The Bible debate

[LT]

thank you for the list.
when I get time, I'll go through them fully,but I haven't found any in there so far that carry any true weight.

just so every one is clear, there are over 5600 greek manuscripts today, not just 500.
when the KJV was translated, they used ONE greek manuscript (Textus Receptus).
The guy that made TR only had 6 manuscripts.

We trust the accuracy of the KJV, (even though parts of it are the added words of men), because we have seen God use it to save souls during the past few hundred years.

To deny that same trust to the modern versions (of which, several are far purer) is to deny the works that God has done through them.

Although some versions are distorted (the New World Translation and such), but most are not only sufficient in doctrine and edification, but are excellent as vessels of the Word of Life.

 

[atomiku]

Sorry i didnt meant i compiled i meant i found sorry

 

[atomiku]

I just woke up, i meant i found not compiled,

 

[MaranathaSoonQuick]

I did some pondering about this while I was sleeplessly overtaken by my thoughts. I thought that in my opinion why people may consider the kjv as the inspired word of God, not more than the original manuscripts (the ones we no longer have), but as compared to other english translations of the bible. I borrowed a few paragraphs of what I saw fit and it sorta opened my eyes to why in my nkjv footnotes I so burned with passionate hate against the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek Text.

"Is it a question of Bible translations? No, it is a question of Greek texts used to translate the New Testament. The scholars who tell us what to believe about the Bible have told us that the best text is an eclectic text put together from a handful of manuscripts that do not agree with each other. It removes part or all of 400 verses in the New Testament. It is called the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ (NU) Greek text.There is another Greek text that scholars have been throwing mud at for over a hundred years. It is known as the Textus Receptus (Received Text) and is compiled from manuscripts that agree with each other. I am told that it is in agreement with approximately 95% of the Greek manuscripts available."

Quoted from NU-Greek Text, the page also includes another link to an interesting read.

 

[LT]

majority of manuscripts are all from the height of Catholicism! The late Middle Ages.

The modern translations put more esteem into the integrity of the manuscripts found that are within 100-500 years AD, rather than 1200.

majority means nothing in this argument.

 

[Tintin]

The only Nestle I'm familiar with is the chocolate company.

 

[MaranathaSoonQuick]

Yea well, during the council of trent (1545-1563) Rome specifically listed the written Scriptures and Tradition as sources for it's teachings. Tradition was defined as the unwritten teaching handed down by Christ to the apostles (as opposed to the written teaching of the bible). It is safe to say that much of the RCC doctrine is an appeal to Tradition rather than to Scripture. so what's so bad about that? Rome has modified it's teaching in recent years to speak from one source Scripture put into the category of Tradition. (Vatican II 1962-1965) so really what could've affected the Textus Receptus.

 

[Nick01]

I just woke up, i meant i found not compiled,

Not sure I believe you. One, I find it hard to believe you could 'accidentally' use the word compiled rather than found, given they mean completely different things and compiled is a more complicated word. You're fairly articulate, so I'm not sure it's possible to make that mistake just because you're asleep. I don't think most people would make the mistake. Secondly, you said:

Here is a list i compiled a while ago, of the major doctrines affected by the changes of modern bibles, This list compasses MOST not ALL of the modern translations as i simply lost all hope of finding a modern translation that is without error.

The section I underlined implies quite strongly that you were suggesting the research that went into the list came from you - that YOU looked through the verses and compared them to various translations to see which remarks were valid. You did nothing of the sort, or you would have seen that some of the 'issues' highlighted are actually conspicuous in their absence within most contemporary translations. In the Mark 1 example I highlighted, no less than the NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman, NLT, CEV and GNT all include the phrase that is claimed to be omitted(!). If you had in fact checked the list against multiple and various translations (assuming you weren't trying to pass the whole thing off as your own work, which I'm fairly certain you were), then you did an amazingly shoddy job - all of the main modern translations include it. Whatever problem Freeman had with the modern translations 40+ years ago was either made up, or has ceased to be an issue for decades.

Instead, I think you simply found a list, tried to pass it off as your own work, without having any real idea of what was in it.

I'm happy to accept an apology from you (not that I personally feel aggrieved - I feel aggrieved for the church and for the ideal that is god-honouring, honest and intellectual discussion). But what I dislike is people apologising for things they didn't do, and not apologising for things they did. I find it difficult to believe you simply typed the wrong word (and then the whole wrong sentence) because you were sleepy. You're smart enough to know what you're doing, I suspect, even when you've woken up at 6-7pm (apparently). You were at least awake enough to read my post, search the internet and copy paste multiple posts worth of material correctly. I think you also knew what words you were using.

At the end of the day, though, I don't really care what you were doing. I'm still more than happy to deal with specific verses you decide to ply me with (especially if you do your own research this time). I'm genuinely interested in having an honest and edifying discussion with you. But the Lord knows your heart, and I'll trust him to react however is required.

