-
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.
- Status
The NIV and the message Was not the authorized english version for almost 400 years as was the King james I stated eariler I state it again, It is not about better, well my point is not anyway. it is about The Word of God, to believe that there is one error in it , then how can we know that John 3:16 is correct,
1co 5:6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
and I don't care if this man/woman had three ph.d's and was related to one of the 12 disciples, to say the the Holy Bible has errors is blaspheme itself. the other perversion have never been approved by anyone much less authorized. Let God be the truth and all men lairs
1co 5:6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
and I don't care if this man/woman had three ph.d's and was related to one of the 12 disciples, to say the the Holy Bible has errors is blaspheme itself. the other perversion have never been approved by anyone much less authorized. Let God be the truth and all men lairs
G
Again, it was authorized by KING JAMES (a man), and not by God. All the other versions were "authorized", I guess, by the people who made them.
To say that a translation has errors is not blasphemy. Even to say that the original text has errors is not blasphemy. I'm sure we all know by now that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was added to John's book sometime later (not by the original author). Any credible biblical scholar acknowledges this. That is not blasphemy: it is simply being honest. And remember that the books that have been assembled and called "The Bible" were decided upon by men. They left some books out and others in. Men did it, not God. To say that the Bible is God's infallible word is blasphemy, because it's assembly was the work of men. This is history. This is fact. We all know this.
To say that a translation has errors is not blasphemy. Even to say that the original text has errors is not blasphemy. I'm sure we all know by now that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was added to John's book sometime later (not by the original author). Any credible biblical scholar acknowledges this. That is not blasphemy: it is simply being honest. And remember that the books that have been assembled and called "The Bible" were decided upon by men. They left some books out and others in. Men did it, not God. To say that the Bible is God's infallible word is blasphemy, because it's assembly was the work of men. This is history. This is fact. We all know this.
A
wow!
I am not offended from what you said, I have not looked at the link you posted, but from what I read I would have to agree so far.
I have many different translations I read from, not just one.
But it doesn't really mean anything if you don't have love.
Love is patient, love is kind
Can you finnish the rest of what love is?
If not, than I think it's time to find out what kind of God you say you believe in, because if not love done in the way as in 1Cor13 it is not love at all. And how can we teach or preach anything without first finding out what love is and what it is not? God is love and those that love are of God!
1Cor13
This is not directed to you LynnJ
I am not offended from what you said, I have not looked at the link you posted, but from what I read I would have to agree so far.
I have many different translations I read from, not just one.
But it doesn't really mean anything if you don't have love.
Love is patient, love is kind
Can you finnish the rest of what love is?
If not, than I think it's time to find out what kind of God you say you believe in, because if not love done in the way as in 1Cor13 it is not love at all. And how can we teach or preach anything without first finding out what love is and what it is not? God is love and those that love are of God!
1Cor13
This is not directed to you LynnJ
Job 32:8But there is a spirit in man: and the INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
2ti 3:16All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Mt 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.Mr 13:31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.Lu 21:33Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Let's just focus one this one verse, Job 32:8But there is a spirit in man: and the INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth them understanding.( KJB )
Job 32:8 (New International Version)
8 But it is the spirit [a] in a man,
the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
Footnotes:
Job 32:8 Or Spirit ; also in verse 18
we establish in either translation that the Spirit gives us understanding, so then let's establish that regardless of our weak weeble minds that are full of error, could never translate a Holy Bible, but if we are inspired by God all we could do is to bring forth His Holy Word. thus we could say that this verse would be truth;
2ti 3:16All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ( KJB )
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
again both translations states that ALL SCRIPTURE is of God. So now our faith should at this point lead us to believe that if God could inspired weeble man to pass along His True Word, then would it be beyond God's capablity to inspire weeble man to translate from one language to another His God-Breathed True Word (*1).
*1. if it is not True then it is not His God-Breathed Word
so now let's establish one more truth.
1co 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Corinthians 14:33 (New International Version)
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints,
oops we have a problem one Spirit inspired translation says author of confusion and one God-Breathed translation says is not a God of disorder. well no big problem though disorder could be confusion, and confusion could cause disorder. So let's look at one more truth.
