The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

[Bible_Highlighter]

But, do you understand it?
Or, only seeking things to understand about it?

One could theoretically prove it's God's Word mathematically.
And, yet, not understand enough of it to come out of spiritual childhood.

Too much talk about what may be.
And, not enough expounding on what it actually says and reveals.
It's a diversion…

You are not offering any better alternative. I know there are other things like types of Christ in the OT, but all things do give glory to God including numbers. Even one book of the Bible is called “Numbers.” So, no. These kinds of things are not a distraction but they are like little mini miracles that help to back up your faith in God’s Word. In other words, they are proof that God’s Word is divine.


…..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

At least you admit you see the need for defending being foolish.

Fools for Christ are NOT FOOLISH thinking people!
They were the ones who gave up everything in this life that the world sees as priorities to get to know Christ!

Example:

"What a fool he is! He could have been a rich banker, instead he quit his job, and chose to be a pastor."

That kind of fool for Christ. Not a foolish thinking person.

......

I am just quoting the Bible.

"....the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians 1:25).

You either believe the Bible plainly or you don't believe it.

The choice is yours.

Choose wisely.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

But, do you understand it?
Or, only seeking things to understand about it?

One could theoretically prove it's God's Word mathematically.
And, yet, not understand enough of it to come out of spiritual childhood.

Too much talk about what may be.
And, not enough expounding on what it actually says and reveals.
It's a diversion…

Wouldn’t it make sense that God would be able to point back to our time today to where His precise words were when we are all at the Judgment? In other words, there has to be a Word by God that He can hold people accountable to. If not, then God's Word would not be trustworthy enough to be held accountable for those words He gave.

Your view is like receiving a mortgage contract that has been tainted and corrupted when you buy a house. Would you be confident in buying a home like that? What if there was sneaky writing in the contract that made it bad for you financially to buy such a home?


…..

 

[posthuman]

The problem is that the Modern Bibles teach that Jesus sins.

can you give an example?

 

[Genez]

I am just quoting the Bible.

"....the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians 1:25).

You either believe the Bible plainly or you don't believe it.

The choice is yours.

Choose wisely.


....

But one must discern between when one is being a fool for Christ, or simply being a foolish mind who believes in Christ.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

can you give an example?

There are several examples where Modern Versions make Jesus appear to sin:

In Matthew 5:22, Modern Translations remove the words “without a cause” in relation to being angry with your brother.

The King James correctly includes the words “without a cause,”

“But 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) (KJV).

Why is this important? Because Jesus got angry in Mark 3:5.

“And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” (Mark 3:5) (KJV).

But if we are to believe the Modern Translations, then Jesus had sinned by getting angry with his fellow brethren or Jews based on Matthew 5:22. For Modern Translations appear to condemn Jesus for just being angry in general as a sin, when in reality, Jesus was specifically referring to being angry without a cause.

Titus 3:10 in Modern Bibles says that we are to reject a divisive man or have nothing to do with them anymore (NASB) (NIV) (ESV) (NKJV) (BSB). However, Jesus says, “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:” (Luke 12:51).

The author of the Living Bible (TLB) says in Zechariah 13:6, “What are these wounds? Oh, these I got when I was in a brawl at my friend's house." This is blasphemous because it is a prophecy about Jesus Christ.

In John 7:8, the Modern Translations remove the word “yet,” making it appear like Jesus is lying. The King James correctly includes the word “yet,”

“Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.” (John 7:8) (KJV).

I remember a Christian once told me about how Jesus lied, and they pointed out this section of the Scriptures to me. I have heard other Christians say that Jesus sinned, as well. This is just crazy talk. Jesus had to be our spotless Lamb to pay the price for our sins. No doubt, they were most likely reading or favoring a Modern Translation that made them think this way.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is holy, undefined, and separate from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). It plainly tells us that Jesus is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15).

Modern Bibles are not helping.


….

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

But one must discern between when one is being a fool for Christ, or simply being a foolish mind who believes in Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:18-19
”"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."

Ask yourself: What is the wisdom of this world? When secular men and heretics even are involved in Bible translation in the world of Modern Scholarship. When they think that translating the Bible is no different than the translating of any other secular document. No spiritual consideration is taken into account. If you want to eat from this kind of pig trough, then be my guest. I want no part of it.

….

 

[Genez]

There are several examples where Modern Versions make Jesus appear to sin:

In Matthew 5:22, Modern Translations remove the words “without a cause” in relation to being angry with your brother.

The King James correctly includes the words “without a cause,”

“But 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) (KJV)..

Raca means telling someone he is going to Hell.

For, its word's usage, it was seen in the context of...

"The fool" says in his heart there is no God.

Got that from my pastor.
A scholar who taught us from the original languages.
Again, proof, that surface translations into English can make us miss the original point that was being made in a passage.

That is why I recommend my pastor when I can.
He never charges for his Bible lessons.
And, begins almost ever class by citing from the KJV.

