ.

The accuracy of most of this translation demonstrates that the translators had better scholarship than one would deduce from their rendering of this verse. I believe that this is an example of allowing one’s theology to drive translation. One should rather translate the text as strictly as possible; and allow the unaltered text to drive one’s theology.

Theophilus Friend of God. There is some scholarly disagreement whether the name is intended to apply to all believers, or to an individual. In my opinion the title ‘most excellent’ suggests an individual; but, the content is certainly applicable to and pertinent to all believers.


Gen 5:32


....32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
32 And Noah was five hundred and two years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


Ge 1:27-31 Adam created AM 1 [AM = Anno Mundi = Age of Earth from creation]
Ge 5:3 Adam age 130 when Seth born AM 130
Ge 5:6 Seth age 105 when Enos born AM 235
Ge 5:9 Enos age 90 when Cainan born AM 325
Ge 5:12 Cainan age 70 when Mahalaleel born AM 395
Ge 5:15 Mahalaleel age 65 when Jared born AM 460
Ge 5:18 Jared age 162 when Enoch born AM 622
Ge 5:21 Enoch age 65 when Methuselah born AM 687
Ge 5:25 Methuselah age 187 when Lamech born AM 874
Ge 5:28 Lamech age 182 when Noah born AM 1056
Ge 7:11 Noah age 600 at onset of flood AM 1656
Ge 11:10 Shem age 100 2 years after the flood. AM 1658 Shem born AM 1558
Noah age 502 when Shem born

Good Work but the Flood was 370 days long so Shem was 100 years old 3 years after the start of the Flood in AM1659.
Noah was in his 503rd year when Shem was born. To make the math work, God had to use ordinal years instead of cardinal. Noah was 599 years when the Flood began (the bible says he was in his 600th year). Noah died 3 years before Abram was born. Shem was 447 years when Noah died. Shem's age at Abram's birth is 450. In the days of Peleg when Peleg was 26 years (in his 27th year) Shem is 225 years (half of 450). Shem dies at 600 which is 10 years after Isaac is married to Rachel which is 10 years before the twins are born (Esau and Jacob). Abram was born when Terah was 130 not 70. There are 130 years between them when Abram buried Terah.

 

[Enoch987]

Jeremiah 31:26 Jeremiah awoke from his sleep, his dreams were pleasant to him. The dreams were the preceding prophecies written down the book by Jeremiah.

 

[Angela53510]

Verbal dictation theory:

The dictation theory claims that God dictated the books of the Bible word by word, suggesting the authors were no more than tools used to communicate God's precisely intended message.

Verbal plenary inspiration:

This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible. The effect of inspiration was to move the authors so as to produce the words God wanted.
In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture."

Intuition theory:

The authors of the Scriptures were merely wise men, so the Bible is inspired by advanced human insight.

Partial inspiration:

the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice/morals, yet it could have errors in history or science (e.g. the Big Bang could be true, and the Genesis creation account is more allegorical than historical).

Dynamic inspiration:

The thoughts contained in the Bible are inspired, but the words used were left to the individual writers.
This suggests the underlying message of the Scriptures are inspired, while the exact wording is dynamic.


------

It seems to me, that most of you are for Verbal plenary inspiration, few of you are for Verbal dictation theory, but when I ask questions about it, you go to Verbal plenary inspiration as the majority.

So far, nobody (I think) believes in the next three. Maybe I can make a poll for this.

I, personally, think that Dynamic inspiration is what best describes my actual feelings, but I am still in a process of searching.

Thanks for posting this view of inspiration. I think it does explain why some of us do not see versions like the KJV as perfect and correct, while others do.

Before I was saved, I was in the New Age Movement. There was an occultic practice called “automatic writing.” This is when a spirit took hold of a person holding a pen and paper, and the person would write down the words the spirit dictated, and after the session, would have no idea what had been written. The writing on the paper was considered an “inspired” spiritual dictation, and people would actually follow the instructions on the paper.

