Your Bible translation

  • 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.

Which Bible translation do you use as your main translation?

  • NIV

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • NLT

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • ESV

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • CSB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • KJV

    Votes: 25 47.2%
  • NKJV

    Votes: 7 13.2%
  • NRSV

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NASB

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Other (please comment)

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • Total voters
    53

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,502
967
113
Texas
I wondered how long it would take before the KJV only guys would get their back hairs up, and turn this into an attempt to push their icon on us.
Funny thing is that the very arguments they make for it is the same ones made against it back in the 1600s.
All of the same arguments from tradition to the only true word of God is ... ,and they changed the words, and the meanings, blah blah blah, same ole same ole.
But you will never convince them of the truth, so why bother.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
It seems then that you are helping me in my case that my incomplete knowledge of Nasra = Paska and paska can be translated as easter and not only Passover yet again this is being contested.

In my opinion, you are against what the dictionaries says whether OED or to some unbiased references I posted. Here to summarize our view relative to the subject:
  • Heb. Pesach and Gk. Pascha Latin Pascha according to the dictionaries can be both translated as Passover and easter. Yet you are saying it is only Passover.
  • That Gk. Pascha means resurrection which I believe as the genuine Easter. This well attested in the many dictionaries including John Chrysostom Paschal Address/Sermon which talk about the risen Lord and that this view predates Bede of 750AD by many decades not to discount what the bible says of the day dawn rising, yet this is being discounted.
  • That Easter refers to the “birth” or worship of fertility goddesses as per OED and many other references being ascribed by venerable Bede to have its derivation from paganism. This meaning to me is correct only that it is the counterfeit of the genuine Easter yet this is being contested since pascha only means “Passover”.
As my previous post a Greek word can be translated in the English in various ways with variant meaning dependent on it context and that will not contradict the bible and I hope this time we go to the context of the Bible to see fit what is the precise translation or exact English word either Pascha be an Easter or Passover in Acts 12:4. I asked why Pascha here is Passover. Would you by the context explain your view?

Thanks
Part of the problem of calculating Easter is it is tied to the Passover. The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar and every few years adds an extra month to realign it with the solar year. Thus the complicated calculations that once in a while is off.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
I wondered how long it would take before the KJV only guys would get their back hairs up, and turn this into an attempt to push their icon on us.
Funny thing is that the very arguments they make for it is the same ones made against it back in the 1600s.
All of the same arguments from tradition to the only true word of God is ... ,and they changed the words, and the meanings, blah blah blah, same ole same ole.
But you will never convince them of the truth, so why bother.
I keep the following file about the problems with the KJV. I use it but understand it's failings due to changes in English and knowledge of nature.
----------------
For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(this phrase is used instead of the word man. NIV uses the word man)
----------
Ouches has morphed into broaches for example. Thus broaches of gold makes sense. 400 years of language changes!!
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,708
6,379
113
Part of the problem of calculating Easter is it is tied to the Passover. The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar and every few years adds an extra month to realign it with the solar year. Thus the complicated calculations that once in a while is off.
Easter's calculation has nothing at all to do with passover. The early church purposefully dissociated it from the scriptural day they claim it is equivalent to.

It's tied to the vernal equinox and the first full moon after it and the first Julian calendar Sunday after that.

