Bible Translation Discussion Place

Ok then let's move on to this verse then.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Let's change the verse a little bit for illustration purposes.

He that overcomes this world will be clothed in white raiment: and I will not cast him into the lake of fire.

Does that mean that mean Jesus MIGHT cast someone who overcomes the world into the lake of fire?

I would say it's possible for some beings to be tossed into the lake of fire, but those overcomers with white rainment will not be tossed into the lake of fire.

Another illustaration, If paid on time a late fee will not be charged.

This implies that if the payment is late a late fee will be charged.

You are absolutely right on the part in red. People in white raiment can NEVER be tossed into the lake of fire, neither can there name's be blotted out of the book of life and that's the point Jesus is making in that verse.

Rev_3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

He that overcomes this world will be clothed in white raiment (the righteousness of Christ), and since they are clothed in white raiment, Jesus WILL NOT blot their names out of the book of life.

Was everybodies name written in the book of life at one? I don't know, maybe, but those who are saved will never be blotted out.

For an English translation, I like the KJV, the older the better; one which has the words that King James' scribes added to the text in Italic to note they weren't original to the text they had. In many sections, the meaning of the text has changed with the addition of just a single italicized word.

While we don;t know the exact details this is also what I think is most likely, well bottom line, lets make sure we have some white rainment!

Revelation 19:11-16, " 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

I am now trying to get VCO to see that older doesn’t mean more accurate because there are two vines - the vine of Christ and the vine of Sodom.

Modern translations mix the two vines.

Without evidence, that's unadulterated c**p.

It is wrong to demand that others accept the same translation as you do but it is ok to expect others to accept ONE and not ALL since they don't read the same.

You are correct. They do not all read the same, since they are based on different Hebrew and Greek texts. And no one can require another Christian (or Christians) to stick with one specific translation, unless it is within a local church context.

Churches which know the truth about Bible translations should make it clear in their Statement of Faith that the only acceptable translation in that church is the Authorized Version (the King James Bible, which has also been brought up-to-date in the King James 2000 Bible). And many do.

What most Christians do not know is that when the Church of England authorized a revision of the King James Bible in the 19th century, all they wanted was an updated translation -- NOT A WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT of the Bible which had stood the test for time for almost 300 years. And had the revision committee adhered to their directives, we would not be having this discussion.

But there was a small group of saboteurs on the revision committee, which included Westcott & Hort (W&H). These two worthies hated the Textus Receptus (TR) as well as the KJV. So what they did is surreptitiously bring in a totally different New Testament Greek text to supplant the TR. The only one on this committee who opposed this sabotage was F.H.A. Scrivener (who was the leading textual scholar of the day). But W&H prevailed, and thus the REVISED VERSION (RV) came into existence in 1881 (the ASV or American Standard Version is its cousin). Today they gather dust because they were indeed worthless.

Dean John William Burgon was the other conservative textual scholar who was a friend of Scrivener. He exposed the hoax perpetrated by W&H, and you can read all about it in The Revision Revised (which is available as a reprint, and also online).

But both Burgon and Scrivener (along with their allies) were ignored by the liberal critics, and the ideas of Westcott & Hort dominated all the seminaries and Bible schools (as well as the work of Nestle, Aland, Metzger et al). Therefore every modern bible version slavishly follows the corrupted text (called the Critical Text) which originated with W&H.

You will hear over and over again that the New American Standard Bible (from the Lockman Foundation) is THE MOST ACCURATE English translation. But that is TOTALLY MISLEADING. It is another replica of W&H.

For its Hebrew Text, it used the corrupted and emended Biblia Hebraica: "HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls." (1995 Preface to the NASB)

For its Greek Text it used Nestle's Critical Text (which is simply that of W&H with slight differences): "GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed." (1995 Preface to the NASB)

For those who are unfamiliar with the nature of the critical texts, you should be aware that a handful of corrupted Greek manuscripts (Gnostic corruptions) are the basis of all critical texts -- Aleph, A, B, C, and D. Aleph is Codex Sinaiticus and B is Codex Vaticanus. And for all practical purposes the critical texts (including Nestle-Aland) are based upon Vaticanus (which was found in the pope's library). Thus the critical texts differ from the Received Text (Textus Receptus) -- which is the traditional Greek text -- in thousands of places. About 1,500 of these passages have doctrinal significance, and the deity of Christ and the Trinity were primarily targeted. But the chief doctrine which has been attacked is the doctrine of Scripture.