I haven’t been able to correctly voice my disapproval concerning the verbal dictation theory, which you really have to adhere to, to believe that every word of the KJV is “inspired.” First, you have to believe every single word in the original languages was word for word inspired. And then that every word in the KJV was word for word inspired. Except, there are numerous translation errors in the KJV, to say nothing of the fact that 7 corrupted, very late Byzantine copies of the NT were used, so there is no way in the world you could ever have an “inspired word for word” translation into English from those texts.

To me, to think each and every individual word in the KJV was specifically inspired, means it had to be “dictated” in an automatic writing form. That is the only way you could get 100% agreement between all the scholars, and that doesn’t even deal with the insurmountable problem of bad manuscripts, and the fact that Erasmus’ translation was overruled in some places by the RCC imprimatur, because Erasmus’ research into manuscripts showed that Jerome’s Vulgate incorrectly added the Johannian Comma in 1 John 5:7, because it did not exist in any of the earliest manuscripts, before the time of Jerome. But Rome wanted it there to confirm the Trinity, because it was a easy verse to quote to prove the Trinity. Although certainly the rest of the Bible can be used to prove the Trinity, it just might take a bit more work!

Further, with regards to the differences in writing style between Luke and John, in Greek, the differences are major! Now, if the NT was verbally dictated, there should be no differences in vocabulary, style or grammar. Instead, there is a wide gap between the writing of John and Luke.

Why? Because John was an Aramaic fisherman. His Greek is simple, he often uses “Hebraisms” which are grammatical or word forms translated directly from Hebrew, which do not follow the rules of Greek grammar. Luke, a Greek doctor, uses very difficult (for me!) vocabulary and grammar. When you learn Greek in seminary, the epistles of John are the first things you translate in your second semester. For my final first year, 1 John was one of the possible final topics. I read it once, then never studied it again. It was so simple and easy to translate. Luke, is late 2nd year, 4th semester Greek. And hard! I am reading Acts right now, and it is slow going. There are so many words that I have to look up. And words where a simpler, known word would have sufficed. He reminds me that sometimes when we write, the easy words are better for most people to understand. Lucky I have lexicons and Greek tools to reference for Luke and Acts.

So, absolutely no to “Verbal Dictated Writing” as far as Scripture is concerned. God never takes over and overrules someone’s personality, experience and background, like the occult does. That is yet another reason why I strongly object to the so-called “perfection” of the KJV. To have that kind of perfection, it would be a feat of the occult, not the gentle hand of the Holy Spirit inspiring the original writers to produce words which indeed reflect who the writers are, and that they wrote with full knowledge of what they were writing, not some kind of overpowering occult spirit.

I definitely prefer the Verbal Plenary Writing. Partial inspiritation leaves us wondering which parts are inspired, and which aren’t, and Dynamic is far to open ended to be worthwhile. And while a dynamic translation has some merit, the reader is certainly aware of the form and the type of translation these versions are. As far as the original languages, I think God used the talents and abilities of his chosen writers to convey the exact message he wanted us to receive. As for the tiny copyist errors in the manuscripts, almost none of these, perhaps with the exception of the Johannian Comma, even though what it says is correct, it simply was not in the earliest manuscripts, and the longer ending of Mark, which is easily refuted, doctrine is not affected.

And the Bible clearly communicates how we are to live, and follow Christ, and that is probably the most important thing of all!

 

[MarcR]

Good Work but the Flood was 370 days long so Shem was 100 years old 3 years after the start of the Flood in AM1659.
Noah was in his 503rd year when Shem was born. To make the math work, God had to use ordinal years instead of cardinal. Noah was 599 years when the Flood began (the bible says he was in his 600th year). Noah died 3 years before Abram was born. Shem was 447 years when Noah died. Shem's age at Abram's birth is 450. In the days of Peleg when Peleg was 26 years (in his 27th year) Shem is 225 years (half of 450). Shem dies at 600 which is 10 years after Isaac is married to Rachel which is 10 years before the twins are born (Esau and Jacob). Abram was born when Terah was 130 not 70. There are 130 years between them when Abram buried Terah.