Tit 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; ( KJB )
Titus 1:2 (New International Version)
2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
Ok so here we are Both translations saying that God can not lie and does not lie, so sir( or anybody else that would like to try to) could you please explain to me that the God that can not lie and does not lie, who has also promised that His true (*1 ) Word shall not pass away, How can anyone make the claim that all translations are of God, if we have many translations that don't all agree with each other in ALL areas of scriptures, the only way we could say without BLASPHEMING GOD HIMSELF if GOD BREATHED HIS WORD, is that all translations agree in ALL areas, there Must be Truth from God if all are wrong in any area then God lied when He said His Word shall never pass away. if one manuscript differs from another manuscript. then both can not be God inspired one has to be truth one has to be corrupt. if one Bible disagrees with another one has to be truth one has to be corrupt, yeah maybe we can get enough truth from even the corrupt , but it was God that said :
*1. if it is not True then it is not His God-Breathed Word.
1co 5:6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?1co 5:7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:1co 5:8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
2ti 3:16All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Mt 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.Mr 13:31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.Lu 21:33Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Let's just focus one this one verse, Job 32:8But there is a spirit in man: and the INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth them understanding.( KJB )
Job 32:8 (New International Version)
8 But it is the spirit [a] in a man,
the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
Footnotes:
Job 32:8 Or Spirit ; also in verse 18
we establish in either translation that the Spirit gives us understanding, so then let's establish that regardless of our weak weeble minds that are full of error, could never translate a Holy Bible, but if we are inspired by God all we could do is to bring forth His Holy Word. thus we could say that this verse would be truth;
2ti 3:16All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ( KJB )
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
again both translations states that ALL SCRIPTURE is of God. So now our faith should at this point lead us to believe that if God could inspired weeble man to pass along His True Word, then would it be beyond God's capablity to inspire weeble man to translate from one language to another His God-Breathed True Word (*1).
*1. if it is not True then it is not His God-Breathed Word
so now let's establish one more truth.
1co 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Corinthians 14:33 (New International Version)
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints,
oops we have a problem one Spirit inspired translation says author of confusion and one God-Breathed translation says is not a God of disorder. well no big problem though disorder could be confusion, and confusion could cause disorder. So let's look at one more truth.
Tit 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; ( KJB )
Titus 1:2 (New International Version)
2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
Ok so here we are Both translations saying that God can not lie and does not lie, so sir( or anybody else that would like to try to) could you please explain to me that the God that can not lie and does not lie, who has also promised that His true (*1 ) Word shall not pass away, How can anyone make the claim that all translations are of God, if we have many translations that don't all agree with each other in ALL areas of scriptures, the only way we could say without BLASPHEMING GOD HIMSELF if GOD BREATHED HIS WORD, is that all translations agree in ALL areas, there Must be Truth from God if all are wrong in any area then God lied when He said His Word shall never pass away. if one manuscript differs from another manuscript. then both can not be God inspired one has to be truth one has to be corrupt. if one Bible disagrees with another one has to be truth one has to be corrupt, yeah maybe we can get enough truth from even the corrupt , but it was God that said :
*1. if it is not True then it is not His God-Breathed Word.
1co 5:6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?1co 5:7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:1co 5:8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
God's Word is perfect amen.
I do think the KJV is the preferred translation that God would use. I had the strangest experience once. I never used the KJV, hardly even read it, but God spoke to me a verse of scripture which I could not find in my bible. I did find it however, in the KJV. God spoke using the KJV!, a verse I had never read in the KJV. Or maybe God abides by our copy right rules too? hahaha.
If we are using another version, there will be at least one area of doctrine we might not be quite right in. Since I started on the KJV I've had to re-learn or reconsider a number of things I used to believe. Other translations can only take you so far I've found.
I do think the KJV is the preferred translation that God would use. I had the strangest experience once. I never used the KJV, hardly even read it, but God spoke to me a verse of scripture which I could not find in my bible. I did find it however, in the KJV. God spoke using the KJV!, a verse I had never read in the KJV. Or maybe God abides by our copy right rules too? hahaha.
If we are using another version, there will be at least one area of doctrine we might not be quite right in. Since I started on the KJV I've had to re-learn or reconsider a number of things I used to believe. Other translations can only take you so far I've found.