Except it's not even actually tied to the equinox because Rome also fixed a date for it as March 21, tho the equinox can land anywhere between the 19th to 22nd year to year.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
4,125
1,592
113
I keep the following file about the problems with the KJV. I use it but understand it's failings due to changes in English and knowledge of nature.
----------------
For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(this phrase is used instead of the word man. NIV uses the word man)
----------
Ouches has morphed into broaches for example. Thus broaches of gold makes sense. 400 years of language changes!!
Just use a dictionary if you dont understand those words.
Ok?
Thats helpful for any kind of literature, not just the Bible.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
4,125
1,592
113
I find I need to use dictionary sometimes for american phrasings and idioms. And in modern day, the internet now has urban dictionary. So when people in american movies say some really strange things, I can look it up and find out what they mean lol.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,044
5,467
113
I find I need to use dictionary sometimes for american phrasings and idioms. And in modern day, the internet now has urban dictionary. So when people in american movies say some really strange things, I can look it up and find out what they mean lol.
If you're using Urban Dictionary, you'll also learn a lot of things you didn't need to know. ;)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,044
5,467
113
Just use a dictionary if you dont understand those words.
Ok?
Thats helpful for any kind of literature, not just the Bible.
True, but why not use a Bible that doesn't require you to have a dictionary on hand most of the time.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
Just use a dictionary if you dont understand those words.
Ok?
Thats helpful for any kind of literature, not just the Bible.
Like I stated, I use my smartphone and switch between translations. Thus don't need a dictionary. Also it is inaccurate with the changes in the language. A great example is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." In 1611 kill meant first degree murder. Today we use the word for accidents where the one killed was in an accident that was their or others fault or with mechanical failure.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,502
967
113
Texas
I keep the following file about the problems with the KJV. I use it but understand it's failings due to changes in English and knowledge of nature.
----------------
For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(this phrase is used instead of the word man. NIV uses the word man)
----------
Ouches has morphed into broaches for example. Thus broaches of gold makes sense. 400 years of language changes!!
Not only these archaic terms, but and probably the most egregious is the terms that were not translated but transliterated such as baptize, and pastor, which could have been translated and the real meaning better served, for baptize we would have emersed in, and for pastor we would have Shepard. This would leave no room for sprinkling and pastors who are out of their role.
Fro me there is one more major sticking point and that would be "Textus Receptus" which is the majority text from which the KJV was translated/transliterated/ interpreted from. The Textus Receptus was the work of a Dutch humanist named Erasmus, who was trying to get his work approved for print before Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros could finish his work and have approval.
The problem is with Erasmus himself, the proclaimed Prince of Christian humanists, who also wrote "Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style" which is basically a text book teaching how to rewrite pre-existing texts, and how to incorporate rhetoric in the new composition, and instructed on how to embellish, amplify, and add variety to speech and writing.
The implications of this philosophy of writing, when translating Biblical text is at least concerning, when you consider that the man who wrote this also did the majority text from which the KJV was taken.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,044
5,467
113
Not only these archaic terms, but and probably the most egregious is the terms that were not translated but transliterated such as baptize, and pastor, which could have been translated and the real meaning better served, for baptize we would have emersed in, and for pastor we would have Shepard. This would leave no room for sprinkling and pastors who are out of their role.
Fro me there is one more major sticking point and that would be "Textus Receptus" which is the majority text from which the KJV was translated/transliterated/ interpreted from. The Textus Receptus was the work of a Dutch humanist named Erasmus, who was trying to get his work approved for print before Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros could finish his work and have approval.
The problem is with Erasmus himself, the proclaimed Prince of Christian humanists, who also wrote "Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style" which is basically a text book teaching how to rewrite pre-existing texts, and how to incorporate rhetoric in the new composition, and instructed on how to embellish, amplify, and add variety to speech and writing.
The implications of this philosophy of writing, when translating Biblical text is at least concerning, when you consider that the man who wrote this also did the majority text from which the KJV was taken.
While I don't think that anything you've shared here is incorrect, it is a bit misleading. "Humanist" means something quite different today than it did in 1515. It's unfortunate that you made the same error that the KJV-onlyists do, by assuming that meanings haven't changed!

Also, it is a fallacy of guilt by association to conclude that just because Erasmus wrote a treatise on how to embellish existing writings, that he did so with the biblical text. If he had done so, such embellishments would have been exposed long ago. He did add a few conjectural emendations, but these were primarily where his source material was inadequate, such as with the last few verses of Revelation. Even though Erasmus was a Catholic priest and a 'humanist', the work of collation that he accomplished was of high quality.

Further, the term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from about 1632, when the Elzevir brothers wanted to sell their version of the text. The family of texts that Erasmus used is now known as the majority text, simply because there are more manuscripts in that family than in other families. He actually had about half a dozen manuscripts at his disposal (and none complete); a far cry from the 5800-some available today.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,502
967
113
Texas
While I don't think that anything you've shared here is incorrect, it is a bit misleading. "Humanist" means something quite different today than it did in 1515. It's unfortunate that you made the same error that the KJV-onlyists do, by assuming that meanings haven't changed!

