Which translation?

Charles · Feb 20, 2009

I have read alot of the 1611 and now have the Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha V.1. Do u read alot of the Apoc. and do u believe in it and /or what are ur feelings on it?

Thaddaeus · Feb 20, 2009

Charles said:

yes I have read the Apoc. about two times now have actually preached from them, explaining to the Church they were part of the Bible up til around 1850's and that the reason our current Bible doesn't have them today , is the revisors felt like they were either redundant or for historical purposes only. should they had been taken out? I believe that we have enough of God's Word without them But If it had been up to me I would had left them in there. some people say that at one time they came real close to cutting the Book of James out of the Scriptures. we have the jewish dortrines all through the bible but can determine from Christian doctrines. but the real reason the Apoc. were taken out, was because the reflection the catholic doctrines; such as two friends were talking about a third friend who had died One guy said that they were going to pray for the dead friend the other guy asked Him if he thought it would do any good praying for the dead , his response was that it couldn't hurt. do I believe in them sure they were part of the Holy scriptures for about 240 years But do I trash the KJB because they are not there, God forbid. it is the closest to the truth we have

Slepsog4 · Feb 20, 2009

The KJV translators only included between the testaments because of their historical value. The Roman Catholic Church is the one who added them as if they were Scripture. They have them scattered within the OT books as part of the canon with the claim of full inspiration and authority. However, the Jews who were responsible for the canon NEVER included them as part of the OT. The Catholic church had no authority to claim after the fact that which was never part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They are not quoted as inspired (if at all) by the Lord or the apostles. Jesus referred to the structure of the OT canon as the Jews had it (the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets.)

MahogonySnail · Feb 20, 2009

umm, "the book" is not the entire bible (which means books) but the book of Revelations. Specifically, the prophecies contained in that book.

The KJV could well have been written without the italics, and we would be none the wiser of which words were added etc. It was a practice carried over from the Geneva bible. So any words in italics like "the corn" we could easily change to be "the wheat" or "the oats" without changing the meaning.
I'm not saying it's wrong at all, I'm attempting to show that it has always been an acceptable practice to add or remove or change words here and there, even for the translators of the KJV.

Slepsog4 · Feb 20, 2009

The KJV translators were at least trying to be honest when the added a word that was deemed necessary for the English reader to understand the text. They put such terms in italics. Generally one can skip the italicized words and still the sense of the text. Unfortunately some folks have tried to build arguments on some of these words.

The NIV majors in expanding the text to the point of commentary without acknowledging which words cannot be defended word for word to the Greek text underneath.

Thaddaeus · Feb 20, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

well u believe what u want to, but maybe here are a yew more verses you may not know about

De 4:2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
De 12:32What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Pr 30:5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.Pr 30:6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I hope u change your mind after knowing of these verses, would you please show these to the person who taught you that only revelation was what we were not suppose to change oh I got one more for ye
Mt 22:29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the power of God.

christiancanadian · Feb 20, 2009

Hello,
I was hesitant to use anything other than the King James version but my Pastor stated in church several times that he really like the New Living Translation. I wasn't sure, so I started reading my wifes NLT. Then I went out and bought a fantastic NLT study Bible. It's really great. Clearly I wasn't understanding the King James version as well as I thought I was. However, I was very careful about choosing the right bible. I do believe that there is a 'slippery slope' to all these versions of the Bible. I.e., getting watered down and translations of translations! No offense to the NIV and also NKJV, but I seen a bit of evidence where important scripture is omitted or even more confusing then the original. For example, Jesus' "blood" being left out. Hell being left out. Google: New King James Version Counterfeit. I've seen quite a bit of negative about the NIV too...there is a video on youtube that puts King James next to NIV and it's pretty eye opening. HOWEVER, in the people who like these versions, my Pastor finds all three (KJ, NLT, NIV) helpful, so whatever gets you closer to God. I was just personally concerned because I heard years ago that satan was going to start messing with the Bible and taking stuff out....to the point of Jesus' name being removed. Obviously that may not be true or may never happen. I pray that it doesn't. I think the slippery slope has begun though. Too many versions only muddy the waters and have people start to pick and choose what aspects the prefer about a specific Bible and it becomes less about God's word and the truth of Jesus christ.

Thaddaeus · Feb 20, 2009

christiancanadian said:

My Lord have you not heard the blind leading the blind they both fall in the ditch. you are following your pastor right into the ditch. I find a new pastor, watch you criticise the niv for removing the Blood and your own preversion the one that your wise pastor suggested does the same thing. look

Colossians 1:14 (King James Version)

14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 1:14 (New International Version)

14in whom we have redemption,[a] the forgiveness of sins.

Footnotes:

Colossians 1:14 A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood

Colossians 1:14 (New Living Translation)

14 who purchased our freedom[a] and forgave our sins.

Footnotes:

Colossians 1:14 Some manuscripts add with his blood.

Thaddaeus · Feb 20, 2009

christiancanadian said:

had one more dude

you said the Niv was bad because it took hell out of the Bible and praised your nlt . watch this

Luke 16:23 (King James Version)

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luke 16:23 (New International Version)

23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Footnotes:

Luke 16:23 Greek Hades

Luke 16:23 (New Living Translation)

23 and his soul went to the place of the dead.[a] There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side.