You make excellent points. Looking at Ge 11:10, I have the impression that it is speaking of 2 years after the onset of the flood.

It is definitely unclear; so you may be correct.

 

[fredoheaven]

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. KJV

There is absolutely NOTHING in the text to suggest they were not born in the same year.

You have not even attempted to refute the gross mistranslation of LK 1:3

Hi you there MACR!

I was following you here in this thread and in other threads with much respect and I’m sure you have used most of your biblical citation from the KJV but I was saddened by the fact that the one you are using is the one you are tearing. Really my heart aches to those who only prefer to use the KJV seeing its mistakes rather exegete/expound/ interpret or it may say something like this or that regarding a particular text.

Here you touch translation rather than inspiration. As I have to understand, you are trying to build your case having your critical commentary on the particular text of Luke 1:3 believing it’s a gross error on the KJV and its translators. If I but to analyse your post and the comparison you made on the KJV and the non-KJV bears that KJV is still precise in translating Luke 1:3. Contextually and translation wise, the KJV generally used the “Formal Translation” technique and neither the” literal “, the “dynamic equivalence” nor the “Paraphrase”.

What I am seeing in your post is to discredit the attempts made by the KJ Translator weakening by implying they used their own theology to suit their purpose. This is not so with the KJ Translators, they treated their works to be the word of God. They were not emotionally inclined to their own belief.

“For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no "tell all books" published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the KJB, the Translators "were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and sought truth rather than their own praise". They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work
King James Bible Translators

Some were Puritans in the board and tend to believe the Calvinistic reformed theology yet the KJV is now being attacked mostly by the Calvinist and are promoting the ESV which tend to favour Calvinism.

Now regards to the translation per se as you have posted that “One should translate the text as strictly as possible; and allow the unaltered text…” How strict and how unaltered is the Greek text to be translated in the English? If we allow this concept, we have such a hybrid for literal rendition and dynamic ones. The example you have brought is such a good one for our study. For the meantime, I have to comment in a gist regarding the non KJV translation of Luke 1:3 and needs further studies on the whole post before making more observations:

I don’t think the non KJV cited here is correct in its translation. Here are my reasons:

1. “…having accurately followed…” precision wise the better translation for the Greek word would be in the KJV since Dr. Luke used the strong Greek “Akribos”. In sense, while the greek may be translated “having accurately followed” as the literal means, however it could not be in the text since Dr. Luke have not “accurately followed Christ” even Peter denies Christ. Using the KJ having had “perfect” is strong English word that best describes the text within the context. Why “perfect” mainly because he knows that his writing to Theophilus is an exact declaration being guided by the Holy Ghost as a writer and eyewitness of what Jesus did.

2. On the other hand, Tahyers Greek lexicon literally renders it as alongside but as to Strong, it means to follow near ie figurative sense taking both would make no sense as to the translation is concern.

3. The Greek “Ackibos” was used by the KJ translators 2x as “diligently”, 1x as “perfect” as in here, 1 x as perfectly and 1 x as circumspectly but not “followed”. A preacher may say “Are you following me?” yet many do not fully grasp what’s been said.

4. “…after all things from above”. Did Dr. Luke and the apostles followed after all things from above? When you take this literally, then this is not true? What they followed as ministers of the word and eyewitness is Christ not from above but on his earthly ministry.

With this brief comment, I’ll leave you peace and blessings!

 

[Donmech]

I appreciate the general essence of your post. However, your assertion (in bold above) claims that there must be one perfect copy somewhere (or perhaps one perfect version). That is one view of preservation, but it is not the only valid view. There is a major problem with it: nobody knows for certain which is the correct copy!

Another perfectly valid view is that God preserved His word in a multiplicity of manuscripts rather than in one copy. It takes more work to determine what the originals said, but it can be done, and for the most part has been done. That leaves us with a very reliable text, without the nagging uncertainty of "did we choose the right one?".

