Psalm 151 Inspired or not?

[charisenexcelcis]

So are you saying it doesnt work with different Bible translations? Then why did he bother comparing them?

Because he had another agenda.
My argument for modern translations is not a criticism of the KJV. The KJV is not inaccurate, but our language has changed. Just as you would not use a French Bible to teach or preach to English speakers, you also wouldn't use a transalation whose language is archaic to the point of misunderstanding. To illustrate the point I have some simple word definition tests that I use to show how difficult it is to understand the language of the KJV. If you are interested.....

 

[MyBagsRPacked]

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=psalms+151-151&version=nrsvae

This psalm is ascribed to David as his own composition (though it is outside the number*), after he had fought in single combat with Goliath.
1I was small among my brothers,
and the youngest in my father’s house;
I tended my father’s sheep.


2My hands made a harp;
my fingers fashioned a lyre.


3And who will tell my Lord?
The Lord himself; it is he who hears.*


4It was he who sent his messenger*
and took me from my father’s sheep,
and anointed me with his anointing-oil.


5My brothers were handsome and tall,
but the Lord was not pleased with them.


6I went out to meet the Philistine,*
and he cursed me by his idols.


7But I drew his own sword;
I beheaded him, and took away disgrace from the people of Israel.

Even the Tora has no record of this....is it even relevant

 

[Lifelike]

Because he had another agenda.
My argument for modern translations is not a criticism of the KJV. The KJV is not inaccurate, but our language has changed. Just as you would not use a French Bible to teach or preach to English speakers, you also wouldn't use a transalation whose language is archaic to the point of misunderstanding. To illustrate the point I have some simple word definition tests that I use to show how difficult it is to understand the language of the KJV. If you are interested.....

As ive said previously, I agree totally with the need fpr the KJV to be updated, perfected and made easier to understand - in terms of language. Thats not the issue. Im defending the source of the KJV opposed to the source of many modern translations - which are corrupted, agnostic texts. My issue is with manuscripts out of egypt that have removed anything that teaches the deity of Jesus Christ, and the power of His blood. I think any true christian would have a problem with this - due to the fact that believing these thing makes you a true christian. Also just to clarify Im not against using other modern translations to be used along side the translations that come from the Majority Text to enable a fuller grasp of scripture, but we need to aware - as Christians - of this attack of the enemy againt the Word of God, and the deity of Christ. I also research the Hebrew and Greek when studying the word as English in its self is less colourful and descriptive that the Hebrew and Greek, and the KJV is not in anyway perfect translation of the Word. Hope this makes my stand clear. Thanks.

 

[Browncoat]

Even the Tora has no record of this....is it even relevant

No record of the verse, or the concepts? Because the Tanakh ("old testament") does indeed address those concepts.

 

[MyBagsRPacked]

No record of the verse, or the concepts? Because the Tanakh ("old testament") does indeed address those concepts.

No record of the verse. I only say this because there are so many other verses that deserve our attention...

 

[Browncoat]

No record of the verse. I only say this because there are so many other verses that deserve our attention...

Ah, most definitely

But if it truly is the Word of G-d, it too would deserve our attention equally as the others

 

[charisenexcelcis]

As ive said previously, I agree totally with the need fpr the KJV to be updated, perfected and made easier to understand - in terms of language. Thats not the issue. Im defending the source of the KJV opposed to the source of many modern translations - which are corrupted, agnostic texts. My issue is with manuscripts out of egypt that have removed anything that teaches the deity of Jesus Christ, and the power of His blood. I think any true christian would have a problem with this - due to the fact that believing these thing makes you a true christian. Also just to clarify Im not against using other modern translations to be used along side the translations that come from the Majority Text to enable a fuller grasp of scripture, but we need to aware - as Christians - of this attack of the enemy againt the Word of God, and the deity of Christ. I also research the Hebrew and Greek when studying the word as English in its self is less colourful and descriptive that the Hebrew and Greek, and the KJV is not in anyway perfect translation of the Word. Hope this makes my stand clear. Thanks.

So, how about a comparison of Nestle text and Textus Recepticus. I'll transcribe and you tell me which is which and we'll discuss the significance of the differences. we can take turns choosing the passage. I'll start with John 3:16

houto gar egapesen ho theos ton kosmon oste ton huion autou ton monogene edoken hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all' eche dzoan aionion

houtos gar egapesen ho theos ton kosmon oste ton huion ton monogene edoken hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all' eche dzoan aionion
So, what do you think? (And what verse do you choose next.)

 

[Lifelike]

So, how about a comparison of Nestle text and Textus Recepticus. I'll transcribe and you tell me which is which and we'll discuss the significance of the differences. we can take turns choosing the passage. I'll start with John 3:16

houto gar egapesen ho theos ton kosmon oste ton huion autou ton monogene edoken hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all' eche dzoan aionion

houtos gar egapesen ho theos ton kosmon oste ton huion ton monogene edoken hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all' eche dzoan aionion
So, what do you think? (And what verse do you choose next.)

