Which Bible?

[trofimus]

You can find the love of God and the Gospel in all Bibles, but by changing one word you can change a whole doctrine.
This is what has happened throughout history, people have made small changes to make the bible fit their doctrine.
For example those that do not believe that Jesus is God, change the verses or put notes near them that lower Jesus.
People that translated the bible had their set belief and that influenced their translation. So what is truth? If you search you shall find. Research it when in doubt.

I want to list the beliefs of the two professors who were the driving force in translating a Bible. By knowing their beliefs, you will gain needed knowledge as to why the Revised Version of 1881 was produced.
The best way to gain a perspective as to what Hort and Westcott believed is to read direct quotations from them.


“Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.
( Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 430)


“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history---I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did---yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”
(Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2, P.69)


“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and results.
(Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 81 - This was a letter written to Westcott on October 17, 1865.)


“No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ’s glorified humanity with place; ‘heaven is a state and not a place.’”
(Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2 Page 49)


“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”
(Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, Pages 414-416)


If this is just a few of the things that Westcott and Hort believed and they are the one’s that translated the modern version I’d be asking myself if they had any part in the version I’m reading.

Modern translations are mostly based on Nestle Aland or UBS editions, I think.
Old testament mostly on massoretic texts.

You can find translations based on Septuaginta and Textus receptus, but these are more difficult to find/obtain.

 

[John146]

This is a fallacy. It assumes that the words were correct in the KJV. Since you are unable to prove that (and have actually been proven wrong several times on this site), your fallacy is exposed. However, you continually use this argument. Please, for the sake of your own credibility, learn from your mistakes, and stop using falsified arguments.

Please show me, not by opinion, where the KJV is in error. Not some poor man's spider/lizard argument that's been debunked. Please show me an error.

 

[trofimus]

Please show me, not by opinion, where the KJV is in error. Not some poor man's spider/lizard argument that's been debunked. Please show me an error.

1.
"The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two" (Nehemiah 7:17).

"The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two" (Ezra 2:12).

--------

2.
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred,
threescore and fifteen (75) souls" (Acts 7:14).

And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls:
all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (70)"
(Genesis 46:26-27).

--------

3.
King James Bible uses the word "candle" (16 times) and "brass" (126 times) when neither were actually in existence in Bible times.
"Candle" should be translated "lamp or light" and "brass" should be translated as "bronze.

--------

4.
Furthermore, the modern KJV edition that you read from is probably not the 1611.
It's probably the Blayney edition of 1769.
There are more than 100,000 changes between these editions.

The 1611 edition of the KJV underwent various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769.

a) Which edition of the KJV is perfect?

b) The Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version. Do you have it too?

c) If the 1611 KJV was infallible, and the KJV we have today is infallible, how could there
be differences?

 

[John146]

fredoheaven: I am not sure what you are trying to do, but every your respond to Angela53510 misses the point, totally.

1. Yes, she did not list aramaic. But the point was that was not written in English.

2. It was inspired in the time of writing, translations or copying of manuscripts were not / are not inspired. That does not change the inspiration of original text.

2. English of the 17th century is not some kind of God´s language so we dont have to adjust.

3. Your comparison of language change with the events in Genesis is ridiculous.

The writing was not inspired but the words spoken by God. God spoke the originals and man preserved the word of God by writing it down. That's preservation. When Paul wrote Romans, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As he wrote, he was preserving what the Holy Spirit was saying. Words are very important to our Lord. He wanted to make sure we had the correct words not just thought.

 

[trofimus]

The writing was not inspired but the words spoken by God. God spoke the originals and man preserved the word of God by writing it down. That's preservation. When Paul wrote Romans, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As he wrote, he was preserving what the Holy Spirit was saying. Words are very important to our Lord. He wanted to make sure we had the correct words not just thought.

I said "in the time of writing", not "writing" in the meaning of activity like some automatic writing spiritists are doing.

Again, the point is, that the translations and copying of originals were not inspired so thats why they contain errors.

 

[TMS]

Since the original books of the Bible do not exist any more, it becomes necessary to translate the Bible from copies of the original. There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek content that still exist. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly. Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand (5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus. Since 99.9% of these manuscripts agree, we can be comforted knowing that God has preserved His Word among us. You could say that “Over five thousand witnesses agree, this New Testament is God’s holy Word”.

But what about the other .1%??? These are commonly called the MINORITY TEXTS, but they are also known to many as the corrupted manuscripts. For much unlike the 5000+, these five manuscripts are radically different. They do not even agree with each other. Their names are as follows:
Codex Vatican (B)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
Codex Alexandrian (A)
Codex Ephraemi (C)
Codex Bezae (D)

Do we listen to the 5000+ witnesses, or do we listen to the 5? Which group do you think would be more trustworthy?

So our modern Bibles today have been translated by men (Westcott and Hort) who make themselves judges. Instead of simply translating what the majority of witnesses agree to, they translate from their own fancy, the false witness of the five.
The influence of their methods blackens and corrupts every modern translation of the Bible available (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation). Readers of these new Bibles are quite unaware that they are reading the translation of a corrupt text. Without thinking or looking deeper into the matter, they blindly assume that every Bible is the same. They assume some are just more easy to read than others. But we must remember that Bibles are translated by men, and thus corruption is possible.

The KJV is a straight translation from the Majority text. The NIV (and others) is taken from the five Minority texts, which do not agree. We don't even know what part of which text Westcott and Hort used and where! The consensus however is they favored the Aleph and B text more than the others.

