New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)
- Thread starter Paisley_buddie
- 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.
Nestle Greek text is supplied, and labelled by the Catholic church.
KJV was created because the Catholic church, killed anyone who taught or wrote the Bible, not in Latin. Britain separated from the Catholic text and King James created the KJV.
The Catholic Douey Rheims 1610 came out just before the KJV to keep as much control as possible over the "church".
But all "new information" in new bibles, nearly all in the the Douay Rheims CATHOLIC Bible.
The 150ad Peshitta Bible, plus early 157ad Vulgate used "MAJORITY TEXT". The "minority text" was rejected by early church fathers. Because it has many alterations to its own group of texts with massive variation, but people say it's older "so it must be better", not.
KJV was created because the Catholic church, killed anyone who taught or wrote the Bible, not in Latin. Britain separated from the Catholic text and King James created the KJV.
The Catholic Douey Rheims 1610 came out just before the KJV to keep as much control as possible over the "church".
But all "new information" in new bibles, nearly all in the the Douay Rheims CATHOLIC Bible.
The 150ad Peshitta Bible, plus early 157ad Vulgate used "MAJORITY TEXT". The "minority text" was rejected by early church fathers. Because it has many alterations to its own group of texts with massive variation, but people say it's older "so it must be better", not.
they didn't tho.
have you read the 1611 translator's prefix?
they fully intended that as the years passed and scholarship improved, and language naturally changed in colloquial usage, that translating work should continue and their own work improved upon and/or revised.
they never made the same idol out of their work that some make of it today.
have you read the 1611 translator's prefix?
they fully intended that as the years passed and scholarship improved, and language naturally changed in colloquial usage, that translating work should continue and their own work improved upon and/or revised.
they never made the same idol out of their work that some make of it today.
it's *almost* the same issue as i have with things like the NLT and MSG -- though these are readily admitted to be paraphrases, without an attempt at being literal, they still are by paraphrasing instead of translating, putting a presumed interpretation and theological slant to the text. people should not consider those things on the same level as honest efforts of translation.
but the NWT is radically different, claiming to be not only a literal translation, but claiming to be "the best" -- all the while deleting and adding things without any basis in the underlying Greek or Hebrew at all, but very, very obviously altering scripture with a very, very obvious bias towards removing anything in the scripture that calls out the JW heresy.
the Bible readily refutes JW's, whether you're reading KJV, Wycliffe, or any modern translation. so they re-wrote the Bible to suit themselves. that is the NWT.
no wonder their so-called "translating" committee was meant to be anonymous - who wants to admit what they've done? but God knows, and what's known about the men that did this even now is that none of them had any credentials in either Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. not as though they needed any for the evil they were perpetrating anyhow.
((rawr rawr))
paraphrases have a similar issue but 'for the most part' don't change the message of the text, and ((again 'for the most part')) don't claim to be the verbatim Word. differences are in details, even though some of those details can lead to significant differences in theology if one doesn't compare a literal translation. with the NWT, there are radical changes specifically introducing heresy, and it pawns itself off as being the literal, verbatim Word.
i suspect some posts were removed by mods, but is it any wonder the OP of this thread was quickly banned? it's like i said, JW's tend to get run out of here post-haste. thank you, mod team
Every translation is an intepretation, even the most literal ones, the theological view of translators will make them choose the words they believe are the most suitable...Thats why mixed teams are bettern than just translators from one church, only protestants etc.
I checked my printed version of Nestlé.
I see this label only: Deutsche bibelgesellschaft (German bible society)
So, why do you lie to me?
The history of the KJV can be important for you, culturally. But is absolutely irrelevant to me, a Central European. I can just debate its translation, base texts etc, not its cultural and historical value it has for you.
Not sure what you mean. Give me some examples from Peshitta and Vulgate and Greek texts you are talking about.
I see this label only: Deutsche bibelgesellschaft (German bible society)
So, why do you lie to me?
