Why don't we have a perfect bible today?
- Thread starter KJV1611
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It was work of Tyndale that was persecuted, along with all the other early protestant translators. the 1500s saw the printing revolution, which of course ment that Bibles could now be mass produced and that is exactly what happened. Every language across Europe had a Bible translated and printed. Greek was used because it was not a dead language and the language of the learned and educated people.
One of the ridiculous comments I read from King James Onlyists is that the only Bibles in existance are these blasted Latin ones and a few other Greek and Hebrew. REally? NO I do not think so.
You see, Gods word, ie the Bible was not just confined to Latin or Greek. For example we know of a 4th century translation of the Bible in Gothic, which was translated by bishop Ulfila, a half Greek half Goth who studied in Rome. Being Greek and therefore being fluent in Greek, and being Goth, he was able to make a perfect translation of the Bible, he even created the Gothic alphabet for the purpose. a fragment from 6th century copy, the Codex Argenteus still exists today.
We know next to nothing about our past, but we do know that many languages had thier own translations, the Wessex Bible for example, that was West Saxon language, the Czech had their translation in the 14th Century, so did the English with Wycliffe. How many more of the earliest translations have been lost to time?
It is clear that there were plenty of Bibles and Gospels in dozens of languages from time of Christ, even more amazing when you tink that they all had to be hand written, that is until the aforementioned printing press became common place. From the early 16th Century and into the 17th, the we see a huge surge and demand for translations of the Bible in every language across Europe, we know this is the case because we still have evidence of these Bibles, in that copies survived, which is rare.
The Hungarians had the Hussite Bible, dating back to early 1400's, Sweeden had the Bible in thier own language, Gustav Vasa in 1534, My name sake, Agricola translated the Bible from Greek to Finnish in 1548. The Dutch government commissioned thier own Bible the Statenvertaling in 1618, there was even a translation into Welsh in the 1500s.
So you can see every nation and every language had its own translation of the bible, The Word of God has always been available in all languages, we must remember that. The German bibles are prolific, if anything they can proberbly claim that thier Bible is the perfect preserved final authoritative version, not the King James.
Therefore, you can see that the King James Bible is a relative late comer and is just one of dozens of languages commissioned by the respective authorities and governments from the 1500s. So what makes the King James so special to the Cult of King James Only?
One of the ridiculous comments I read from King James Onlyists is that the only Bibles in existance are these blasted Latin ones and a few other Greek and Hebrew. REally? NO I do not think so.
You see, Gods word, ie the Bible was not just confined to Latin or Greek. For example we know of a 4th century translation of the Bible in Gothic, which was translated by bishop Ulfila, a half Greek half Goth who studied in Rome. Being Greek and therefore being fluent in Greek, and being Goth, he was able to make a perfect translation of the Bible, he even created the Gothic alphabet for the purpose. a fragment from 6th century copy, the Codex Argenteus still exists today.
We know next to nothing about our past, but we do know that many languages had thier own translations, the Wessex Bible for example, that was West Saxon language, the Czech had their translation in the 14th Century, so did the English with Wycliffe. How many more of the earliest translations have been lost to time?
It is clear that there were plenty of Bibles and Gospels in dozens of languages from time of Christ, even more amazing when you tink that they all had to be hand written, that is until the aforementioned printing press became common place. From the early 16th Century and into the 17th, the we see a huge surge and demand for translations of the Bible in every language across Europe, we know this is the case because we still have evidence of these Bibles, in that copies survived, which is rare.
The Hungarians had the Hussite Bible, dating back to early 1400's, Sweeden had the Bible in thier own language, Gustav Vasa in 1534, My name sake, Agricola translated the Bible from Greek to Finnish in 1548. The Dutch government commissioned thier own Bible the Statenvertaling in 1618, there was even a translation into Welsh in the 1500s.
So you can see every nation and every language had its own translation of the bible, The Word of God has always been available in all languages, we must remember that. The German bibles are prolific, if anything they can proberbly claim that thier Bible is the perfect preserved final authoritative version, not the King James.
Therefore, you can see that the King James Bible is a relative late comer and is just one of dozens of languages commissioned by the respective authorities and governments from the 1500s. So what makes the King James so special to the Cult of King James Only?
Just so that this doesn't go through to the keeper and be forgotten, this is utter and complete garbage. I like to think you would know better, Jason, after all the grief you've given everyone about historical and observable evidences.
First, this video should put this to rest.
[video=youtube;EeIZ7lLl9_8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeIZ7lLl9_8[/video]
If not, this article written by James White (who was there) will.
Lastly, if this were a judgement from God (which it isn't), God's gotten soft. Preventing people from speaking only long enough to cough and clear it up is a far cry from Zechariah. It's nothing like a neon sign saying "Believe in Jesus", mostly because it's not even clear its from God. At least God TOLD Zechariah and Paul what was happening and what to do when he deafened/blinded them. He judges with a purpose, and doesn't require people to speculate about his intentions.
