-
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.
No they didn't. They simply used the manuscripts directly from Greek and Hebrew into English instead of Latin to English. the Greek manuscripts are considered "lean" and the Latin Vulgate is considered a "fat" text. It just appears they remove a lot because all they are doing is translating straight from the original language to the modern language. It's also wrong to say the KJV is infallible because there are SEVERAL errors which have been seen in it as well and observed. This is why people make new translations. ALL (even the KJV) is translated by man. There are bound to be VERY miniscule mistakes. That's why they vary. I'm going to continue to read the NIV and ESV (btw, the ESV is more literal than the KJV..Just thought I'd point out a fun fact.) I'm done with this argument. I've made my points. I will stand my ground and my mind will not be changed. *rant over. Moving on*
A cultic view of the development of Scripture? No, that's just your opinion JGPS. We King James Bible believers have our own independent and free thought. A person who is part of a cult cannot think with his own mind, he cannot think for himself.
But we King James Bible believers do think for ourselves and we are not afraid to let someone know when we disagree with them.
No JGPS. I trust the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth. And that's what the Holy Spirit does with other believers. That is why the Holy Spirit will never lead someone to an NIV or an ESV. [HR][/HR]The Holy Spirit will lead a Christian to the King James Bible just like He led me to.
And again JPGS, you are wrong. The new versions do attack and degrade the person and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you cannot see that after studying the whole issue, then you are just spiritually blind and you lack discernment in regard to this issue. By the way, I already stated a fact in a previous thread and do you know what that fact was? Well, if you had been reading my last few posts then you would might have known. The New World Translation attacks the deity of the Lord Jesus as much as the NIV does as well as most of the modern versions do. You need to examine the NIV and NWT closely, and they agree in many places. And they also remove the same verses from their text. Again, go and check it out. No, it's not based on a private interpretation. This is based on facts and truth. And if this offends you JGPS so be it. The truth will offend at times. Obviously you must not have the studied the issue long enough if you still think that the new versions are not corrupt. Now if you have looked thoroughly into this issue, then your just being willingly ignorant like most of the modern professing Christians who defend the Vatican and Roman Catholic Modern Versions.
To have independent free thought in this matter you'd have to have analyzed the texts yourselves... Your POV is cultic, not independent.
The NIV generally does not attack the deity of Christ. The NWT obviously does because that's what it exists for. They agree in many cases because on the whole they are the same text, and the NWT makes only a few erroneous changes, just enough to suit its people. The NWT agrees with the KJV in the overwhelming majority of cases, I suppose that counts as proof to you that the KJV is corrupt? Or perhaps you're inconsistent in that.
The NIV generally does not attack the deity of Christ. The NWT obviously does because that's what it exists for. They agree in many cases because on the whole they are the same text, and the NWT makes only a few erroneous changes, just enough to suit its people. The NWT agrees with the KJV in the overwhelming majority of cases, I suppose that counts as proof to you that the KJV is corrupt? Or perhaps you're inconsistent in that.
What's amazing is that the KJV-only cultists say they are not a cult.
And yet almost every word they say on the subject is a quotation or video link of someone else.
Well, there we have it. The Holy Spirit told me so I must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
It sounds to me more like the 'spirit' you have been listening to neither holy or divine.
On balance it seems the prevailing view of most Christians here that you are wrong. While the truth is not a popularity contest, neither is it following the views of others blindly and attacking those who don't do what you were told to do by these voices you've been hearing.
It is true that the NWT and NIV have several verses in common that a different than the KJV. There are two reasons for this I expect.
1) the translators have used all the available ancients texts and ignored the vulgate
2) they have decided, as have almost all modern Bible scholars, that the KJV got things wrong
Note I said scholars - that means those that study for a living in universities and colleges. Not those that 'produce hate videos and then beg for money' for a living.
By the way, the NWT is never wrong in its translation but the wording is sometimes skewed to match the beliefs of the Watchtower Organisation (JW).
As far as I'm aware the NIV translators come from a pretty diverse lot of scholars (across dozens of countries and denominations) and so differs from the NWT in that respect greatly in that translation is much more likely to come FROM the available ancient text rather than be biased with doctrinal beliefs which is more likely to occur when all translators come from the same background (as is the case with NWT and KJV).
What is not insignificant though is that the 'odd one out' in Bible translations is the KJV and any translation that uses it as a starting point (like the NKJV). This is of course because the monks didn't have all the information that God had made available - they only had some of the ancient texts.
Actually the Bible says we are to argue with love and compassion. Offense comes from a non-Christian way of expressing oneself, as you've shown.
What on earth are you on about here? Makes no sense so I can't comment.
I think the sad thing is, those of us that disagree with you generally (though not all) will describe ourselves as believers of God's word.
You describe yourself as
That's bordering on idolatry tbh.
And yet almost every word they say on the subject is a quotation or video link of someone else.
Well, there we have it. The Holy Spirit told me so I must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
It sounds to me more like the 'spirit' you have been listening to neither holy or divine.
On balance it seems the prevailing view of most Christians here that you are wrong. While the truth is not a popularity contest, neither is it following the views of others blindly and attacking those who don't do what you were told to do by these voices you've been hearing.
It is true that the NWT and NIV have several verses in common that a different than the KJV. There are two reasons for this I expect.
1) the translators have used all the available ancients texts and ignored the vulgate
2) they have decided, as have almost all modern Bible scholars, that the KJV got things wrong
Note I said scholars - that means those that study for a living in universities and colleges. Not those that 'produce hate videos and then beg for money' for a living.
By the way, the NWT is never wrong in its translation but the wording is sometimes skewed to match the beliefs of the Watchtower Organisation (JW).