 

[posthuman]

In Matthew 5:22, Modern Translations remove the words “without a cause” in relation to being angry with your brother.

that's interesting.

it appears that ancient translations and manuscripts don't have "without cause" either.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...ngry-without-a-cause-in-matthew-522-only-kjv/

may i suggest that being liable to judgment does not make a person automatically condemned. and may i remind you that it is also written, do not judge, lest ye also be judged?
not, 'don't judge unless you're pretty sure you have a good reason to judge'


so while it may be more difficult to understand, it is consistent, and does not make Christ a sinner by saying it without a softening clause that textual and external evidence indicates was added after the second century.


Thank you for your examples; i will enjoy looking into these over the next couple of days - tho i will mention right away that things like NLT and GWT etc don't even attempt to be literal and imo don't count as translations at all, they are just rubbish.

i'm interested in accuracy not interpretive paraphrase.

 

[posthuman]

in my work i use data to identify cause and find solutions.

i am never opposed to more and better data, and in large part the differences between kjv and later translation work ((where that work had the aim of accurate literal translation)) are the result of having more manuscripts and thereby a better sense of which readings were original and which had been altered over time.

kjv did exactly the same kind of analysis but with poorer resources available to them.

 

[Genez]

1 Corinthians 3:18-19
”"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."

Ask yourself: What is the wisdom of this world? When secular men and heretics even are involved in Bible translation in the world of Modern Scholarship. When they think that translating the Bible is no different than the translating of any other secular document. No spiritual consideration is taken into account. If you want to eat from this kind of pig trough, then be my guest. I want no part of it.

….

Yes... But it means to be seen as a fool for Christ in the world's eyes.
But, not, to become a fool in the face of what the Scriptures teach.

To God, a fool is someone rejects what the Scriptures teach in preference for some man made idea designed to keep one from the Word... While all done in the name of the Word. That is a fool in the negative sense, to God.

Again.,.. I am not for sustaining oneself on modern translations. Nor, the King James.

Even the KJV says...

​

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, ​

evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Ephesians 4:11​

It did not say....

"And he gave us the Holy Spirit, so we will no longer need apostles, prophets; ​

evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. All you need is a perfect translation, ​

and God will show you all what you need. ​

That is why you had no clue as to what Raca meant!

For if we are to mature in Christ fully, we all ultimately need someone teaching us accurately from the original languages.

Luther taught that way. Calvin did... Why only for then?

 

[Genez]

in my work i use data to identify cause and find solutions.

i am never opposed to more and better data, and in large part the differences between kjv and later translation work ((where that work had the aim of accurate literal translation)) are the result of having more manuscripts and thereby a better sense of which readings were original and which had been altered over time.

kjv did exactly the same kind of analysis but with poorer resources available to them.

You are being a voice of reason in the face of treason.

 

[Dino246]

The KJV translators approached the Bible with reverence and did not treat it as if was no different than any other secular document.

What is your evidence for this claim, and the evidence that all or even most modern textual critics do something distinctly different?

Contrarily, Modern Textual Criticism, however, emerged from German Rationalism, a movement that treats the Bible as any other ancient text, detached from claims of divine inspiration. This rationalist foundation allows for a level of skepticism not typically seen in the KJV translation process.

Again, what is your evidence for this claim? Blather is not evidence.

The KJV translators primarily relied on the Textus Receptus (TR), a compilation of Byzantine manuscripts which were widely accepted and used by the Christian church for centuries. Modern Textual Criticism, by contrast, favors the Alexandrian text-type, such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

A practice or movement does not "favor" anything. What is your evidence that all or even most modern textual critics favour "the Alexandrian text-type, such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus"?

Critical Text methodology operates on assumptions like "Lectio Brevior Potior" (the shorter reading is preferred) and "Lectio Difficilior Potior" (the more difficult reading is preferred), based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add to, rather than omit from, the text.

Evidence?

The KJV translators did not operate on these assumptions but rather sought readings that were doctrinally sound and widely supported by the Christian community.

Evidence? And evidence that all or even most modern textual critics don't seek readings that are doctrinally sound?

(Regarding errors in the KJV)

Again, I would call these "gnats" or minor, supposed errors that can, in most cases, be explained soundly. The changes in modern Bibles, however, are glaring—like giant camels of doctrinal corruption.

I notice the Trudeaupian change of subject. You really have trouble just defending your position without attacking "modern Bibles", don't you?

So, respectfully, I disagree. I believe we must be objective and not desire the Bible to be something it is not.

Agreed. I touch on this again below.

What the Bible says about itself is that it is perfect and would be preserved forever.

You claim the Bible (where you mean "KJV") is "perfect" yet you acknowledge there are things that require explanation. Tell me: what version of "perfect" allows forty-two to equal two and twenty, or twelfth to equal eleventh?

So, as you say, "we must be objective and not desire the Bible to be something it is not."