First, this video should put this to rest.
[video=youtube;EeIZ7lLl9_8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeIZ7lLl9_8[/video]
If not, this article written by James White (who was there) will.
Lastly, if this were a judgement from God (which it isn't), God's gotten soft. Preventing people from speaking only long enough to cough and clear it up is a far cry from Zechariah. It's nothing like a neon sign saying "Believe in Jesus", mostly because it's not even clear its from God. At least God TOLD Zechariah and Paul what was happening and what to do when he deafened/blinded them. He judges with a purpose, and doesn't require people to speculate about his intentions.
It's called "video editing" and lying.
I mean, what is absolutely silly is I can actually get the back issue of Time Magazine for July 1972 that has the quote that they are saying never happened. So is like Time Magazine lying now? Also, I don't trust people who lie about God's Word. I keep hearing Modern Translation folks say all translations essentially say the same thing. But that's just not true. All a person has to do is a side by side comparison. I have already pointed out the differences between the KJV and Modern Translations. Revelation 13:1. KJV says "I" (as in reference to John) is standing on the seashore. Many Modern translations have the "dragon" standing on the seashore. Two different meanings. Two different Bibles. They don't essentially say the same thing. One has something good in it. The other has something bad in it. Not the same Bibles.
I mean, what is absolutely silly is I can actually get the back issue of Time Magazine for July 1972 that has the quote that they are saying never happened. So is like Time Magazine lying now? Also, I don't trust people who lie about God's Word. I keep hearing Modern Translation folks say all translations essentially say the same thing. But that's just not true. All a person has to do is a side by side comparison. I have already pointed out the differences between the KJV and Modern Translations. Revelation 13:1. KJV says "I" (as in reference to John) is standing on the seashore. Many Modern translations have the "dragon" standing on the seashore. Two different meanings. Two different Bibles. They don't essentially say the same thing. One has something good in it. The other has something bad in it. Not the same Bibles.
Modern Translationists say they believe the Bible. But technically they don't believe THE Bible, a perfect Bible - THE pure Bible - existing today, so they only believe and read A Bible version, which is THE Bible tainted with lies and mistakes so as a whole: a lie. And since there is no perfect Bible they can only correct the lie by comparing one lie (one faulty version) with another lie (another faulty version) or choose verses from both and create their own version on no absolute basis and final standard, except human intellect.
However, truth does not have versions, though; But it can be translated.
Source:
REQ.: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
However, truth does not have versions, though; But it can be translated.
Source:
REQ.: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
I fear you're conflating two different things, Kenneth Taylor and this panel on Ankerberg. The loss of voice by Don on Ankerberg's program was momentary (as evidenced by the video, a second take shot immediately after). Are we to conclude every time someone suffers a cold, or has phlegm in their throat, that it is punishment from God for some otherwise unrelated matter? Certainly, it didn't prevent him (or anyone else in the room, for that matter, saying what they said. And, of course, there is no voice from the heavens, no sign that this is divine punishment, which is the norm in Scripture for this kind of thing.
As for Taylor, the same applies. It did not stop him producing the Living Bible, and indeed his voice basically returned before he even finished. It should also be obvious that losing ones voice does nothing to stop them completing a written work. I'm happy to accept the Times article exists, but should be tempered by this article (several months earlier) which seems to clarify the psychologist's comment - it was the idea of misrepresenting God, rather than a fear of the work itself, that they put it down to. Obviously, it makes no sense for Taylor to continue the work if he didn't believe in it. Of course, that also has nothing to do with any other translation.
I'm interested in what you make of the comment in that video that, if we're applying Gail Riplinger's logic consistently, why you don't think the death of the Puritan scholar John Reynolds during the work on the KJV doesn't suggest anything about the KJV?
Sam Gipp (of all people) is happy to let the matter slide at the end of this video, so I find it bizarre that you have made this argument in multiple threads.
The rest of your post has been repeatedly dealt with by different people in different threads, and it is simply a waste of time doing so again.
As for Taylor, the same applies. It did not stop him producing the Living Bible, and indeed his voice basically returned before he even finished. It should also be obvious that losing ones voice does nothing to stop them completing a written work. I'm happy to accept the Times article exists, but should be tempered by this article (several months earlier) which seems to clarify the psychologist's comment - it was the idea of misrepresenting God, rather than a fear of the work itself, that they put it down to. Obviously, it makes no sense for Taylor to continue the work if he didn't believe in it. Of course, that also has nothing to do with any other translation.
I'm interested in what you make of the comment in that video that, if we're applying Gail Riplinger's logic consistently, why you don't think the death of the Puritan scholar John Reynolds during the work on the KJV doesn't suggest anything about the KJV?