Also, it is a fallacy of guilt by association to conclude that just because Erasmus wrote a treatise on how to embellish existing writings, that he did so with the biblical text. If he had done so, such embellishments would have been exposed long ago. He did add a few conjectural emendations, but these were primarily where his source material was inadequate, such as with the last few verses of Revelation. Even though Erasmus was a Catholic priest and a 'humanist', the work of collation that he accomplished was of high quality.

Further, the term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from about 1632, when the Elzevir brothers wanted to sell their version of the text. The family of texts that Erasmus used is now known as the majority text, simply because there are more manuscripts in that family than in other families. He actually had about half a dozen manuscripts at his disposal (and none complete); a far cry from the 5800-some available today.
Fair enough.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,529
484
83
these dictionaries are written long after the conflagration / replacement happened around 1700 years ago in 325 AD
their definitions reflect 1700 years of misuse of the terms.


the Greek pascha does not mean resurrection i don't know where you're pulling that information from. that is just plain factually incorrect. Greek for resurrection is anastasis -- go look up John 11:25, Jesus did not say "I AM the Easter"
Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις
does that say pascha anywhere? no. it doesn't. if you insist it does then you need to also go change the rest of the Bible.

Greek Pascha is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew for Pesach. it is not a Greek word in origin at all; it is an Hebrew word incorporated into the Greek language and it means to pass over. the same is true of Latin -- Pachal / Pascha was transliterated into Latin it is not a Latin word with some other etymology. same is true for French, for Gothic, for Italian, etc.
High German replaces the Gothic transliterated word with '
Ostern' and English does with 'Easter' -- but this 'feast day' bears no relation to Pascha as defined in the scripture even though the Roman church equivocated it. as late as the 8th century when the word Eostare is first recorded in the English language, and is having something to do with the month Pascha takes place in, Bede still calls it 'Pachal month' -- not using the word Eostare to refer to the feast at all but remarking that it is a word named after a pagan goddess.


you don't have an argument, Fred.
someone preaching about Christ's resurrection is to be expected. Christ rose. it doesn't change etymological facts.
you don't have sound logic, Fred.


if anyone in the world used the word Easter in the 1st century they were saying Eostare and it was definitely referring to a dawn goddess, not Jesus.
Luke used the word Pascha. for 1500 years every Bible in any language faithfully used the word Pascha or a transliteration of it.
somewhere in the dark ages the Germanic peoples around the throne of the holy roman empire exchanged it for '
Oster' and they did it throughout the whole NT.
Tyndale IMO heavily influenced by Luther here, replaced the word God had written, Pachal / Pascha, with '
Easter' throughout the entire Bible in English.
this is obviously an over-reaching attempt to delete the Jewish connection to the feast day that Christ chose to offer Himself on and replace it with a completely invented one. Constantine said as much in his letter to the Nicene council: his wish was to totally separate the day of remembrance of Christ's resurrection from its Hebraic basis -- which happens to be the scriptural basis.
Pascha is scriptural.
Christ rising on firstfruits is scriptural.
Eostare is not scriptural. neither in the day it is observed nor in the customs and traditions with which it is observed not in the name.
the KJV of Acts 12 simply preserves that same legacy of changing the times and seasons.