B
Q: "What's the best Bible translation?"
A: "The one you read."
Do we really have to argue about this? God's word is inspired and inerrant, but a translation is only inerrant so far as it is translated correctly. I do think the KJV is a good Bible, preferable to freer or more gender-inclusive translations, but I personally have difficulty parsing the archaic language (archaic even for when the KJV was translated) and I prefer the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.
A: "The one you read."
Do we really have to argue about this? God's word is inspired and inerrant, but a translation is only inerrant so far as it is translated correctly. I do think the KJV is a good Bible, preferable to freer or more gender-inclusive translations, but I personally have difficulty parsing the archaic language (archaic even for when the KJV was translated) and I prefer the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.
F
Lynn, I wanted to say thank you for your posts and I enjoy reading them. I enjoy reading posts, which I may agree or or may not agree with, that are thoughtful and well expressed. But I have to say that I have been quite taken aback by language that is frequently directed at someone as if they themselves are a target.
I wish it would be clear in everyone's posts, that we may respect the person but disagree with his/her views, because I am learning there is a very wide variety of backgrounds of Christians here and the basis for our discussions should be love. We love because God loved us first.
I am sure that many people do take the time to pray for wisdom before logging on and responding. I am speaking from experience of having done the opposite many times and regretting it. I hope this is helpful to someone.
Blessings,
Faith
I wish it would be clear in everyone's posts, that we may respect the person but disagree with his/her views, because I am learning there is a very wide variety of backgrounds of Christians here and the basis for our discussions should be love. We love because God loved us first.
I am sure that many people do take the time to pray for wisdom before logging on and responding. I am speaking from experience of having done the opposite many times and regretting it. I hope this is helpful to someone.
Blessings,
Faith
S
There is no flawless translation because there are no flawless translators. God inspired the original autographs, not the subsequent translations.
The more literal a version the safer. It can be stiff and troublesome at times, but one should study the word. He should not simply settle for a spoon-feeding from an easy to read (ie, easy to mislead) version. The easier it is to read the greater the degree of interpretation by the translators.
The more literal a version the safer. It can be stiff and troublesome at times, but one should study the word. He should not simply settle for a spoon-feeding from an easy to read (ie, easy to mislead) version. The easier it is to read the greater the degree of interpretation by the translators.
B
Here is what we do know.
For a time, the Books of Enoch was "found" and adapted by the church until it was dropped as going against the sayings of Jesus about angels not marrying nor given in marriage... along with other scriptures that debunks the fables of Enoch as angels mingling with mankind. It took awhile for believers to use the Word of God to prune out the so called "lost books" which were not.
At face value, one can consider that just as easily as the Books of Enoch was included for a time, it can easily be seen that for a time, they left out John 8 about the woman caught in adultery because some believers may see that adultery is not such a grave offense as their "religious world" would have it and thus see that as a temptation to sin. Fearing abuse and misunderstanding Jesus' own words or take them out of context, they may have removed it, but the faithful kept it from being removed entirely. I am not saying that it is the case, but one would wonder if in preaching to the Jews about Jesus if the Jews would have a hard time with that saying of Jesus and thus fail to understand what appears to be a lack of seriousness of the offense by Him... and therefore use it as an excuse to walk awy from Him.
Kind of hard to know the mentality of the believers and those they are trying to preach to in those days, but I would fail to see why anyone would make up John 8, especially since the words and what He taught in that scene can be read elsewhere, but I can see why and how they would leave it out, but have it tacked on as not willing to part with it entirely since it was originally of the Book of John.
Speculation, but then comparing to what we know of the lost books of Enoch, of its inclusion and its dropping from the Bible, I can see how that which was of the Bible was removed from content, but not really willing to remove it from existence... as God would see to His Words being preserved.
John 14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
2 Timothy 4:13The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
Acts 11: 25Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. 27And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Acts 14: 21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. 23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. 24And after they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. 25And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia: 26And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. 27And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28And there they abode long time with the disciples.
Antioch was the home base for the disciples. The Received Text came from Antioch.
The other documents came from Alexandria where poetic licensing has been known to have taken place.
The documents being used the most and kept up would not have the oldest manuscripts for they would have fallen out of use and thus not kept up. Can the christian church survive from a document source that was gathering dusts? Or did they survive by use of the Received Text and kept them up as they were being used, multiplied, and sent forth?
