Bible versions-Is there only one?

[KJV1611]

Question for the scholars. How did the prophecy of the pre-incarnate Christ going forth in old times change to Christ having an origin? And if your answer is origins means going forth, then when did the NIV chose to use language that makes it appear that Christ had an origin?

Micah 5:2 New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

 

[KJV1611]

I would encourage you to read more carefully.

The original-language manuscripts.

What did I misread?

 

[Dino246]

What did I misread?

I'm surprised you don't see it yet...

Original-LANGUAGE manuscripts.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm surprised you don't see it yet...

Original-LANGUAGE manuscripts.

The original-language manuscripts don't exist. COPIES of them exist... but lets see how childish this discussion can go.

 

[John146]

Actually, they would not! They had 7 old corrupt manuscripts to work from. Most came from Erasmus' Catholic Bible, and when Greek texts were not available, Erasmus back translated from Latin. I don't doubt the KJV translators were the best of their day. But, we know so much more about Koine Greek 400 years later. My prof wrote a book on the morphology of Greek. It gives the rules and exceptions for every word or word group in the NT, for every verb, noun, adjective, adverb and interjections, etc. Our knowledge of Greek, our lexicons are so much better than the limited knowledge the scholars of that day had.

And they started with CORRUPT Byzantine late copies. Not a chance of getting it right, which the translators actually said in the preface to the KJV.

I guess you would rather believe your cult KJV-Onlyists friends, than the translators themselves. I read the NET right now, with 66,000 footnotes, mostly on translational issues, and background material. They also refer to all the various manuscripts, and cite which version uses which word. I use the SBL for reading Greek.

You have no qualifications for being a scholar, other than studying it on your own, and with other cultists. You are worthy of an ignore, because you are clueless about everything to do not only with translating, but also about how to live for Christ.

Ignore me? I don’t care. I thought this was a discussion board. I’m not taking my ball and going home.

95% percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining 5% evidence.😩

Your new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition.

All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.

 

[Dino246]

The original-language manuscripts don't exist. COPIES of them exist...

Handwritten copies of original-language manuscripts in the original languages would be...


(Dunh Dunh Dunh...)


original-language manuscripts.


There... is that childish enough for you? Or do I need to dumb it down some more?

 

[Dino246]

95% percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining 5% evidence.😩

That is a stupid and ignorant comment on which I have already corrected you. That you repeat it is beyond belief.

Your new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition.

How would you know? What manuscript evidence do you have against which to compare them?

 

[KJV1611]

Handwritten copies of original-language manuscripts in the original languages would be...


(Dunh Dunh Dunh...)


original-language manuscripts.


There... is that childish enough for you? Or do I need to dumb it down some more?

Handwritten copies of original-language manuscripts in the original languages would be...


(Dunh Dunh Dunh...)


original-language manuscripts.


There... is that childish enough for you? Or do I need to dumb it down some more?

No that's good enough for me. Do you even acknowledge that some of those copies for corrupt?

 

[Angela53510]

Do you believe that God allows the corruption of his word?

In fact, I do! Why? Because we are fallen. True, Christ has saved us, but we are not perfect or glorified. That is why the earliest manuscripts are more accurate, because the hand of imperfect people has touched them less. The Byzantine manuscripts have all been logged and the mistakes charted through families. The errors are well known, in every one of the 4 families. Constantly, the other 3 families tend to agree with one another, when compared to the Byzantine, too.

On the other hand, God has preserved the Bible, by allowing well studied and humble men to compare texts, to find the errors and eliminate them. Is the Bible accurate? Of course!! Is it perfect? It cannot be, as long as men are involved.

Your faith in the perfection of the KJV is pure and unadulterated magic. God knew from when Adam and Eve fell in the garden, he would have to arrange to have the best possible manuscripts be discovered. Daniel Wallace was given permission to go into the libraries of Constantinople, (Now know as Istanbul) and Greece and photography, copy and name every unknown manuscripts. His goal is to find the original autographs, which God may make available as we grow closer to the return of Jesus. If not, he has still found thousands of new manuscripts, older, better, or perhaps newer and even more corrupt, for scholars to ponder for decades to come. With computers, this job may also be much easier than it ever was.

There are over 6000 manuscripts of the Greek NT extant. The KJV used 7 corrupt ones. It baffles me how someone could ever believe the KJV could be perfect. God says his Word will be preserved. For me, right now, that is the NET in English, the Revised Martin Luther Bible in German, the Septuagint, which the disciples and Jesus quoted over 80% of the time. And funny how the disciples and Jesus never got hung up on whether the Hebrew or Septuagint were more perfect versions. No, they just quoted both, although the Septuagint was used so much more in the first century, because besides Aramaic in the NME, Greek was the common language of the Roman world, reflected in the word, Koine, which means common.

 

[Dino246]

No that's good enough for me. Do you even acknowledge that some of those copies for corrupt?

Do I "even" acknowledge? I suspect an agenda behind that.

I acknowledge that there are differences in the original-language manuscripts. I prefer to reserve the word "corrupt" for malintentioned mistranslations.

 

[Magenta]

Rgr that, something I would like to know more on is the difference between old, middle and modern English

 

[Roughsoul1991]

What do you base 98% accuracy on? What’s the benchmark?

The ancient manuscripts, fragments, codex's, artifacts, ancient historians, early church writings, early Christian apologist, and translations. All can be used within textual criticism and cross examination to determine how close our Bible is to the original wording.

 

[John146]

On the other hand, God has preserved the Bible, by allowing well studied and humble men to compare texts, to find the errors and eliminate them. Is the Bible accurate? Of course!! Is it perfect? It cannot be, as long as men are involved.

If this is true, why don’t these men give us a perfect Bible?

 

[John146]

His goal is to find the original autographs, which God may make available as we grow closer to the return of Jesus.

You know that’s not even possible.

 

[John146]

No, they just quoted both, although the Septuagint was used so much more in the first century, because besides Aramaic in the NME, Greek was the common language of the Roman world, reflected in the word, Koine, which means common.

That’s comical.😂. Where were these manuscripts found? The Vaticanus and sinaiticus?

 

[Chester]

If this is true, why don’t these men give us a perfect Bible?

The issue is not a perfect Bible . . . But we do have a perfect God who is able to use imperfect men . . .

 

[John146]

The issue is not a perfect Bible . . . But we do have a perfect God who is able to use imperfect men . . .

...To preserve God’s pure words that He commanded us to live by.

If we don’t have God’s preserved perfect words, how can God hold us accountable to obey His words? Hmmmmmmm

 

[Roughsoul1991]

A spelling change does not take away from accuracy. It is still the same word. But the new versions differ from the KJV at least 10,000 times in words, phrases, and verses.

Let's go through some examples then. List a few so they may be discussed. Let's see how much they alter the meaning of scripture. But you must also show that the KJV was accurately translated compared to the manuscripts, codex's, fragments that we now have.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

If this is true, why don’t these men give us a perfect Bible?

What do you mean? God through men did give us a perfect Bible. It is perfect because we know what is false, errors, or differences. We know the message has been unaltered throughout the centuries.

 

[John146]

Let's go through some examples then. List a few so they may be discussed. Let's see how much they alter the meaning of scripture. But you must also show that the KJV was accurately translated compared to the manuscripts, codex's, fragments that we now have.

Since 1611, there have been standardized spelling changes in the King James Bible. In the early editions of the KJB, words like "bear," "dark" and "fear" had the letter "e" on end of them. Words like "mooued," "bee" and "mee" were changed into "moved," "be" and "me." These changes made no change in the context or in any doctrine.