You will read over and over again that "the oldest manuscripts are the best". Under normal (secular) circumstances that might be true. But because there has always been a spiritual battle, it turns out that the oldest manuscripts are the most corrupt and the worst. That is not an opinion but a sober fact which you will discover after reading the works of Burgon, Scrivener, and their allies.

Never heard of the KJV 2000 is that the same as the 21st Century King James Version?

You may be right, the newer translations may have taken everything from the vine of Sodom aka Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

The KJV for me is problematic - From a modern standpoint, the issues are the 'added' words and (what is now) archaic language. If one has a descent command of 17th century English usage, KJV is great- i.e. it was a great translation for its day.

Already addressed above. There are at least two updated versions of the KJV. Words added in italics by the original translators may be ignored, but they can also be helpful (sometimes not).

More assertions with no evidence.

There is no "vine of Sodom". That's not in Scripture anywhere.

The KJV for me is problematic - From a modern standpoint, the issues are the 'added' words and (what is now) archaic language. If one has a descent command of 17th century English usage, KJV is great- i.e. it was a great translation for its day.

The added words, in some cases, just add to the confusion. The issue being that many people, for whatever reason, tend to sometimes read meanings into the archaic words that were simply never there to begin with. If the word has an added word attached to it, it seems that many people assume it was always there.

A great example (one that seems to be a stickler in the study of "tongues") is "unknown tongues" - in modern English it's simply "languages" (no 'unknown', no 'you can construe 'tongues' to mean something other than language'). Again, I'm sure back in the 1600's it was a great translation, but people knew what the words actually meant. Today.....not so much.

I had one person who was extremely adamant that "if the word 'languages' was meant, that's what would have been written; the word 'tongues' would not have been used (because 'tongues' refers to .......)".

One of the coolest translations I've ever seen, BTW, is "Da Jesus Book" - the Bible translated into Hawaiian Pidgin.

Some people bear more fruit than others. How do you explain this in your version of He vine?

I don't have to. The Bible explains it. Some are poor soil, some are rich soil. Study the parable of the sower and the soils.

It has nothing to do with Bible versions though

Unless you consider the false versions like the JW version or the SDA "Clear Word".

What do you attribute the difference of growth to?

I see KJV Onlyists as being legalists who bear little fruit...I would refer to Kent Hovind, Stephen Anderson, and Peter Ruckman as examples.

Hovind, who divorced his wife (or more properly, allowed her to divorce him, then sought a girlfriend in very short order) and spent several years in prison for tax evasion

Anderson, who worships an idol who cannot save certain sinners (homosexuals) and said they should shoot themselves in the head because they cannot be saved

Ruckman, who issued juvenile remarks toward those who argued against his views, calling them idiots, etc, and went through about three different wives, and claimed the CIA is operating alien breeding facilities and installing brain transmitters in old, young, and black people

King James, who was gay and had numerous boyfriends

Erasmus, who wrote erotic letters to other younger males

Riplinger, who claimed God directly spoke to her as support for her weird claims concerning bible version acrostic algebra

Need I go on? LOL

I don't have to. The Bible explains it. Some are poor soil, some are rich soil. Study the parable of the sower and the soils.

It has nothing to do with Bible versions though

Unless you consider the false versions like the JW version or the SDA "Clear Word".

What do you attribute the difference of growth to?

I see KJV Onlyists as being legalists who bear little fruit...I would refer to Kent Hovind, Stephen Anderson, and Peter Ruckman as examples.

Hovind, who divorced his wife (or more properly, allowed her to divorce him, then sought a girlfriend in very short order) and spent several years in prison for tax evasion

Anderson, who worships an idol who cannot save certain sinners (homosexuals) and said they should shoot themselves in the head because they cannot be saved

Ruckman, who issued juvenile remarks toward those who argued against his views, calling them idiots, etc, and went through about three different wives, and claimed the CIA is operating alien breeding facilities and installing brain transmitters in old, young, and black people

King James, who was gay and had numerous boyfriends

Erasmus, who wrote erotic letters to other younger males

Riplinger, who claimed God directly spoke to her as support for her weird claims concerning bible version acrostic algebra

Need I go on? LOL