The history of the KJV can be important for you, culturally. But is absolutely irrelevant to me, a Central European. I can just debate its translation, base texts etc, not its cultural and historical value it has for you.
Not sure what you mean. Give me some examples from Peshitta and Vulgate and Greek texts you are talking about.
Once again, you have dodged the challenges I presented instead of addressing them squarely. I made absolutely no attempt to “try and prove (sic) that we do not have access to God’s word and there is no Bible we can trust completely”. Such an idea was not even in my mind.
I made absolutely no claim regarding God’s ability to preserve His word. That is you again putting words in my mouth in a misguided attempt to defend your belief.
I made several comments regarding your post, one of which is faulty logic. “Man’s logic” as you call it, is a set of rules which frame proper and sound reasoning. They were discovered, not invented by man. Rules of logic are merely one set of tools that I use to distinguish truth from non-truth.
I made no attempt to explain away how God preserved His word. I refuted your claims of how you think that God preserved His word. There is a massive difference.
You dodged my question by reframing it in your own words. However, I’ll work with the answer you gave: “no earlier version was inspired by God if it does not match his preserved, perfect word in the KJV.” In other words, the parts that were quoted verbatim from earlier versions were “inspired Scripture”. The parts that weren’t quoted verbatim were not “inspired Scripture”. That's just silly. Go back to the 1611 Preface. Either the previous versions were God's word (aka "inspired Scripture"), or they weren't.
I'll try the question again: Prior to 1611, were the extant English Bibles God's word or not? Don’t reframe the question this time; answer it as asked.
I made absolutely no claim regarding God’s ability to preserve His word. That is you again putting words in my mouth in a misguided attempt to defend your belief.
I made several comments regarding your post, one of which is faulty logic. “Man’s logic” as you call it, is a set of rules which frame proper and sound reasoning. They were discovered, not invented by man. Rules of logic are merely one set of tools that I use to distinguish truth from non-truth.
I made no attempt to explain away how God preserved His word. I refuted your claims of how you think that God preserved His word. There is a massive difference.
You dodged my question by reframing it in your own words. However, I’ll work with the answer you gave: “no earlier version was inspired by God if it does not match his preserved, perfect word in the KJV.” In other words, the parts that were quoted verbatim from earlier versions were “inspired Scripture”. The parts that weren’t quoted verbatim were not “inspired Scripture”. That's just silly. Go back to the 1611 Preface. Either the previous versions were God's word (aka "inspired Scripture"), or they weren't.
I'll try the question again: Prior to 1611, were the extant English Bibles God's word or not? Don’t reframe the question this time; answer it as asked.
That argument is irrelevant, because unicorn means bull, I think. And meat means meal or grain apparently. So not knowing "proper" English, is not an excuse to use a version created from a different codex. Use the same texts. Just create an accurate modern royal version. Though I can't see the royal family making one.
I don't know how to copy addresses on my phone. So I'll put. King James Version Today na/UBS vatican
New testament, aren't newer versios better? First option in new testament link.
King James Version Today
Lots of points.
King James Version Today
Lots of points.
Hi Dino,
Thanks for your observation with my post but you missed one thing that the KJV is purified text of the earlier English translations except Rheims Douay, a Catholic Bible. What i said is that KJV is a pure inspired scriptures in English.
As per reasoning is concern, the Lord says: "Come let us reason together..." I bet I will let used His words instead of human reasoning. Human reasoning still fails as compared to the words of God which is much clearer. I just observed that I haven't seen you yet on your many posts exegeting God's word, using God's word, referencing God's word but rather used mostly or worked on human reasoning. It's more on logic not of faith!
If you want sources of our faith, then it first comes from the Bible.
God bless
Thanks for your observation with my post but you missed one thing that the KJV is purified text of the earlier English translations except Rheims Douay, a Catholic Bible. What i said is that KJV is a pure inspired scriptures in English.