Won't waste my time, it's based on corrupt texts and is very similar to westcott and horts gnostic perversion. Not of God

Les Garrett, well known authority on Bible versions, says,
"In this New Greek Text, we have a version of the New Testament that is considerably different from the New Testament (Majority Text) used for almost 1900 years. This NEW GREEK TEXT removes INSPIRED words: well over 620 words spoken by Jesus; the Name of Jesus, 87 times; Christ, 52 times; Lord, 39 times; and references to God, 48 times. Plus it removes large parts of well over 900 verses in the New Testament. If that is not enough, it removes over 17 whole verses (Acts 8:37 example). It gets worse. In well over 40 places, references to the Deity of Jesus are removed. The New Testament is changed in over 8,000 places. (Gal. 1:7... there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.) (Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book....). Most of the modern versions of the Bible are based upon this NEW GREEK TEXT of Westcott and Hort. For example, The New American Standard, The New International Version, etc., etc.".

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Won't waste my time, it's based on corrupt texts and is very similar to westcott and horts gnostic perversion. Not of God

Les Garrett, well known authority on Bible versions, says,
"In this New Greek Text, we have a version of the New Testament that is considerably different from the New Testament (Majority Text) used for almost 1900 years. This NEW GREEK TEXT removes INSPIRED words: well over 620 words spoken by Jesus; the Name of Jesus, 87 times; Christ, 52 times; Lord, 39 times; and references to God, 48 times. Plus it removes large parts of well over 900 verses in the New Testament. If that is not enough, it removes over 17 whole verses (Acts 8:37 example). It gets worse. In well over 40 places, references to the Deity of Jesus are removed. The New Testament is changed in over 8,000 places. (Gal. 1:7... there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.) (Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book....). Most of the modern versions of the Bible are based upon this NEW GREEK TEXT of Westcott and Hort. For example, The New American Standard, The New International Version, etc., etc.".

Do you know that? Do you know what words are "removed". And do you think that it is less of a problem to add as to subtract? Can you name a single doctrine that is not supported by the Nestle text? As for Westcott and Hort, there methodology was abandoned a long time ago. Les Garrett makes a living by preaching this kind of fear. And are you truly qualified to use the language of the KJV? Are you willing to take the test? Let's say twenty verses from scripture and all I ask is that you define one word in each one. Would you be willing to try?

 

[Lifelike]

Do you know that? Do you know what words are "removed". And do you think that it is less of a problem to add as to subtract? Can you name a single doctrine that is not supported by the Nestle text? As for Westcott and Hort, there methodology was abandoned a long time ago. Les Garrett makes a living by preaching this kind of fear. And are you truly qualified to use the language of the KJV? Are you willing to take the test? Let's say twenty verses from scripture and all I ask is that you define one word in each one. Would you be willing to try?

Les Garrett is a close friend of the ministry I belong to, and a trusted man of God and I know him personally to be one of the most thorough and unbiased researchers and bible teaches on the planet. Who are u? I'm not going off my opinion I'm going off the facts, present to me the factual history on the reliabilty of the manuscripts u support and I'll be more than happy to look at it, until then I'm not really interested.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Les Garrett is a close friend of the ministry I belong to, and a trusted man of God and I know him personally to be one of the most thorough and unbiased researchers and bible teaches on the planet. Who are u? I'm not going off my opinion I'm going off the facts, present to me the factual history on the reliabilty of the manuscripts u support and I'll be more than happy to look at it, until then I'm not really interested.

Very good. I shall do that. In the meantime, are you interested in taking a test on the KJV Bible? I'll give you the two most basic questions first: What is the difference between you and thou? What is the difference between receive and receiveth?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Regarding Les Garrett, even close trusted friends can be wrong. In the first paragraph of his introduction, I found a glaring inaccuracy. I am now researching the Bible College where he taught.

 

[Lifelike]

Regarding Les Garrett, even close trusted friends can be wrong. In the first paragraph of his introduction, I found a glaring inaccuracy. I am now researching the Bible College where he taught.

Haha you would be better off researching the source of your trusted manuscripts... and maybe take a deeper look at westcott and hort and their links and involvement i the occult?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Haha you would be better off researching the source of your trusted manuscripts... and maybe take a deeper look at westcott and hort and their links and involvement i the occult?

It appears that the college that he taught at no longer exists. How about my first two questions. Can you answer them? This is the real question: why don't those who criticize the texts used in the KJV simply translate a modern translation out of the textus recepticus? After all, even the original translators suggested that the process continue.
As for Westcott and Horton, the modern translations actually follow a method closer to the formula of the textus recepticus than to them. Have you ever even seen the work of W&H? No, because it fell out of use 80 years ago. I will post lesson number one on NT manuscripts in a few day. (I do have a life.)