 

[trofimus]

Since 99.9% of these manuscripts agree, we can be comforted knowing that God has preserved His Word among us. You could say that “Over five thousand witnesses agree, this New Testament is God’s holy Word”.

What do you mean by "agree"? There are no two manusripts that are identical. Every manuscript have some error in it.
So by "agree" you can mean only "are from the same text family".

Textus receptus, based on this text family, is also a critical text, composed from these manuscripts and has several editions with thousands of changes.
Majority Byzantine Text, based on this family, differs from TR, too.

Do we listen to the 5000+ witnesses, or do we listen to the 5? Which group do you think would be more trustworthy?

You apparently have no idea what assumption is the minority text based on. The situation is, that we have several oldest manuscripts and they differ from the majority of manuscripts, that are of later date.

So the question is not "5 vs 5000", but rather "5 from 4th century of 5000 from the middle ages".

So our conclusion depends on what we think is more important. Number or date? This is the dilema, not the one you try to post.

Readers of these new Bibles are quite unaware that they are reading the translation of a corrupt text.

And by "corrupt" you mean mainly the order in sentences or titles. Yes, about 4 or 5 verses can lead to another conclusion, but nothing that changes any Christian teaching.

The KJV is a straight translation from the Majority text.

Yes. All reformation Bible translations are. But that does not mean KJV is perfect or that the Luther Bibel is perfect.

 

[WarriorForChrist]

Going back and forth accusing each other you and Warror for Christ. Then Warrior for Christ putting you on the ignore list if he wasn't just joking. Please calm down.

Lol not Christian like? It is an option on this forum to ignore people. Has nothing to do with being Christian like.

 

[KenAllan]

I use many different Bibles. I use the NASB, NKJB, ESV, these Bibles are the ones i use all the time.

 

[TemporaryCircumstances]

Hope this comes out clear enough to read

 

[Demi777]

Nope doesnt work sis

Hope this comes out clear enough to read

 

[TemporaryCircumstances]

Nope doesnt work sis

Darn oh well

 

[posthuman]

Darn oh well

is this better?




i can read it, but i know God gave me exceptionally good eyesight

((i put it in photoshop & adjusted contrast, rotated the pic, and made it a bit larger))

 

[TemporaryCircumstances]

is this better?

View attachment 155812


i can read it, but i know God gave me exceptionally good eyesight

Looks good to me,
Thanks!
I found this poster at Barnes and Noble (aka my second home lol)

 

[posthuman]

here's another one



maybe easier to read with bigger image in the link

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/35/89/3b358975ea659cf4bad59e7927e82de8.jpg

 

[hornetguy]

is this better?

View attachment 155812


i can read it, but i know God gave me exceptionally good eyesight

((i put it in photoshop & adjusted contrast, rotated the pic, and made it a bit larger))

so..... would this be a majority modification, or a minority?

Is it still the pure words that TC posted?

 

[TemporaryCircumstances]

so..... would this be a majority modification, or a minority?

Is it still the pure words that TC posted?

Lol yes none of the words changed

 

[wwjd_kilden]

Ilka Scriptur is inspired bi God and yuissfu for teachin truith, redarguein error, correckin fauts, an sculin men in richteousness

2. Tim 3:16

(from The New Testament in Scots)

 

[John146]

Since the original books of the Bible do not exist any more, it becomes necessary to translate the Bible from copies of the original. There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek content that still exist. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly. Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand (5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus. Since 99.9% of these manuscripts agree, we can be comforted knowing that God has preserved His Word among us. You could say that “Over five thousand witnesses agree, this New Testament is God’s holy Word”.

But what about the other .1%??? These are commonly called the MINORITY TEXTS, but they are also known to many as the corrupted manuscripts. For much unlike the 5000+, these five manuscripts are radically different. They do not even agree with each other. Their names are as follows:
Codex Vatican (B)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
Codex Alexandrian (A)
Codex Ephraemi (C)
Codex Bezae (D)

Do we listen to the 5000+ witnesses, or do we listen to the 5? Which group do you think would be more trustworthy?

So our modern Bibles today have been translated by men (Westcott and Hort) who make themselves judges. Instead of simply translating what the majority of witnesses agree to, they translate from their own fancy, the false witness of the five.
The influence of their methods blackens and corrupts every modern translation of the Bible available (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation). Readers of these new Bibles are quite unaware that they are reading the translation of a corrupt text. Without thinking or looking deeper into the matter, they blindly assume that every Bible is the same. They assume some are just more easy to read than others. But we must remember that Bibles are translated by men, and thus corruption is possible.

The KJV is a straight translation from the Majority text. The NIV (and others) is taken from the five Minority texts, which do not agree. We don't even know what part of which text Westcott and Hort used and where! The consensus however is they favored the Aleph and B text more than the others.

Well said, thank you TMS

 

[John146]

You apparently have no idea what assumption is the minority text based on. The situation is, that we have several oldest manuscripts and they differ from the majority of manuscripts, that are of later date.

So the question is not "5 vs 5000", but rather "5 from 4th century of 5000 from the middle ages".

Do you understand why these older manuscripts survived? It's because no one used them. They were understood to contain errors so they were put on a shelf to collect dust. If they were used, they wouldn't have survived through the ages, being passed back and forth. Older certainly does not mean better.