Sam Gipp (of all people) is happy to let the matter slide at the end of this video, so I find it bizarre that you have made this argument in multiple threads.
The rest of your post has been repeatedly dealt with by different people in different threads, and it is simply a waste of time doing so again.
So where is this video of people being silenced? IF it was such a divine intervention then it should be readily available, not having to call someone in America to pay for it, even if I did do that, I doubt there would be anything conclusive anyway. How would loosing voice stop people from the work anyway? Again more flawed logic and reasoning from the cult of King James Only.
I am awaiting a response to my previous post, which I will summarise here.
There is plenty of evidence that just about every nation in Europe had a Bible or at least the Gospels translated into thier own language right from the start of the Christian church. With the printing press revolution around 1500, came a prolific printing of Bibles across Europe in dozens of languages. The King James Bible was a relative late comer to the party and was just one of many. So why is it this version is singled out as being special?
I am awaiting a response to my previous post, which I will summarise here.
There is plenty of evidence that just about every nation in Europe had a Bible or at least the Gospels translated into thier own language right from the start of the Christian church. With the printing press revolution around 1500, came a prolific printing of Bibles across Europe in dozens of languages. The King James Bible was a relative late comer to the party and was just one of many. So why is it this version is singled out as being special?
Hooray for the Geneva Bible!
Erasmus didn't have a manuscript of Rev in Greek which was complete. So, he had to use the Latin to generate his Greek text (I think just a few verses) for his first edition.
Well, I think that would be like saying that Italian is Latin, & thus Latin is not dead. But in fact Latin is not dead since they continue to produce books in Latin. I don't know how much they mutter Latin in the Vatican today. The modern Demotic "Greek" is really a different language, it has evolved so much and been modified so much out of the Koine over the centuries. I studied modern Demotic Greek, but I haven't studied Katharevousa which I am told is more like koine than the demotic is.
Erasmus didn't have a manuscript of Rev in Greek which was complete. So, he had to use the Latin to generate his Greek text (I think just a few verses) for his first edition.
Well, I think that would be like saying that Italian is Latin, & thus Latin is not dead. But in fact Latin is not dead since they continue to produce books in Latin. I don't know how much they mutter Latin in the Vatican today. The modern Demotic "Greek" is really a different language, it has evolved so much and been modified so much out of the Koine over the centuries. I studied modern Demotic Greek, but I haven't studied Katharevousa which I am told is more like koine than the demotic is.
S
What "other valid versions" are there for the English speaking people's of the world, given to the whole world in 1611?t Do you mean the previous 6 purified versions leading up to Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, and the KJB AV 1611?
If so, you are correct!
If not,
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
If so, you are correct!
If not,
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
S
"Therefore, you can see that the King James Bible is a relative late comer and is just one of dozens of languages commissioned by the respective authorities and governments from the 1500s. So what makes the King James so special to the Cult of King James Only?"[/QUOTE]
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Yea let God be true but Everyman a liar, As It Is Written......
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Yea let God be true but Everyman a liar, As It Is Written......
Even though the Greek word is...
G3957
πάσχα
pascha
pas'-khah
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): - Easter, Passover.
Total KJV occurrences: 29
The KJV is correct and the Greek manuscripts are in error. Oh, OK, I see.
G3957
πάσχα
pascha
pas'-khah
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): - Easter, Passover.
Total KJV occurrences: 29
The KJV is correct and the Greek manuscripts are in error. Oh, OK, I see.
J
does anyone remember the five sons of sceva?
what translation did they use?
i'm pretty sure, if they had access to one,
it was considerably more accurate and
without error than anything available today,
anywhere practically, at least in the usa.
but they didn't have any power to overcome the enemy, not even as much as the new believers at that time did.
what translation did they use?
i'm pretty sure, if they had access to one,
it was considerably more accurate and
without error than anything available today,
anywhere practically, at least in the usa.
but they didn't have any power to overcome the enemy, not even as much as the new believers at that time did.
P
[SUP]2 Tim. 3:16 [/SUP]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[SUP]17 [/SUP]That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
[SUP]2 Peter 1:19 [/SUP]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The originals books are the one inspired by God. So what original language they where written in, is the inspired Word of God, all others are translation. The translation are good. But the translation are by men, who the might be or might not be doing God's will.
Your friend in Christ
pug32
[SUP]17 [/SUP]That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
[SUP]2 Peter 1:19 [/SUP]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The originals books are the one inspired by God. So what original language they where written in, is the inspired Word of God, all others are translation. The translation are good. But the translation are by men, who the might be or might not be doing God's will.
Your friend in Christ
pug32
While I am not currently interested in debating this topic at this time, if you want to truly see where we are coming from, then ask God to show it to you with a pure and sincere heart and He will show it to you (Jeremiah 33:3). For remember. The Bereans were more noble because they kept an open mind and checked the Scriptures to see whether those things were so or not.