 

[Browncoat]

Haha you would be better off researching the source of your trusted manuscripts... and maybe take a deeper look at westcott and hort and their links and involvement i the occult?

Did you know that King James, who authorized the translation of the KJV, was a bisexual who had many male lovers?

If you do some research, you'll find the same is true for a few of the actual translators, too.

My point is not to say that the KJV is bad because of the lifestyles of its translators. My point is that it is a sad, sad time when we call ANY form of G-d's Word anything less than holy, because not a single translation out there is perfect.

 

[Lifelike]

Do you know that? Do you know what words are "removed". And do you think that it is less of a problem to add as to subtract? Can you name a single doctrine that is not supported by the Nestle text? As for Westcott and Hort, there methodology was abandoned a long time ago. Les Garrett makes a living by preaching this kind of fear. And are you truly qualified to use the language of the KJV? Are you willing to take the test? Let's say twenty verses from scripture and all I ask is that you define one word in each one. Would you be willing to try?

Yes i do know that, i have seen the scriptures that are removed, and i believe that it is just as bad to add to the word as it is to subtract. See rev ending chapter. The nestle text and the westcott and hort which is based on the alexandrian text remove many many mannnny words/ sentences and passages that are in opposition to there beliefs that jesus was not God. They were agnostics (the alexandrians) and altered scripture to fit these beliefs. Thats why Westcott and Hort chose these text to use in their translations because they too held to the same beliefs. And the textus receptus has waaaaay more supporting texts that are indentical to it. I think people just assume because the alexandrian text is older that it must be more accurate, that is flawed reasoning...
Les garrett travels the world faithfully serving Christ and Truth and he is very genuine and without alterior motives, and he should make a living serving God, thats called honor. Im not sure i know what you mean by am I qualified to use KJV language, i understand it fine, apart from the odd word here and there that i dont recognise but context usually helps to identify its meaning and if im studying seriously i will look it up. Im not really interested in taking your tests, i dont see how it will benifit either of us.
And to respond to your next post, Les Garetts bible school is no longer in operation because he travels the world extensively i would assume. Its not like it was a university with thousands of staff that he just over saw, it was a bible school - and was probably very fruitful for the years it was in operation.

 

[Lifelike]

Did you know that King James, who authorized the translation of the KJV, was a bisexual who had many male lovers?

If you do some research, you'll find the same is true for a few of the actual translators, too.

My point is not to say that the KJV is bad because of the lifestyles of its translators. My point is that it is a sad, sad time when we call ANY form of G-d's Word anything less than holy, because not a single translation out there is perfect.

If a satanist gets hold of the scriptures and hacks away at them and adds a whole lot of satanic doctrine i would probably steer clear of it. It would still contain truth and the majoroty would be the Word of God but i would definately look to a more reliable translation. Its amazing how far people can get of track and into delusion with even the smallest weird doctrine.

I trust the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts to be the preserved Word of God, a little look at history shows that the alexandrian texts were corrupted and are not reliable, and its proof enough to me that the scripture that is missing from those text just happen to fit the worldview of the people that were handling them. We have no right to alter any text that another person has produced but need to be true to that text and not use our own opinion to flavour or adjust them to fit our views - we have no right. If we do so then it can no longer be trusted as authenticaly from its source and should be discarded.

 

[phil36]

I think that this debate will go on fro a while yet. The KJV has stood by many, during its 400 year history (anniversary next year), personally I do not use it. I have 2 kjv and Nkj, My own personal reason is that it is written in a language that I do not know. I am 37, and even in my days at school english language was not that of the KJV.

There is nothing wrong with using it, but to say new transaltions are wrong to me sounds like the arguments of those against english versions in the first place used. shakespearian language is not a language used now.

Concerning the textual arguments, KJV is lagging behind. also, the KJV itself has had went through many uplifts and infact it most people who read the KJV are not reading the 1611 version a but a later revision.

anyhow, if you read the king Jmaes fine, if you read a modern translation fine. However, one note, translations like the 'message' are more like popular level samll commentaries rather than a good translation of the original texts.

I personally believe that a modern translation is better for people to understand God's word as it is inthe language that they know, I don't think God wants His people to not be able to understand His word.

kind regards

Phil

 

[Browncoat]

If a satanist gets hold of the scriptures and hacks away at them and adds a whole lot of satanic doctrine i would probably steer clear of it. It would still contain truth and the majoroty would be the Word of God but i would definately look to a more reliable translation. Its amazing how far people can get of track and into delusion with even the smallest weird doctrine.

What translations fit under this?

 

[Crazy4GODword]

yeah i am not seeing Psalms 151..........in the bible...so NO or Maybe