As far as I'm aware the NIV translators come from a pretty diverse lot of scholars (across dozens of countries and denominations) and so differs from the NWT in that respect greatly in that translation is much more likely to come FROM the available ancient text rather than be biased with doctrinal beliefs which is more likely to occur when all translators come from the same background (as is the case with NWT and KJV).
What is not insignificant though is that the 'odd one out' in Bible translations is the KJV and any translation that uses it as a starting point (like the NKJV). This is of course because the monks didn't have all the information that God had made available - they only had some of the ancient texts.
Actually the Bible says we are to argue with love and compassion. Offense comes from a non-Christian way of expressing oneself, as you've shown.
What on earth are you on about here? Makes no sense so I can't comment.
I think the sad thing is, those of us that disagree with you generally (though not all) will describe ourselves as believers of God's word.
You describe yourself as
That's bordering on idolatry tbh.
To find the truth takes more than depending on what someone else says.
Anyone who is truly interested in this subject should get(buy) a reputable New Testament Greek - English reference bible.
One which has textual apparatus, - (listings of the manuscripts and references to the differences in the translations).
- A good one is "The Greek Text prepared by the United Bible Societies", published by the American Bible Society.
Then, buy at least three different lexicons, (because each has it's own bias).
Then buy this one: "An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon" based on Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon.
The last is wholly secular, and also quite advanced and hard to read.
As for the NIV, it removes the verse were Jesus explained to His disciples about their inability to cast out a certain demon - "This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting". (It takes out 'fasting', which the word for 'fasting' is in all but one of the earliest manuscripts)
Anyone who is truly interested in this subject should get(buy) a reputable New Testament Greek - English reference bible.
One which has textual apparatus, - (listings of the manuscripts and references to the differences in the translations).
- A good one is "The Greek Text prepared by the United Bible Societies", published by the American Bible Society.
Then, buy at least three different lexicons, (because each has it's own bias).
Then buy this one: "An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon" based on Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon.
The last is wholly secular, and also quite advanced and hard to read.
As for the NIV, it removes the verse were Jesus explained to His disciples about their inability to cast out a certain demon - "This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting". (It takes out 'fasting', which the word for 'fasting' is in all but one of the earliest manuscripts)
Last edited:
Yes, the meanings of words can change.
But the ideas can be deciphered by the context in which they are stated.
Shakespeare wrote his plays in the late 1500's; yet we get every nuance of the drama. - (by how it is written)
An earlier dictionary would be hard to find and incredibly expensive.
- If you really want to know what the bible says, go back to the greek.
Get a reference Greek-English Bible, (like the one I described a few posts above)
But the ideas can be deciphered by the context in which they are stated.
Shakespeare wrote his plays in the late 1500's; yet we get every nuance of the drama. - (by how it is written)
An earlier dictionary would be hard to find and incredibly expensive.
- If you really want to know what the bible says, go back to the greek.
Get a reference Greek-English Bible, (like the one I described a few posts above)
Well you're talking to someone who has never read one thing by Shakespeare. (Somehow one wierd dude playing with skulls
doesn't sound like something I want to read)
One of my friends is having me start to use the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles. A bit difficult to get used to as the syntax is quite a bit different.
doesn't sound like something I want to read)
One of my friends is having me start to use the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles. A bit difficult to get used to as the syntax is quite a bit different.
P
Well you're talking to someone who has never read one thing by Shakespeare. (Somehow one wierd dude playing with skulls
doesn't sound like something I want to read)
One of my friends is having me start to use the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles. A bit difficult to get used to as the syntax is quite a bit different.
doesn't sound like something I want to read)
One of my friends is having me start to use the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles. A bit difficult to get used to as the syntax is quite a bit different.
) who's read everything by Shakespeare!(or whoever wrote that stuff...)
Practically have Hamlet memorized, I taught it so many times, and the kiddos have watched the movie so much.
I have a KJV, and I do enjoy reading it.
I'm just sayin'...there IS a non-English speaking world out there.
(in case we forgot about them
)"Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio."
(the guy with the skull...
)
Surely then in the same way, different Bible translations do the same thing? Another point, do people who read the King James only read the original 1611 version and if not why not? After all , a re-writting of the King James to more modern English will inevitably create errors and change meaning of some verses.
Here is a link to a free PDF file containing scan of 1611 King James. read it if you can.
http://www.brotherhicks.com/1611_King_James-Bible_Version-Scanned.pdf
Here is a link to a free PDF file containing scan of 1611 King James. read it if you can.
http://www.brotherhicks.com/1611_King_James-Bible_Version-Scanned.pdf
D
Well you're talking to someone who has never read one thing by Shakespeare. (Somehow one wierd dude playing with skulls
doesn't sound like something I want to read)
One of my friends is having me start to use the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles. A bit difficult to get used to as the syntax is quite a bit different.
doesn't sound like something I want to read)
One of my friends is having me start to use the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles. A bit difficult to get used to as the syntax is quite a bit different.
LOL, Sarah! You're talking to someone (language-lit nerd ) who's read everything by Shakespeare!
(or whoever wrote that stuff...)
Practically have Hamlet memorized, I taught it so many times, and the kiddos have watched the movie so much.
I have a KJV, and I do enjoy reading it.
I'm just sayin'...there IS a non-English speaking world out there.
(in case we forgot about them )
"Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio."
(the guy with the skull... )
) who's read everything by Shakespeare!(or whoever wrote that stuff...)
Practically have Hamlet memorized, I taught it so many times, and the kiddos have watched the movie so much.
I have a KJV, and I do enjoy reading it.
I'm just sayin'...there IS a non-English speaking world out there.
(in case we forgot about them
)"Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio."
(the guy with the skull...
)I was reading college level books in eighth grade on those.
And I understand them.
Yes I am a geek.