As per reasoning is concern, the Lord says: "Come let us reason together..." I bet I will let used His words instead of human reasoning. Human reasoning still fails as compared to the words of God which is much clearer. I just observed that I haven't seen you yet on your many posts exegeting God's word, using God's word, referencing God's word but rather used mostly or worked on human reasoning. It's more on logic not of faith!
If you want sources of our faith, then it first comes from the Bible.
God bless
Again, you dodged by adding "perfect". I suspect that you really don't want to answer my question, because it reveals your inconsistency and faulty thinking.
By the dodgy responses you have provided and other posts you've made, I conclude the following: you believe that the translators of the KJV referred to previously-extant "non-bibles" in that they were not the word of God and were not inspired. You believe that these "non-bibles" were "refined and purified" and that through this (mystical!) process somehow "became" the word of God in the form of the KJV. You further believe that somehow the passages quoted verbatim from earlier "non-bibles" were not the word of God in their sources, but became the word of God in the KJV.
Wow. That's wacky.
I responded in post #210 and refuted this line of questioning. All you've done is added a third mutually-exclusive option, making it a false trichotomy.
You have some "need" to have one "word-perfect" Bible. I don't have that need, and I don't rely exclusively on any one translation. I trust that the translators of the Bibles in English were generally well-intentioned and adequately knowledgeable to do the work, and that I can fact-check any word or passage against other translations and references to see if it is a valid translation. That is relying on the scholarship of others, not of myself. I can also see that every translation has strengths and weaknesses.
Further, I know enough about translation in general that I know that one language does not translate "word-perfect" into another. Translation simply doesn't work that way. You have been told this repeatedly, but you refuse to accept it. It's fine to argue that God "can" do such, and I don't disagree with that by itself. However, I don't believe that is what happens in the actual work of translation, and I certainly don't believe it happened with the KJV.
What I see in your repeated posts is some desire to force-fit reality into your worldview, and in these two posts in particular, to try to get others to submit their beliefs to yours. Even if you get non-KJVo people to answer your question, you haven't convinced them of anything. Further, it is a really bad idea to build a belief on a foundation of flawed reasoning. Eventually one is forced to prop it up with heady insistence, bad arguments, and a stubborn unwillingness to deal squarely with challenges. Behold, the King James-only viewpoint.
By the dodgy responses you have provided and other posts you've made, I conclude the following: you believe that the translators of the KJV referred to previously-extant "non-bibles" in that they were not the word of God and were not inspired. You believe that these "non-bibles" were "refined and purified" and that through this (mystical!) process somehow "became" the word of God in the form of the KJV. You further believe that somehow the passages quoted verbatim from earlier "non-bibles" were not the word of God in their sources, but became the word of God in the KJV.
Wow. That's wacky.
I responded in post #210 and refuted this line of questioning. All you've done is added a third mutually-exclusive option, making it a false trichotomy.
You have some "need" to have one "word-perfect" Bible. I don't have that need, and I don't rely exclusively on any one translation. I trust that the translators of the Bibles in English were generally well-intentioned and adequately knowledgeable to do the work, and that I can fact-check any word or passage against other translations and references to see if it is a valid translation. That is relying on the scholarship of others, not of myself. I can also see that every translation has strengths and weaknesses.
Further, I know enough about translation in general that I know that one language does not translate "word-perfect" into another. Translation simply doesn't work that way. You have been told this repeatedly, but you refuse to accept it. It's fine to argue that God "can" do such, and I don't disagree with that by itself. However, I don't believe that is what happens in the actual work of translation, and I certainly don't believe it happened with the KJV.
What I see in your repeated posts is some desire to force-fit reality into your worldview, and in these two posts in particular, to try to get others to submit their beliefs to yours. Even if you get non-KJVo people to answer your question, you haven't convinced them of anything. Further, it is a really bad idea to build a belief on a foundation of flawed reasoning. Eventually one is forced to prop it up with heady insistence, bad arguments, and a stubborn unwillingness to deal squarely with challenges. Behold, the King James-only viewpoint.