Footnotes:

Luke 16:23 Greek to Hades.

NIv left hell inthere it was yours that took it out

Thaddaeus · Feb 21, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

No one taught me that only revelations was what we are not supposed to change. I get that by reading what the verse actually says. And let's take a close look at this verse reading what it actually says not what we think it means:

So obviously "the book" is not the bible, (which is a collection of books), but the book of Revelations.

so you have a book shelf and all you have on this shelf is the Bible, if someone asks you how many books you have on your shelf, you say 66 books. yeah right

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for Bible:
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:
BI''BLE, n. [Gr. a book.]

Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1913 edition:
Bible (Page: 142)

Bi"ble (?), n. [F. bible, L. biblia, pl., fr. Gr. , pl. of , dim. of , , book, prop. Egyptian papyrus.]
1. A book. [Obs.] Chaucer.</I>
2. The Book by way of eminence, -- that is, the book which is made up of the writings accepted by Christians as of divine origin and authority, whether such writings be in the original language, or translated; the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; -- sometimes in a restricted sense, the Old Testament; as, King James's Bible; Douay Bible; Luther's Bible. Also, the book which is made up of writings similarly accepted by the Jews; as, a rabbinical Bible. 3. A book containing the sacred writings belonging to any religion; as, the Koran is often called the Mohammedan Bible. <-- 4. (Fig.) A book with an authoritative exposition of some topic, respected by many experts on the field. --> Bible Society, an association for securing the multiplication and wide distribution of the Bible. -- Douay Bible. See Douay Bible. -- Geneva Bible. See under Geneva. </I></I></B>

I am glad it is so clear to you. I think maybe you ought to be writing a dictionary, so won't anybody else confuse the Bible as a BOOK

Thaddaeus · Feb 21, 2009

Applying this warning in revelations to the whole bible is mis-using that scripture and making it mean something which it doesn't mean. Same goes for what it says in Deuteronomy. These apply, as it says, to what God has specifically commanded. A lot of scripture is not God's commands, like Ecclesiastes for example which is the musings of a philosopher.

Words of God come through God's prophets in the old testament or Christ or the apostles etc in the new testament and these are commands from God which are received as authoritative by the Church. This includes the Gospel and all its doctrines. Obviously not every single word in the scriptures fits into this category as authorative as God's Word or otherwise we'd have some very strange doctrines around. For example if we take this verse as authoritative:

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, ......

Then we should all be abiding still at Ephesus according to God's command.[/quote]

You have twisted the word so bad it is almost demonic Paul told Timothy to abide at Ephesus And Paul went to Macedonia Not GOD . if we apply your teaching then Mark 16Mr 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Jesus was talking to the 11 disciples so that means that we are wrong when we go preach for it was a commandment only to the disciple there with Him at the time COME DUDE.!!!! get real

Thaddaeus · Feb 21, 2009

[quoteMahogonySnail=;23020]Applying this warning in revelations to the whole bible is mis-using that scripture and making it mean something which it doesn't mean. Same goes for what it says in Deuteronomy. These apply, as it says, to what God has specifically commanded. A lot of scripture is not God's commands, like Ecclesiastes for example which is the musings of a philosopher.

Words of God come through God's prophets in the old testament or Christ or the apostles etc in the new testament and these are commands from God which are received as authoritative by the Church. This includes the Gospel and all its doctrines. Obviously not every single word in the scriptures fits into this category as authorative as God's Word or otherwise we'd have some very strange doctrines around. For example if we take this verse as authoritative:

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, ......

Then we should all be abiding still at Ephesus according to God's command.[/quote]

MahogonySnail
You have twisted the word so bad it is almost demonic, Paul told Timothy to abide at Ephesus And Paul went to Macedonia Not GOD . if we apply your teaching then Mark 16Mr 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Jesus was talking to the 11 disciples so that means that we are wrong when we go preach for it was a commandment only to the disciple there with Him at the time COME DUDE.!!!! get real[/quote]

MahogonySnail · Feb 21, 2009

re: bible and books.

No I don't need to write a dictionary, but I do read one lol..the word Bible is the English form of the Greek word Biblia meaning "books".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bible

Origin:
1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem. sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix

So everytime you say the word Bible you are saying "books". "The bible" is "the books". So if I referred to the bible I am referring to the collection of 66 books which are contained within the bible. It's easier to say Bible obviously.

The bible was not written when the book of Revelations was put together. So "the book" must refer to the book of Revelations, not the entire bible. Unless you believe that the warning at the end of Revelations was inserted after the bible was completed.. in which case it would be a self-violation of that warning if it was inserted later lol. If you knew even a little bit of history of the bible you should know this, especially for someone who calls himself pastor. By the way "Paster Keith", it's spelt pastor, not paster.

Exactly my point..that it was Paul not God telling Timothy to do that. So would you claim that these words by Paul are "God's Words"? Authoritative instructions coming from the mouth of God that we are to live by today ? I don't think you could, otherwise you are forced into the unrealistic view that all christians should abide at Ephesus.