keep whatever day you want, so long as you keep it to the Lord. idc. you're not condemned by keeping it or by not.
but i personally would rather be informed of the truth, and i'd rather be right. i wouldn't exchange the truth for loyalty to a translation -- but that's just me.
What I said is actually the meaning of Pascha which is pertaining to the resurrection. This is relatively true where I mentioned earlier of my post citing a reference to it with a 16th Ce. Dictionary that means to say it is related to Anastasis. BTW anastasis do not have a single translation which you are trying to say that a Greek word which will always have one singular translation in the English and that is false. The elementary behind is that a Greek word can have variant translation in English. And that an English word can have a different form in the Greek. I own 2 Volumes of The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (OED) as reference and you said these are false and 16th Century Dictionaries I cited were but a change from your truth. But I differ with your assertion in due to the Council of Nicene yet I believe in the Bible that is recorded earlier than the Nicene Council. Is the Bible reliable to have its own answer? Yes, since we need to consider its contextual nature.
Hereto is I believe is the contextual proofs:
  • In Acts 12:3, Dr. Luke said King Herod arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread and not on the Feast of the Unleavened bread.
  • According to Luke 22:1, the Feast (not the days) of the unleavened bread is the Passover. We know it, this feast started the night of 14th of Abib to commemorate the night (which is a part of a day) not days (in reference to a week) of commemorate how God “pass over” those houses that were painted with the blood.
  • Luke is taking us to the original Feast and Days. If translation is to be made on “Passover” for the Pascha in Acts 12:4 then it is absurd, since the feasting or eating the meal Passover is done on the time of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,502
967
113
Texas
It's kind of interesting to me that everyone who writes critically about Erasmus, dubs him a humanist. This in light of the modern term humanist is in fact an error; he was indeed a Christian humanist, by the standard of his time. Which simply means he believed that by the free will a man chooses God, rather than the doctrine of election. They never clarify this, they leave that term "humanist" just hanging out there as if it were an indictment of felonious nature, rather than the traffic violation that it is. if you subscribe to the "triage of theology" as described by dr. Albert Mohler.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,529
484
83
I see what you are doin'. Although, am not certain as to the "why" of it. Save for "educational" purposes.
Seems you are either knowingly, or unknowingly, (or willingly ignorantly) explaining, and/or justifying, and/or teaching, concerning the "apostasy", handed down, and gaining speed, over the course of history. Likening it, rather to (a) New and Improved "Gospel". In other words? Showing readers how TRADITIONS of Man, have made void the Word of God.
All this is just over the matter/s concerning Passover!
Gives a very legitimate cause in a believer's wondering, if this has been done regarding Passover?
What "other" ways concerning He who sent Christ, have been altered, and/or DELIBERATELY "mistaught" over this present earth/heaven age? :unsure:
Or better yet? How is one to "amend" for, or start "FILLING
the void", traditions of man have dug a hole through to the bottomless pit (void) for us? :unsure:
Not that so fast, for I owned the 2 Volume Dictionaries as a rare collection which is “The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles” which I cited most of the time. The edition is completely reset with Etymologies by GWS Friedrichsen. This major undertaking represents more than eight years work of GWSF. Moreover, the dictionary was compiled and edited from materials amounting to over five million quotations derived from English works of literature and records of all kinds and resulted in 15,000 large quarto pages. Moreover, the 2 Volume Dictionary as stated in its Preface “…covers the history of the general English vocabulary from the days of King Alfred..." King Alfred(849-901AD) is a king of England who translated the Ten Commandments, the Psalms and part of the Gospels in English. Downplaying this is to misunderstood the laborious works of some members of the Oxford Philologist/scholars. Of course NayborBear, it is not my intention to void the word of God for it is I believe it is in the Word of God.
 
Not that so fast, for I owned the 2 Volume Dictionaries as a rare collection which is “The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles” which I cited most of the time. The edition is completely reset with Etymologies by GWS Friedrichsen. This major undertaking represents more than eight years work of GWSF. Moreover, the dictionary was compiled and edited from materials amounting to over five million quotations derived from English works of literature and records of all kinds and resulted in 15,000 large quarto pages. Moreover, the 2 Volume Dictionary as stated in its Preface “…covers the history of the general English vocabulary from the days of King Alfred..." King Alfred(849-901AD) is a king of England who translated the Ten Commandments, the Psalms and part of the Gospels in English. Downplaying this is to misunderstood the laborious works of some members of the Oxford Philologist/scholars. Of course NayborBear, it is not my intention to void the word of God for it is I believe it is in the Word of God.
While I admire that you have some very rare books written and compiled by some very honorable people.
I wonder if within those pages they "etymologized (sp?)" the word "apostasy", or the "falling/drifting away", from the "faith?" Or the word "euphemism?" Or, the "watering down" of a word's definition, or certain phrase/s, especially, as to how it pertains to the "sacred texts." Which might "offend the senses", of those "dull of hearing."

All of which these people you mentioned, is nothing new, actually. Even from as far back (and even further back, with Enoch) as God's humble servant Elijah. Who cried unto God exclaiming, that "they have killed all your Priests!" "And, now?" "They're coming after me!"
So, it really is no huge "secret", that "Those called by MY NAME", (and not necessarily Christ's name. But also, He who sent Christ) have chosen to place TARGETS on their collective back sides.
One would have to ask oneself: "Who would do such a thing, willingly?" Especially, after reading the N.T., where not even one of Jesus's original twelve Disciples asked to be a Disciple. They were CHOSEN! Meaning? They had NO say regarding the matter! Paul's "come to Jesus" moment wasn't even of his volunteering!

