-
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.
2
2Thewaters
Guest
King james VERSUS?
Gods word does not contradict each other, they are all good to hear the gospel of repentance to give us his grace to save us from SINNING anymore.
Gods word does not contradict each other, they are all good to hear the gospel of repentance to give us his grace to save us from SINNING anymore.
I agree with you whole heartedly, that is EXACTLY why this issue is so important. The Alexandrian texts do what they can to pollute that truth.
P.S. the NIV contradicts itself. I have already posted one such verse.
United Bible Societies, 4th Edition. It is the same version as the 27th Nestle Alland. The one all the scholars use. And it gives all the variations on all the texts, including your Byzantine and thousands of other manuscripts.
Actually, I was thinking about this charge that Alexandrian manuscripts were gnostic. In fact, Alexandria, is the home of Arianism, which says that the Son was not equal to the Father, that he was more a man than God. It is attributed to Arius, who lived from 250-336 AD. The First Council of Nicea was convened in 325 to counter this heresy. I guess they weren't as gnostic as some KJV Onlyists would like to believe.
I prefer the earliest texts. Byzantines were noted for adding things to the manuscripts, explanations in the margins and in the actual text. Plus, the only reason they are the so-called "majority" text is that the rest of the world went on to speak other languages, and the Greeks kept speaking Greek, and writing out more and more manuscripts, often copying the same mistakes over and over, until it seemed like the mistakes were part of the originals, there were so many copies.
And contrary the nonsense that some people here believe, the original New Testament was in Greek, there are no extant copies of the New Testament in Hebrew. In addition, the Septuagint, translated about 400 years BC from Hebrew to Greek (The whole Old Testament!) is often used by Jesus and the disciples, so they were not disturbed by using the Greek language.
In fact, Koine Greek usage, which spread throughout the entire Roman empire, through the Hellenization program of Alexander the Great, was one of the "fullness of time" because the gospel could be spread throughout the known world in one language - Koine, or common Greek.
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law," Gal. 4:4
Really, it is the Holy Spirit, who was given to us to illume the Scriptures, and guide us in all truth. I don't see this saying the KJV ONLY is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness!
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, [SUP]17 [/SUP]so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 NIV
I picked this version, because it is the only one that translates anthropos -ἄνθρωπος, in a gender neutral way, which the word is! (Although servant is not quite right, it should really be "person of God.")
Sources please!! It no where says in the Bible that Luke had a Hebrew father (that was actually Timothy) and I have never heard of Eusebius or Jerome saying the Bible was originally written in Hebrew.
Give me the manuscripts and the dates. You are Judaizing that which was NEVER in Hebrew in the first place! Why does that not surprise me? To say nothing of the fact that Jerome barely spoke Hebrew, and lived almost 400 years after Christ, hardly making him a party to original documents! Eusebius lived 300 years after Jesus, so he is scarcely contemporary with the earliest manuscripts either. More hearsay, or more likely, made up nonsense!
"I prefer the earliest texts. Byzantines were noted for adding things to the manuscripts"-Angela
what did the byzantines add to the original text?
I know for a fact that the alexandrian texts took things out that were their from the second century, what then?
"The one all the scholars use."-Angela
lol, that reminded me of "all the kids are doing it"
Look, you want to get in to translation? that the KJV translation is off? okay, you are trying to show where the NIV translation is on. Okay, I only believe in the received texts, the thousands that agree with each other. If you would like to show me translation I would appreciate it if you would use the Textus receptus. That is the one I am interested in. Nobody else seems to care that there is corruption in the manuscripts allowed. Everyone has to make their own decision. Okay. I've said what I can, I've offered enough evidence for those who look into it. I only ask you. Since you read ancient languages. How do those verses I've supplied translate from the Textus Receptus?
what did the byzantines add to the original text?
I know for a fact that the alexandrian texts took things out that were their from the second century, what then?