Your assertion, "If there exist even one error it cannot be the true inspired Words of God" sounds good... until you start looking deeper at the concept of "error". How would you know what constitutes an "error", unless you compare one copy or version with another? What would you use as the standard by which you judge? Simply asserting that one is correct (as some KJV adherents do) is logically invalid (and easily refuted).

Words, phrases and sentences don't translate cleanly between languages. Take, for example, the English phrase, "The big red dog"; if you translate it word for word into French, it would be "le grand rouge chien". However, a French person would write it "le grand chien rouge". Which is "correct"? Do the syntax and grammar of the source language trump those of the destination language, or is there more that must be considered? Consider that Greek and Hebrew are not only very different from each other, but both are very different from English as well. This is why scholars spend years learning languages so that they are equipped to tackle the challenge of translating God's word.

I have no trouble understanding the difficulties involved when translating from one language to another, certainly there are words and fraises that require attention to detail. However, translation and versions are not the same thing. For example; One popular version says that Mary the mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus, However, the new modern versions calls Mary a young girl, There is nothing miraculous about a young girl giving birth, it happens every day, but a virgin giving birth can only be an act of God. So, which Version are you going to trust? That's a question I believe anyone who will honestly compare the versions and do a little digging will have no problem finding God's preserved word for mankind today in 2018.

 

[Dino246]

I have no trouble understanding the difficulties involved when translating from one language to another, certainly there are words and fraises that require attention to detail. However, translation and versions are not the same thing. For example; One popular version says that Mary the mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus, However, the new modern versions calls Mary a young girl, There is nothing miraculous about a young girl giving birth, it happens every day, but a virgin giving birth can only be an act of God. So, which Version are you going to trust? That's a question I believe anyone who will honestly compare the versions and do a little digging will have no problem finding God's preserved word for mankind today in 2018.

To the first bolded sentence: what do you think the difference is between a "version" and a "translation"?

To the second bolded sentence: where there are specific translations that use such phrasing, please identify them; it is disingenuous to claim that "the new modern versions" say something particular, implying that all recent translations use that phrase. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. For the record, the NASB uses "virgin" in Luke 1:34.

The Greek word for "virgin" is legitimately translated "young girl". The translation is not "wrong" from a linguistic perspective. Nor does it inherently undermine the doctrine of virgin birth; it just doesn't actively support that doctrine. The doctrine is actively supported by Isaiah's prophecy, the statement that Joseph did not have relations with her until after Jesus was born, and Mary's own wondering, "How can this be, since I am a (virgin)?" as her implication is quite clear.

We must be careful when considering how our beliefs shape our preference for certain phraseology. It's okay to reject a translation where it actively undermines a specific doctrine by mistranslating a passage, as the New World Translation does with John 1:1. Generally, we need to remember that Scripture should shape doctrine, not the other way around!

 

[MarcR]

Hi you there MACR!

I was following you here in this thread and in other threads with much respect and I’m sure you have used most of your biblical citation from the KJV but I was saddened by the fact that the one you are using is the one you are tearing. Really my heart aches to those who only prefer to use the KJV seeing its mistakes rather exegete/expound/ interpret or it may say something like this or that regarding a particular text.

Here you touch translation rather than inspiration. As I have to understand, you are trying to build your case having your critical commentary on the particular text of Luke 1:3 believing it’s a gross error on the KJV and its translators. If I but to analyse your post and the comparison you made on the KJV and the non-KJV bears that KJV is still precise in translating Luke 1:3. Contextually and translation wise, the KJV generally used the “Formal Translation” technique and neither the” literal “, the “dynamic equivalence” nor the “Paraphrase”.

What I am seeing in your post is to discredit the attempts made by the KJ Translator weakening by implying they used their own theology to suit their purpose. This is not so with the KJ Translators, they treated their works to be the word of God. They were not emotionally inclined to their own belief.

“For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no "tell all books" published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the KJB, the Translators "were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and sought truth rather than their own praise". They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work
King James Bible Translators

Some were Puritans in the board and tend to believe the Calvinistic reformed theology yet the KJV is now being attacked mostly by the Calvinist and are promoting the ESV which tend to favour Calvinism.