So when scriptures says that they must be fulfilled and cannot be broken and cannot add or take away the meaning of God's words, then if the other translations derived not from the Received Text, and yet differs from the meaning found in the Received Text, I would go with the Received Text.. aka the King James Bible to discern false teachings and apostasy... to reprove the works of darkness by the true light of scriptures.
For a time, the Books of Enoch was "found" and adapted by the church until it was dropped as going against the sayings of Jesus about angels not marrying nor given in marriage... along with other scriptures that debunks the fables of Enoch as angels mingling with mankind. It took awhile for believers to use the Word of God to prune out the so called "lost books" which were not.
At face value, one can consider that just as easily as the Books of Enoch was included for a time, it can easily be seen that for a time, they left out John 8 about the woman caught in adultery because some believers may see that adultery is not such a grave offense as their "religious world" would have it and thus see that as a temptation to sin. Fearing abuse and misunderstanding Jesus' own words or take them out of context, they may have removed it, but the faithful kept it from being removed entirely. I am not saying that it is the case, but one would wonder if in preaching to the Jews about Jesus if the Jews would have a hard time with that saying of Jesus and thus fail to understand what appears to be a lack of seriousness of the offense by Him... and therefore use it as an excuse to walk awy from Him.
Kind of hard to know the mentality of the believers and those they are trying to preach to in those days, but I would fail to see why anyone would make up John 8, especially since the words and what He taught in that scene can be read elsewhere, but I can see why and how they would leave it out, but have it tacked on as not willing to part with it entirely since it was originally of the Book of John.
Speculation, but then comparing to what we know of the lost books of Enoch, of its inclusion and its dropping from the Bible, I can see how that which was of the Bible was removed from content, but not really willing to remove it from existence... as God would see to His Words being preserved.
John 14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
2 Timothy 4:13The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
Acts 11: 25Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. 27And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Acts 14: 21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. 23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. 24And after they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. 25And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia: 26And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. 27And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28And there they abode long time with the disciples.
Antioch was the home base for the disciples. The Received Text came from Antioch.
The other documents came from Alexandria where poetic licensing has been known to have taken place.
The documents being used the most and kept up would not have the oldest manuscripts for they would have fallen out of use and thus not kept up. Can the christian church survive from a document source that was gathering dusts? Or did they survive by use of the Received Text and kept them up as they were being used, multiplied, and sent forth?
So when scriptures says that they must be fulfilled and cannot be broken and cannot add or take away the meaning of God's words, then if the other translations derived not from the Received Text, and yet differs from the meaning found in the Received Text, I would go with the Received Text.. aka the King James Bible to discern false teachings and apostasy... to reprove the works of darkness by the true light of scriptures.
QUESTION: When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write 2Timothy 3:16, and Paul penned the words in the GREEK language "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." was the Holy Spirit referring to the words Paul was dictating to be recorded at that time - in Greek - or was he talking about the original Elizabethan English King James Bible Translation produced in 1611, or the modern-day updated versions of what is commonly known as the King James Version (KJV)? Also, in that statement of “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” was Paul also referring to the Old Testament Hebrew Texts, and if so, which ones? In His Grace!
The word also tells us, of course don't try to find this in the NIV because they took part of the verse out . whosoever is anger at his brother without cause, yeah so you mess with the word of God, belittle the Word of God. turn the Word of God, into a book full of lies you just gave me cause to be angry as well as any other Christian should be also.
Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:22 (New International Version)
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Footnotes:
Mark 3:5 (New International Version)
5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.
and sir i guess with the same verse you just judged me with as a sinnner you also judged Jesus with for as much as ye have done it unto the least of these ye have done it unto me also, thank you I have something else to be thankful for I am Praising God That he is my judge and not you.
In His Grace
Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:22 (New International Version)
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Footnotes:
- Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother without cause
- Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
Mark 3:5 (New International Version)
5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.
and sir i guess with the same verse you just judged me with as a sinnner you also judged Jesus with for as much as ye have done it unto the least of these ye have done it unto me also, thank you I have something else to be thankful for I am Praising God That he is my judge and not you.
In His Grace
- Status