 

[Nick01]

Yea well, during the council of trent (1545-1563) Rome specifically listed the written Scriptures and Tradition as sources for it's teachings. Tradition was defined as the unwritten teaching handed down by Christ to the apostles (as opposed to the written teaching of the bible). It is safe to say that much of the RCC doctrine is an appeal to Tradition rather than to Scripture. so what's so bad about that? Rome has modified it's teaching in recent years to speak from one source Scripture put into the category of Tradition. (Vatican II 1962-1965) so really what could've affected the Textus Receptus.

Not sure I understand the point being made here. Care to explain more, please?

 

[MaranathaSoonQuick]

Referring to Mr. LT's latest post within this thread Mr. Nick01.

 

[Oak]

KJV has the word easter in it

 

[Nick01]

Referring to Mr. LT's latest post within this thread Mr. Nick01.

Still doesn't make sense. LT's point was that the TR Greek manuscripts were all late (worth pointing out that chunks of the first editions of the TR used no Greek manuscripts, and actually backtranslated from the Latin Vulgate), and were written out in the Middle Ages. I don't see how the Council of Trent or Vatican II is at all relevant.

 

[pug32]

What about just going the Greek for the NT.

 

[atomiku]

I think Ronald Reagan Sums up this debate better then i have ever heard it

Ronald Reagan on the Authorized King James Bible - YouTube

 

[Nick01]

I think Ronald Reagan Sums up this debate better then i have ever heard it

Ronald Reagan on the Authorized King James Bible - YouTube

And alas, I fear to say that I'm quite certain Mr Reagan is wrong on this point. Virtually everything mentioned in that video has been dealt with by myself or others earlier in this thread. I suggest you go back and read some earlier posts. Mr Reagan was not a theologian, nor a historian, nor a textual critic. His arguments are not novel, nor accurate. He may have been sincere, but that does not mean he was right,

 

[MaranathaSoonQuick]

Okay, how bout I choose all the versions with a validity worth considering. This means kjv, nkjv, esv, niv, nasb, hcsb, cev, nlt, and a strong's concordance for the kjv. There, there now, my study will be alright. And my mention of the council of trent was to show the date and that scripture was separated from tradition during that period, so I thought; Hmm well, since this is so, what could've been done to the scriptures since they were separate from the other teachings such as tradition, and things the pope had pronounced. At this end it matters no more.

 

[LT]

Okay, how bout I choose all the versions with a validity worth considering. This means kjv, nkjv, esv, niv, nasb, hcsb, cev, nlt, and a strong's concordance for the kjv. There, there now, my study will be alright. And my mention of the council of trent was to show the date and that scripture was separated from tradition during that period, so I thought; Hmm well, since this is so, what could've been done to the scriptures since they were separate from the other teachings such as tradition, and things the pope had pronounced. At this end it matters no more.

Amplified is also good for studies, seeing as you added Strong's to the list.
If you go to the Biblehub.com website, the lexicon is free and top notch.
I like your list.

 

[phil112]

I really don't get it. What is wrong with the KJV? Is it too laborious to use? The language too stilted and quaint to understand? What is wrong with putting in a little effort? It is a wonderful book and the prose is great.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[LT]

I really don't get it. What is wrong with the KJV? Is it too laborious to use? The language too stilted and quaint to understand? What is wrong with putting in a little effort? It is a wonderful book and the prose is great.

I personally was raised on it, so the thee's and thou's aren't the problem for me (and I actually enjoy the Shakespearean meter and vocab used).
The issues arise when words like "perfect" are used in places where the Greek means "growing in maturity", or "becoming mature".
In 1611, "perfect" was not always used as a result, but as the process to the result. Today, there are several denominations preaching 'Sinless Perfection' doctrine because of the wording.

There are other examples, but I really don't want to slander the Word of God. I don't have any real problem with KJV, I don't even have a problem with KJV-only readers... but I do have a problem with KJV-only pushers.

 

[BELIEVE]

I personally was raised on it, so the thee's and thou's aren't the problem for me (and I actually enjoy the Shakespearean meter and vocab used).
The issues arise when words like "perfect" are used in places where the Greek means "growing in maturity", or "becoming mature".
In 1611, "perfect" was not always used as a result, but as the process to the result. Today, there are several denominations preaching 'Sinless Perfection' doctrine because of the wording.

There are other examples, but I really don't want to slander the Word of God. I don't have any real problem with KJV, I don't even have a problem with KJV-only readers... but I do have a problem with KJV-only pushers.

dear brother LT...

i am pushing pushing pushing...

i am a kjv only kinda guy... AND THOU SHOULD BE AS WELL IF THINE HEART DESIREST THE TRUE MEAT...

pushing pushing pushing...

kidding dear brother LT...

god bless