Now regards to the translation per se as you have posted that “One should translate the text as strictly as possible; and allow the unaltered text…” How strict and how unaltered is the Greek text to be translated in the English? If we allow this concept, we have such a hybrid for literal rendition and dynamic ones. The example you have brought is such a good one for our study. For the meantime, I have to comment in a gist regarding the non KJV translation of Luke 1:3 and needs further studies on the whole post before making more observations:

I don’t think the non KJV cited here is correct in its translation. Here are my reasons:

1. “…having accurately followed…” precision wise the better translation for the Greek word would be in the KJV since Dr. Luke used the strong Greek “Akribos”. In sense, while the greek may be translated “having accurately followed” as the literal means, however it could not be in the text since Dr. Luke have not “accurately followed Christ” even Peter denies Christ. Using the KJ having had “perfect” is strong English word that best describes the text within the context. Why “perfect” mainly because he knows that his writing to Theophilus is an exact declaration being guided by the Holy Ghost as a writer and eyewitness of what Jesus did.

2. On the other hand, Tahyers Greek lexicon literally renders it as alongside but as to Strong, it means to follow near ie figurative sense taking both would make no sense as to the translation is concern.

3. The Greek “Ackibos” was used by the KJ translators 2x as “diligently”, 1x as “perfect” as in here, 1 x as perfectly and 1 x as circumspectly but not “followed”. A preacher may say “Are you following me?” yet many do not fully grasp what’s been said.

4. “…after all things from above”. Did Dr. Luke and the apostles followed after all things from above? When you take this literally, then this is not true? What they followed as ministers of the word and eyewitness is Christ not from above but on his earthly ministry.

With this brief comment, I’ll leave you peace and blessings!

My apology for causing you sadness.

My intent is NOT to tear down the KJV which I use and consider to be the most beautiful and most literary of all translations.

My intent was to tear down the pompous notion that other versions are corrupt and that the KJV is uniquely inspired.

I used Lk 1:3 as an example of faulty translation. My speculation on motive may indeed be inappropriate.

I don't believe that the cause of the great commission is furthered by calling other translations corrupt.

 

[Donmech]

To the first bolded sentence: what do you think the difference is between a "version" and a "translation"?

To the second bolded sentence: where there are specific translations that use such phrasing, please identify them; it is disingenuous to claim that "the new modern versions" say something particular, implying that all recent translations use that phrase. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. For the record, the NASB uses "virgin" in Luke 1:34.

The Greek word for "virgin" is legitimately translated "young girl". The translation is not "wrong" from a linguistic perspective. Nor does it inherently undermine the doctrine of virgin birth; it just doesn't actively support that doctrine. The doctrine is actively supported by Isaiah's prophecy, the statement that Joseph did not have relations with her until after Jesus was born, and Mary's own wondering, "How can this be, since I am a (virgin)?" as her implication is quite clear.

We must be careful when considering how our beliefs shape our preference for certain phraseology. It's okay to reject a translation where it actively undermines a specific doctrine by mistranslating a passage, as the New World Translation does with John 1:1. Generally, we need to remember that Scripture should shape doctrine, not the other way around!

trans-la-tion 1. the process of changing words or text from one language to another.

ver-sion 1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type or thing.
The definitions are quite clear and so are the differences.
LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

​

The Revised Standard Version changes "virgin" to "young woman" and the NASB has "maiden" in a footnote. In Matthew 1:25, new versions change "her firstborn son" to "birth to a son", casting doubt upon the virginity of Mary at Jesus’ birth.

​

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!
PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!
I don't need your Greek lexicon, or your Hebrew, God has preserved His word in the English language. This I believe and will trust.

Not only is doctrine being corrupted by new age perverted versions, but truth is under attack as well. I wander, who would be behind all this confusion surrounding new age versions? Well since God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) That leaves only one other choice. Ill leave that one to you.