"The one all the scholars use."-Angela
lol, that reminded me of "all the kids are doing it"
Look, you want to get in to translation? that the KJV translation is off? okay, you are trying to show where the NIV translation is on. Okay, I only believe in the received texts, the thousands that agree with each other. If you would like to show me translation I would appreciate it if you would use the Textus receptus. That is the one I am interested in. Nobody else seems to care that there is corruption in the manuscripts allowed. Everyone has to make their own decision. Okay. I've said what I can, I've offered enough evidence for those who look into it. I only ask you. Since you read ancient languages. How do those verses I've supplied translate from the Textus Receptus?
You are quick to label studies you haven't done as nonsense, I must say!! And I haven't read the original documents, I am taking the word of people who have read them. Have you read all these people have said, or are you sometimes learning from others who have studied them?
Eusebius quoted Papias and Erenaeus when he told of the early Hebrew of Matt. I hadn't heard of these two men, thought you probably hadn't, either. Origen said "The first (gospel) composed in the Hebrew language was written by Matt for those who came to faith from Judaism." Epiphanius (died 420 AD) wrote of the sect of Nazarines "They have the entire gospel of Matt in the Hebrew language."
Origen had the same view of all things of "Judaism" that you have, Angela. He was one of the first who broke the Christian Jews and the gentile Christians into sort of warring camps, as opposed to scripture's aim at combining them into one people.
The Greek text that was produced by Westcott and Hort was founded on the Roman Catholic Vaticanus Manuscript.
And during the Revision Committee; what was incorporated into the Revision was the latest and also the most extreme higher criticism. This is History. Anyone can look this stuff up. Westcott and Hort were rationalists.
And get this; the new Greek testament which the Revision Committee of Westcott and Hort had worked on for 20 years, had Somewhere over 5,000 changes made to the Traditional Greek text (Received Text).
This all was done even though Hort had admitted that the Traditional Text (Received Text) had been the dominant Greek New Testament for 1400 Years! Just incredible.
The Revision Committee had literally thousands of manuscripts to examine and look through; but they just decided to ignore the received texts and go with two minority texts (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). There was definitely an agenda to change and alter the word of God.
And during the Revision Committee; what was incorporated into the Revision was the latest and also the most extreme higher criticism. This is History. Anyone can look this stuff up. Westcott and Hort were rationalists.
And get this; the new Greek testament which the Revision Committee of Westcott and Hort had worked on for 20 years, had Somewhere over 5,000 changes made to the Traditional Greek text (Received Text).
This all was done even though Hort had admitted that the Traditional Text (Received Text) had been the dominant Greek New Testament for 1400 Years! Just incredible.
The Revision Committee had literally thousands of manuscripts to examine and look through; but they just decided to ignore the received texts and go with two minority texts (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). There was definitely an agenda to change and alter the word of God.
Tell me Deadtosin, do you know Greek well and are you read up on Greek manuscripts and their continual discoveries and how that is incorporated to bring us translations closer to the autographs or are you just parroting Burgon and others with their obvious bias to anything but the Received Text?
ROFL. I recommend the NIV for persons with a reading level rather low, or children. However, it can also be used when you want an easy reading translation, somewhat interpretive, but better than a paraphrase.
Nope, but men I trust are. There are lots of them. I'm not a nutritionist either, but I trust that veggies are good for me.
well, I was reading at a college level in 7th grade. I just happened to have an NIV and I loved it.
I don't know what Revision committee you refer to. If you mean that of the Revised Version of 1881, it is much like the KJV, with some changes. The edition of the Greek Testament which I like to use, has the major variations with the witnesses in the footnotes. So you can make your own decision on variant readings, not that many of them make much difference in doctrine.
When I began college, I bought the New English Bible NT and read it. Reading 1 Cor helped towards my salvation, the beginning where it decries human wisdom. I don't recommend the NEB as a great authority, but it is intelligible; and I like reading it. Its OT has a particularly outrageous translation on Achsah, Othniel's wife, Caleb's daughter, saying she passed air as sitting on a donkey or alighting. It may the funniest translation (distortion) ever made in an translation.
I am sure that the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8 is an apocryphal story. It was incorporated in the Byzantine text, and now we are stuck with seeing it in the Bible, even if footnoted as non-genuine. That story may be the most well-known Bible story by the ungodly. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.