The KJV is obviously not perfect, no matter how much you desire it to be, how loudly you shout it, or how strongly you believe that it is. 42 does not equal 22, and no amount of "explanation" makes them equal. Get rid of your hypocrisy, embrace your own statement above, and stop claiming that an imperfect translation is the perfect preserved word of God.

 

[fredoheaven]

in my work i use data to identify cause and find solutions.

i am never opposed to more and better data, and in large part the differences between kjv and later translation work ((where that work had the aim of accurate literal translation)) are the result of having more manuscripts and thereby a better sense of which readings were original and which had been altered over time.

kjv did exactly the same kind of analysis but with poorer resources available to them.

Correct me if I am wrong but what more manuscripts were in line with the KJB more than later translation work. The discovery of additional manuscripts since 1611, however, strengthened the KJB.

 

[GWH]

What is your evidence for this claim, and the evidence that all or even most modern textual critics do something distinctly different?


Again, what is your evidence for this claim? Blather is not evidence.


A practice or movement does not "favor" anything. What is your evidence that all or even most modern textual critics favour "the Alexandrian text-type, such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus"?


Evidence?


Evidence? And evidence that all or even most modern textual critics don't seek readings that are doctrinally sound?

(Regarding errors in the KJV)

I notice the Trudeaupian change of subject. You really have trouble just defending your position without attacking "modern Bibles", don't you?


Agreed. I touch on this again below.


You claim the Bible (where you mean "KJV") is "perfect" yet you acknowledge there are things that require explanation. Tell me: what version of "perfect" allows forty-two to equal two and twenty, or twelfth to equal eleventh?

So, as you say, "we must be objective and not desire the Bible to be something it is not."

The KJV is obviously not perfect, no matter how much you desire it to be, how loudly you shout it, or how strongly you believe that it is. 42 does not equal 22, and no amount of "explanation" makes them equal. Get rid of your hypocrisy, embrace your own statement above, and stop claiming that an imperfect translation is the perfect preserved word of God.

I would like to interject that we are subjective rather than objective, so the best we can be is open-minded rather than callous-hearted.

Also, even if we had a perfect/inerrant Bible, we are imperfect or fallible, so we would need to employ a good hermeneutic as we seek an ever better understanding of GW.

Thanks

 

[posthuman]

Correct me if I am wrong but what more manuscripts were in line with the KJB more than later translation work. The discovery of additional manuscripts since 1611, however, strengthened the KJB.

in a lot of places, yes. i do think it's the best overall translation we have to English - tho i favor quoting nkjv, for a little more modern language and the capitalization strategy they use.
more often than not kjv has it right tho in my opinion it's not always perfect, and often the only thing that's really correct is Hebrew and Greek. there is almost always some information lost or added when going from one language to another.

my position is that God's word is perfect in the original languages He gave it - but the meaning is never lost in any language: with the Spirit guiding us no matter how imperfect the text we have available is, we can know the truth.

but more doesn't always mean better, sometimes older is more accurate. if someone made a copying error or added something they thought would make a passage more clear, and then it was copied a thousand times, we would have a lot more of the wrong text, but a few copies before the error would be the better reading.

more texts from more dates means a fuller picture, you can trace how and when differences were introduced. i have never looked into Matthew 5:22 before, and i will look some more, but the first couple articles i ran across look like it is an example of that. a clause may have been added in the late second century so we have almost all manuscripts with that clause, but early quotes from church fathers don't have it, and some older manuscripts don't. in this case majority text isn't necessarily the most accurate text, tho sometimes it is.

 

[posthuman]

more often than not kjv has it right tho in my opinion it's not always perfect, and often the only thing that's really correct is Hebrew and Greek. there is almost always some information lost or added when going from one language to another.

for example we have in every English version of the Psalm, 'they pierced My hands and My feet'
that's not incorrect, but what it literally says is 'like a lion, My hands and My feet'

if the cross couldn't be a deeper mystery, haha! there is no end to the depth of the knowledge and wisdom in the Scripture.
"these things are too wonderful for me"

 

[Genez]

Did the KLJV translators have access to all the manuscripts that the critical critics use?

If so? What was their reason for not using them.

 

[Dino246]

Did the KLJV translators have access to all the manuscripts that the critical critics use?

If so? What was their reason for not using them.

No. They had previous printed editions in English, Erasmus' five editions, Luther's German edition, a few other languages, the Latin Vulgate, and at most a handful of Greek manuscripts, all of them quite late (9th-11th centuries). Since that time, there have been thousands of manuscripts discovered. The current total is around 5800 NT manuscripts in Greek, along with hundreds of examples in other languages.

 

[Genez]

No. They had previous printed editions in English, Erasmus' five editions, Luther's German edition, a few other languages, the Latin Vulgate, and at most a handful of Greek manuscripts, all of them quite late (9th-11th centuries). Since that time, there have been thousands of manuscripts discovered. The current total is around 5800 NT manuscripts in Greek, along with hundreds of examples in other languages.

So then, there can be no argument for them producing a superior translation by what they chose to work with.