[TABLE="class: OBJ-2, width: 730"]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

SCRIPTURE​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

KJV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

ERV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NASB​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NIV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NKJV​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Matthew 1:25​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

brought forth a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a Son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn Son​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:33​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his father and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

The child’s father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:43​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: OBJ-2, width: 730"]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

SCRIPTURE​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

KJV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

ERV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NASB​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NIV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NKJV​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Matthew 1:25​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

brought forth a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a Son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn Son​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:33​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his father and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

The child’s father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:43​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

​

 

[Dino246]

trans-la-tion 1. the process of changing words or text from one language to another.

ver-sion 1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type or thing.

The definitions are quite clear and so are the differences.

I didn't ask you for dictionary definitions. The context is different Bibles in English. The words, "translation" and "version" are used interchangeably in this context. It is certainly not "wrong" to use either in this context, unless you are discussing different "versions" of a single "translation" such as the 1769 Blaney vs the 1611 original KJV. In that context, I would suggest that the word, "edition" is the more appropriate term.


[QUOTE=Donmech;3407414]LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him."

The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.[/QUOTE]

Was Joseph the father of Jesus in the sense that he was the male head of the household in which Jesus grew up? Yes, of course. The word in the Greek is pater which is "father". "The child's father" is an accurate translation. There is no perversion of the text here.

The Revised Standard Version changes "virgin" to "young woman" and the NASB has "maiden" in a footnote. In Matthew 1:25, new versions change "her firstborn son" to "birth to a son", casting doubt upon the virginity of Mary at Jesus’ birth.

This comment is logically invalid. Neither the NASB nor the RSV are "newer editions" of the KJV; both are fresh translations from the Greek, so the charge that either "changed" any word is utterly without merit. Further, the KJV is not the objective standard by which all others must be judged. It is merely an earlier translation, and is itself different from still-earlier translations such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc.

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

Again, this claim is only valid if the Greek has "theos" in the verse. It doesn't. It has "os" (he). "He" is a perfectly valid translation, and the rules of English grammar together with the preceding context make it quite readily understandable that Jesus is the subject of the sentence.

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The NIV does no such thing. The deity of Jesus Christ is readily discerned from the NIV; I personally became convinced of the deity of Jesus by reading the NIV. Yours is unsound thinking and has been refuted many times.

I don't need your Greek lexicon, or your Hebrew, God has preserved His word in the English language. This I believe and will trust.

Perhaps you prefer not to use language tools, but you do seem to need the research of others. Next time, provide reference citations for the material you present, lest you be accused of plagiarism.

Not only is doctrine being corrupted by new age perverted versions, but truth is under attack as well. I wander, who would be behind all this confusion surrounding new age versions? Well since God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) That leaves only one other choice. Ill leave that one to you.

You sound like you've been reading too much Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman. Neither has any credibility around here, so save your pixels.

Overall, you are guilty of bringing your theology to the text and rejecting translations that don't match your theology in every verse. Generally, that's a bad idea.

 

[MarcR]

I have no trouble understanding the difficulties involved when translating from one language to another, certainly there are words and fraises that require attention to detail. However, translation and versions are not the same thing. For example; One popular version says that Mary the mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus, However, the new modern versions calls Mary a young girl, There is nothing miraculous about a young girl giving birth, it happens every day, but a virgin giving birth can only be an act of God. So, which Version are you going to trust? That's a question I believe anyone who will honestly compare the versions and do a little digging will have no problem finding God's preserved word for mankind today in 2018.

However, the new modern versions calls Mary a young girl, In Lk 1:26-27
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
KJV

The word translated as virgin is παρθένον which means unmarried daughter.


Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
KJV

Here the word translated virgin is עַלְמָׄה , which means young woman.

This in NO WAY denies the virgin birth! The concept of mary's virginity comes not from the word which the KJV translates as virgin (IMO quite properly) but from the fact that the child is to be a sign from God.

Mary is no less a virgin when modern translations correctly translate the words refering to her as young girl. She was indeed a young girl (probably 12 years old) as well as being a virgin.

