-
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.
A
lol it depends on the bible version. some translate from the original greek or hebrew and it is referred to as a translation. others are "interpertations" of the text which means it is not a word for word close translation as others but made to be more accessible for the general populace. 
read the first few pages and you can research and see where the ideas and differences will most likely be. its sometimes a denominational thing too.
read the first few pages and you can research and see where the ideas and differences will most likely be. its sometimes a denominational thing too.
Last edited:
T
lol it depends on the bible version. some translate from the original greek or hebrew and it is referred to as a transliteration. others are "interpertations" of the text which means it is not a word for word close translation as others but made to be more accessible for the general populace. read the first few pages and you can research and see where the ideas and differences will most likely be. its sometimes a denominational thing too.
read the first few pages and you can research and see where the ideas and differences will most likely be. its sometimes a denominational thing too.
Strick, there are some other versions (besides the KJV) that come from the Textus Receptus, but your mom's friend is correct, in that most of the main versions (NIV, RSV, ASB, etc.) come from the Alexandrian texts.
The question I would have for your mom's friend is, in what way is the TR "better" than the other manuscript collections? What makes her think that one is somehow "more authentic" or "closer to God" than other translations? An awful lot of scholarship from men and women way more knowledgeable and devout in the Lord went into deciding which of the thousands of manuscripts should be accepted for the Alexandrian; there are manuscripts that they just didn't have when the KJV was compiled. So why would the manuscripts available in the 16th Century somehow be more trustworthy than those unearthed more recently from longer ago (closer to Jesus' time)?
This is the main reason I hesitate when people say they put their faith in the Bible. Because the question is, WHICH Bible? Which collection of manuscripts do you believe is the most faithful, correct, true? And why? It bothers me when people put so much faith in something that was ultimately compiled by men and women, regardless of its original source (God). I would rather put my faith in God and in his Son, Jesus Christ, than in a book.
S
Who said that, and how do you know what "he" says is the truth? Are you referring to Peter S. Ruckman? He says the English KJV corrects the original Greek New Testament. He also says the Septuagint is a myth, or at least he doubts it is an accurate translation of the Original Hebrew Old Testament. The Original Hebrew Old testament NO LONGER EXISTS. The oldest Hebrew Old Testament is the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. And this book has its good and its bad points. It is accurate in Isaiah 53:11. Other than that one verse, I don't know enough about the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible to know whether it is an accurate Hebrew text. Generally, the Hebrew text has been corrupted by the unbelieving rabbinic Pharisaic Jews.
S
There are actually 3 manuscript traditions:
1. the Received Text (Textus Receptus)
2. the Critical Text (ie, Nestle, UBS, WH)
3. the Majority Text = which considers the greatest evidence for any variant
There are NO modern translations/versions which are based on the KJV.
The New King James Version is an update, but all others are independent works that compare but appeal to the original languages.
1. the Received Text (Textus Receptus)
2. the Critical Text (ie, Nestle, UBS, WH)
3. the Majority Text = which considers the greatest evidence for any variant
There are NO modern translations/versions which are based on the KJV.
The New King James Version is an update, but all others are independent works that compare but appeal to the original languages.
S
It is my opinion that every error as well as every truth that has ever been taught can be taught from any major committee translation.
I do not believe that any of the major committee translations were made with the intention of changing doctrine.
This does not mean that there might not be a slight bias in some passages. But this would be true of any one of them.
Only the original autographs were directly inspired, even though God has providentially preserved an amazing amount of manuscript evidence.
I do not believe that any of the major committee translations were made with the intention of changing doctrine.
This does not mean that there might not be a slight bias in some passages. But this would be true of any one of them.
Only the original autographs were directly inspired, even though God has providentially preserved an amazing amount of manuscript evidence.
A
I believe in the spiritual gift of Tongues and interpretation in that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand the Bible no matter what language or how much of it we read or hear for it is not just our minds but our spirits that listen and understand and drink of the living Word from the Spirit of God. Jesus is the bread of life and His Holy Spirit can communicate His message with whatever He wishes to aid. "directly inspired"? I thought our lives were supposed to be divinely inspired epistles to the world?
A
no it uses these words and says we are to be living sacrifices:
Romans 12
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
1 Peter 2:4-6
New King James Version (NKJV)
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”[a]
Romans 12
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
1 Peter 2:4-6
New King James Version (NKJV)
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”[a]
T
This is misleading. While we don't have the texts that were placed in the ark of the covenant (that would be "the original Hebrew," as near as I can guess), the texts we do have are actually very accurate. When comparing more recent copies to the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are actually very few differences. This is because the Hebrew scribes were very careful about copying texts. WAY moreso than those who copied the letters and gospels that make up our New Testament.
This is just plain FALSE, and whoever told you this is antisemitic. Why would the Jews purposely corrupt their own sacred text?
The Jews had VERY strict rules about copying out the Hebrew Scriptures (obviously, all copying was done by hand). Scribes were not allowed to change even a tittle if they thought it might be wrong, but had to preserve the original.
The early Christians who copied the various letters and texts that make up our New Testament had no such rules. It was actually common for the Greek scribes to read something and say, "Oh, that makes no sense. I'll fix it to what it was supposed to say." Of course, since the scribes may or may not have been terribly fluent in the original Greek, it may or may not have been an improvement on the text, and either way, there were plenty of errors that got copied and re-copied through the centuries.
And anyone who doubts that the Septuagint existed just doesn't know history. One can (and many scholars do) doubt the perfection of that text, but it absolutely existed.
Scotth, whomever has been teaching you is not trustworthy, and I would take everything they say with a large grain of salt.
This is just plain FALSE, and whoever told you this is antisemitic. Why would the Jews purposely corrupt their own sacred text?
The Jews had VERY strict rules about copying out the Hebrew Scriptures (obviously, all copying was done by hand). Scribes were not allowed to change even a tittle if they thought it might be wrong, but had to preserve the original.
The early Christians who copied the various letters and texts that make up our New Testament had no such rules. It was actually common for the Greek scribes to read something and say, "Oh, that makes no sense. I'll fix it to what it was supposed to say." Of course, since the scribes may or may not have been terribly fluent in the original Greek, it may or may not have been an improvement on the text, and either way, there were plenty of errors that got copied and re-copied through the centuries.
And anyone who doubts that the Septuagint existed just doesn't know history. One can (and many scholars do) doubt the perfection of that text, but it absolutely existed.
Scotth, whomever has been teaching you is not trustworthy, and I would take everything they say with a large grain of salt.
I believe in the Tectus Receptus and the Alexandrian text. The differences aren't that great. I usually side with the Greek Majority which is closer to the KJV but I also believe in the Alexandrian Text. I don't see why we don't believe both. Doctrinal differences are usually corrected by the Bible itself. Some accuse newer translations of atacking major doctrines of the Bible. There's a good book you can get from Chick Publications called "Let's Weigh the Evidence", where the author shows how new translations could be attacking important doctrines. The author sounds like your friend. I must admit that I agree with the KJV where alot of these doctrines have changed in other Bibles.