MahogonySnail · Feb 21, 2009

So given that the verse there is Paul's words, not God's as you acknowledge.... is there any penalty for changing Paul's words? What if we changed the word Ephesus to a more general one, like Anatolia (Asia Minor) like this:

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Anatolia , when I went into Macedonia

Would that result in God removing a person's name out of the book of life as it says in Revelations?
No I don't think so. Firstly that warning is only concerning the book of revelations, secondly it is not God's Words or commands being changed but Paul's. Thirdly we aren't changing the meaning of the text, it is just as valid to say Timothy should go to Anatolia as saying Ephesus, because Ephesus was in Anatolia. The only penalty for changing those words would be a loss of historical accuracy, and I think that's a good enough reason not to change those words.

Thaddaeus · Feb 21, 2009

Exactly my point..that it was Paul not God telling Timothy to do that. So would you claim that these words by Paul are "God's Words"? Authoritative instructions coming from the mouth of God that we are to live by today ? I don't think you could, otherwise you are forced into the unrealistic view that all christians should abide at Ephesus. [/quote]
I don't speak greek so I use a english dictionary which I showed says the Bible is a Book not books
every word Of the Book is inspired by God but 2ti 2:15Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth.

I don't think when Paul tells timothy to stay at one Place while He goes to another, that you are rightly dividing, actually you are twisting the word when you say that we have to take that as a direct command from God. we have to determine Who He is speaking to that is another reason we need the thee, thou, ye ,you, in the Bible they show singular and plural tenses of the words and the eth's, and s's are also important
2ti 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

this is the Bible reproofing us and correcting us not for us reproofing or correcting the Bible . thanks for pointing out my error in my spelling Never claimed to be prefect just saved !!

Thaddaeus · Feb 21, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

Yes I think if paul had said Ephesus and we changed it to Anatolia then this would be a Lie and if
2ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

then A God that cannot lie. would not want us to change His truth into a lie, this definitly would not be pleasing to our Lord, but apparently Ye wouldn't have a problem with it.

when God told Moses to go speak to the rock and Moses changed the word of God and went and tapped the rock

Nu 20:8Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the ROCK before their eyes; and it shall give forth his WATER, and thou shalt bring forth to them WATER out of the ROCK: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.Nu 20:10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the ROCK, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you WATER out of this ROCK?Nu 20:11And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the ROCK twice: and the WATER came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

Nu 20:23And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying,Nu 20:24Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah.

we need to be real extra careful what we do with His Word

Charles · Feb 21, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

well u believe what u want to, but maybe here are a yew more verses you may not know about

De 4:2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
De 12:32What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Pr 30:5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.Pr 30:6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I hope u change your mind after knowing of these verses, would you please show these to the person who taught you that only revelation was what we were not suppose to change oh I got one more for ye
Mt 22:29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the power of God.

Thank you for this; I had knowledge of these verses, but didn't reflect on them when I mentioned people believed 22:18-19 pertained to Rev. only.

Charles · Feb 21, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

yes I have read the Apoc. about two times now have actually preached from them, explaining to the Church they were part of the Bible up til around 1850's and that the reason our current Bible doesn't have them today , is the revisors felt like they were either redundant or for historical purposes only. should they had been taken out? I believe that we have enough of God's Word without them But If it had been up to me I would had left them in there. some people say that at one time they came real close to cutting the Book of James out of the Scriptures. we have the jewish dortrines all through the bible but can determine from Christian doctrines. but the real reason the Apoc. were taken out, was because the reflection the catholic doctrines; such as two friends were talking about a third friend who had died One guy said that they were going to pray for the dead friend the other guy asked Him if he thought it would do any good praying for the dead , his response was that it couldn't hurt. do I believe in them sure they were part of the Holy scriptures for about 240 years But do I trash the KJB because they are not there, God forbid. it is the closest to the truth we have

Thank you for your reply. I agree pretty much. Myself, I have used various scrips. from the Apocrypha to fill in some places of the old testament, and I feel them to be true. On the other hand, there are some things in there I belive one should be careful with.

MahogonySnail · Feb 21, 2009

Then why is every "book" in the "book" (the bible) called a book? The book of Acts, the book of Revelations.. etc. they are all individual books, in the bible (books). I'd expect a Pastor to know this.

Thaddaeus · Feb 21, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

we can nick pick back and forth all you want if you want to change all of God's word except Revelations than go ahead that's on you , not me, if you want to use a translation full of lies that is suppose to be inspired by A God that can't lie then go ahead. most of the old testament are called books but in the new testament some are epistles (letters), we referr to the Gosples as the gosple of luke not the book of luke. man has added or called them books My 1611 KJB says The Revelation of S. Iohn the Diuine. could one really call 3 john a Book or a page. Acts is referred to as the. the acts of the Apostles. The Whole Word of God Is known as a Book of Prophecy . so believe what you want this is my last post concerning this issue

Which translation?

Charles

Guest

Banned

Slepsog4

Guest

Banned

Slepsog4

Guest

Banned

christiancanadian

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Charles

Guest

Charles

Guest

Banned

Banned