 

[MarcR]

trans-la-tion 1. the process of changing words or text from one language to another.

ver-sion 1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type or thing.
The definitions are quite clear and so are the differences.
LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The Revised Standard Version changes "virgin" to "young woman" and the NASB has "maiden" in a footnote. In Matthew 1:25, new versions change "her firstborn son" to "birth to a son", casting doubt upon the virginity of Mary at Jesus’ birth.

​

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!
PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!
I don't need your Greek lexicon, or your Hebrew, God has preserved His word in the English language. This I believe and will trust.

Not only is doctrine being corrupted by new age perverted versions, but truth is under attack as well. I wander, who would be behind all this confusion surrounding new age versions? Well since God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) That leaves only one other choice. Ill leave that one to you.



[TABLE="class: OBJ-2, width: 730"]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

SCRIPTURE​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

KJV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

ERV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NASB​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NIV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NKJV​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Matthew 1:25​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

brought forth a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a Son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn Son​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:33​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his father and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

The child’s father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:43​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: OBJ-2, width: 730"]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

SCRIPTURE​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

KJV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

ERV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NASB​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NIV​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-1, bgcolor: #FFCC99"]

NKJV​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Matthew 1:25​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

brought forth a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a Son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

birth to a son​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

her firstborn Son​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:33​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his father and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

The child’s father and mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TC-2, bgcolor: #99CCFF"]

Luke 2:43​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and his mother​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

His parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

his parents​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TC-3, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]

Joseph and His mother​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The differences you cite arise from differences between the Nestle/Aland & Wescort Hort Greek texts and the Textus receptus and & Majority texts. I prefer the Textus Receptus and Majority texts but I believe that translations from the Wescott or the Nestle can serve God's purpose sufficiently.

 

[Zmouth]

It's great to hear that the entire New Testament was inspired! Now I have a QUESTION! WHICH VERSION(S) of the verse hyperlinked immediately below was INSPIRED, and which VERSION(S) was/were CORRUPTED, and HOW CAN YOU TELL WHICH IS WHICH?


1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

New International Version
For there are three that testify:

New Living Translation
So we have these three witnesses--

English Standard Version
For there are three that testify:

Berean Study Bible
For there are three that testify:

Berean Literal Bible
For there are three bearing testimony:

New American Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

King James Bible
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

International Standard Version
For there are three witnesses —

NET Bible
For there are three that testify,

New Heart English Bible
For there are three who testify:

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And The Spirit testifies because The Spirit is the truth.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
There are three witnesses:

New American Standard 1977
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

King James 2000 Bible
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

American King James Version
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

American Standard Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

Darby Bible Translation
For they that bear witness are three:

English Revised Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Webster's Bible Translation
For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

Weymouth New Testament
For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;

World English Bible
For there are three who testify:

Young's Literal Translation
because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;

If you didn't know how to read then would it make any difference which translation you were given since you couldn't read anyone to begin with? Or would you just starting saying things like you were actually reading as if nobody knew that you were just making it up?

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isa 29:12​

So did you teach yourself how to read without anyone teaching you? So who taught you how to read?

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: Isa 29:11
​

So now that you have learned how to read then do you think that you can simply pick up the Bible and read it on your own without a teacher?

But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34​

 

[Nehemiah6]

Not only is doctrine being corrupted by new age perverted versions, but truth is under attack as well. I wander, who would be behind all this confusion surrounding new age versions? Well since God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) That leaves only one other choice. Ill leave that one to you.

You are perfectly correct about what you call "New Age Perversions" of the Bible. There are just a minority of Christians who have recognized that modern Bible versions are indeed an attack upon the Word of God and also Bible doctrines. There are at least 1,500 changes in the modern versions which affect doctrine, not to mention all the thousands of gratuitous changes which have totally altered the Bible. Yet many Christians will fight tooth and nail to support the false notion that modern Bible versions since 1881 are superior to the Reformation Bibles and the Authorized Version (KJB).