This is unlike those of the O.T., who were "born into" the Levitical Priesthood. And, after the passing of time? Even some of those strayed, from "the Ways of God!" (Ezra/Nehemiah. And especially before that)

Time, may well be on Mick Jagger's side. But time, is not so friendly to and for those of "the true faith!"

Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that in mankind's "struggle" to keep on keeping on? Is by a "willfully blurring of the target!"
And, what the writers' and compilers of these books you have are actually doing? Is bearing witness to this.
Matthew 13
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Numbers 18
12 All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the firstfruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee.
John 3
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The war is very real between flesh and Spirit! Considering, the Spirit is that immovable object? And flesh being that irresistable force going forwards?
Consider this:
Revelation 13
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man (sons of iniquity); and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Jude
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
Not only these archaic terms, but and probably the most egregious is the terms that were not translated but transliterated such as baptize, and pastor, which could have been translated and the real meaning better served, for baptize we would have emersed in, and for pastor we would have Shepard. This would leave no room for sprinkling and pastors who are out of their role.
Fro me there is one more major sticking point and that would be "Textus Receptus" which is the majority text from which the KJV was translated/transliterated/ interpreted from. The Textus Receptus was the work of a Dutch humanist named Erasmus, who was trying to get his work approved for print before Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros could finish his work and have approval.
The problem is with Erasmus himself, the proclaimed Prince of Christian humanists, who also wrote "Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style" which is basically a text book teaching how to rewrite pre-existing texts, and how to incorporate rhetoric in the new composition, and instructed on how to embellish, amplify, and add variety to speech and writing.
The implications of this philosophy of writing, when translating Biblical text is at least concerning, when you consider that the man who wrote this also did the majority text from which the KJV was taken.
It doesn't matter what documents the KJV was taken from. 408 years of language changes and understanding of nature make the translation problematic. That is the issue too many want to ignore!!
 
I don't "object" to any other translation/s, or versions of the Bible. Although, I rather object as to which letters, writings, etc. that were not allowed in the Bible, via the "canonization process."
ANY version, or translation that causes one in loving the TRUTH? Have AT it! And, may God BLESS for doing so! :)
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,529
484
83
While I admire that you have some very rare books written and compiled by some very honorable people.
I wonder if within those pages they "etymologized (sp?)" the word "apostasy", or the "falling/drifting away", from the "faith?" Or the word "euphemism?" Or, the "watering down" of a word's definition, or certain phrase/s, especially, as to how it pertains to the "sacred texts." Which might "offend the senses", of those "dull of hearing."

All of which these people you mentioned, is nothing new, actually. Even from as far back (and even further back, with Enoch) as God's humble servant Elijah. Who cried unto God exclaiming, that "they have killed all your Priests!" "And, now?" "They're coming after me!"
So, it really is no huge "secret", that "Those called by MY NAME", (and not necessarily Christ's name. But also, He who sent Christ) have chosen to place TARGETS on their collective back sides.
One would have to ask oneself: "Who would do such a thing, willingly?" Especially, after reading the N.T., where not even one of Jesus's original twelve Disciples asked to be a Disciple. They were CHOSEN! Meaning? They had NO say regarding the matter! Paul's "come to Jesus" moment wasn't even of his volunteering!

This is unlike those of the O.T., who were "born into" the Levitical Priesthood. And, after the passing of time? Even some of those strayed, from "the Ways of God!" (Ezra/Nehemiah. And especially before that)

Time, may well be on Mick Jagger's side. But time, is not so friendly to and for those of "the true faith!"

Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that in mankind's "struggle" to keep on keeping on? Is by a "willfully blurring of the target!"
And, what the writers' and compilers of these books you have are actually doing? Is bearing witness to this.
Matthew 13
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Numbers 18
12 All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the firstfruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee.
John 3
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The war is very real between flesh and Spirit! Considering, the Spirit is that immovable object? And flesh being that irresistable force going forwards?
Consider this:
Revelation 13
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man (sons of iniquity); and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Jude
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Ok Nayhobear, still don't know what you are trying to draw. I was told to look into of someones post and I didn't intend to be argumentative but consider it as friendly neighborhood discussion. But if you have nothing to offer, then I rest my case.

God bless