 

[Dino246]

[/FONT][/COLOR]You are perfectly correct about what you call "New Age Perversions" of the Bible. There are just a minority of Christians who have recognized that modern Bible versions are indeed an attack upon the Word of God and also Bible doctrines. There are at least 1,500 changes in the modern versions which affect doctrine, not to mention all the thousands of gratuitous changes which have totally altered the Bible. Yet many Christians will fight tooth and nail to support the false notion that modern Bible versions since 1881 are superior to the Reformation Bibles and the Authorized Version (KJB).

[/FONT][/COLOR]

"Changes" from what? For the umpteenth time, the KJV (or KJB if you prefer) is not the standard against which all others are measured.

Declaring, as Donmech did, that the new versions have "changed" the Bible requires either that the newer versions were intentional changes of the KJV (this could only be levelled against the NKJV) or that the KJV is the objective standard. Since it isn't, these charges are groundless.

 

[Enoch987]

You make excellent points. Looking at Ge 11:10, I have the impression that it is speaking of 2 years after the onset of the flood.

It is definitely unclear; so you may be correct.

In Genesis 10, Arapaxad is the 3rd of 5 sons. In Genesis 11, Arapaxad is born when Shem is 100 years which is 2 years after the Flood. Shem's wife may have conceived the first son on the Ark but he was not born on the Ark. 8 people are recorded as leaving the Ark. 3 births' of sons in 2 years or at least 3 births in less than 3 years post Flood is the increase of Shem's family.

 

[Enoch987]

However, the new modern versions calls Mary a young girl, In Lk 1:26-27
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
KJV

The word translated as virgin is παρθένον which means unmarried daughter.


Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
KJV

Here the word translated virgin is עַלְמָׄה , which means young woman.

This in NO WAY denies the virgin birth! The concept of mary's virginity comes not from the word which the KJV translates as virgin (IMO quite properly) but from the fact that the child is to be a sign from God.

Mary is no less a virgin when modern translations correctly translate the words refering to her as young girl. She was indeed a young girl (probably 12 years old) as well as being a virgin.

Would you consider that Mary was also never ceremonially unclean because she had not completed her first female cycle. She conceived during her first cycle as did the prophetess that Isaiah went into in Isaiah 8.

 

[Nehemiah6]

"Changes" from what? For the umpteenth time, the KJV (or KJB if you prefer) is not the standard against which all others are measured.

Here's another Christian fighting tooth and nail for the modern perversions. Since the King James Bible was THE ENGLISH BIBLE for over 300 years, and recognized as the Word of God by conservative Christians and scholars (with all conservative Bible commentaries based upon the KJB) that should be sufficient for anyone to understand that it is indeed THE STANDARD for the English-speaking world. Furthermore the traditional Greek Received Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text represent the MAJORITY of extant manuscripts, and that is further confirmation that the KJB (which is based upon these texts) is the true English Bible.

 

[Dino246]

Here's another Christian fighting tooth and nail for the modern perversions. Since the King James Bible was THE ENGLISH BIBLE for over 300 years, and recognized as the Word of God by conservative Christians and scholars (with all conservative Bible commentaries based upon the KJB) that should be sufficient for anyone to understand that it is indeed THE STANDARD for the English-speaking world. Furthermore the traditional Greek Received Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text represent the MAJORITY of extant manuscripts, and that is further confirmation that the KJB (which is based upon these texts) is the true English Bible.

Your comment, "here's another Christian fighting tooth and nail for the modern perversions" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, quite unworthy of you, and laughably inaccurate. At least you have the grace to call me a Christian (as I do you).

Other than its translational weaknesses, errors, and archaic language, I have no major beef with the KJV, though I don't choose it to read regularly. I just don't put it on a pedestal.

There is a vast gulf of difference between the KJV being the standard English Bible for over 300 years and it being the standard of accuracy and perfection of translation. Basically, by equating the two, you're employing the fallacy of equivocation. I have no objection to the first sense, and every objection to the second. As I don't accept it as the standard, I don't accept arguments based on that view.

 

[MarcR]

Would you consider that Mary was also never ceremonially unclean because she had not completed her first female cycle. She conceived during her first cycle as did the prophetess that Isaiah went into in Isaiah 8.

Quite likely