Which Bible?

[trofimus]

And no, I did not say that every generation had a perfect Bible, quite the opposite. Every generation had the gospel. God was, however, preserving His words. This does not mean every generation would have a perfect Bible.

Well, you are using verses like from Psalms where is writen that every generation has His words.

You are using it as the prove that there has to be some perfect and complete translation - KJV.

On the other hand you say it does not mean that there has to be some perfect and complete translation, only gospel.

Confused again.

 

[John146]

OK, what manuscript is not corrupted?

I believe the Traditional Received Text ( Textus Receptus ), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts ( MSS ) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian ( AD 250-312 ), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century.

The Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. God preserved His words through these manuscripts which were used for translating the KJV, the English standard today.

 

[KJV1611]

It does matter, according to me... because it was Stephen proving to other Jews that Jesus is the Christ. He would not want to make up numbers like that, before his almost certain death.

To your MSS explanation - ok, it makes sense. But this explanation does not make sense for LXX version. LXX simply adds 66 and 9. These two sources are really very different.

So you can explain MSS number, but you dont know where Stephen got 75.

I can explain where Stephen got 75, but I admit that he would have to make some shorcut in his sentence.

Where did Stephen get 75? Remember, even in LXX Genesis isn't giving the account of how many people came down with Jacob to Egypt, so Stephen didn't get 75 from Genesis 46 unless he was a moron lol. So where did Stephen get his number?

 

[trofimus]

I believe the Traditional Received Text ( Textus Receptus ), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts ( MSS ) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian ( AD 250-312 ), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century.

The Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. God preserved His words through these manuscripts which were used for translating the KJV, the English standard today.

So if I will find difference between TR and KJV, will it be error or not?

 

[trofimus]

Where did Stephen get 75? Remember, even in LXX Genesis isn't giving the account of how many people came down with Jacob to Egypt, so Stephen didn't get 75 from Genesis 46 unless he was a moron lol. So where did Stephen get his number?

The number 75 is in the same verse Stephen is talking about. So its very simple where he got it from. Yes, his description of events was not full, but it is normal when somebody talks in front of people. He made two sentences one. No big deal.

The original problem for KJV was, that Stephen said 75 and Genesis had 70.

You explained it that Stephen was talking about people coming to Egypt only. Ok, now you have 75 vs 66.
Plus you should give a reason Stephen use the number 75 nonexistent in KJV.

You did not help KJV much I am afraid

 

[Dino246]

Exactly our point, more than one Bible creates confusion and doubt in the word of God.

John... This is a bad argument. Its natural conclusion is that the KJV should never have been made, because there were bibles in English before the KJV. That you continue to use it (I've debunked it before) indicates a lack of understanding of basic logic or a closed mind. Please think through your arguments before posting them.

 

[John146]

The number 75 is in the same verse Stephen is talking about. So its very simple where he got it from. Yes, his description of events was not full, but it is normal when somebody talks before people. He made two sentences one. No big deal.

The original problem for KJV was, that Stephen said 75 and Genesis had 70.

You explained it that Stephen was talking about people coming to Egypt only. Ok, now you have 75 vs 66.
Plus you should give a reason Stephen use the number 75 nonexistent in KJV.

You did not help KJV much I am afraid

Stephen is not quoting OT Scripture but merely telling the story. There were 75 souls that came to Egypt where Joseph and his family lived.

Genesis is stating the number of souls born unto Jacob, not counting their wives, which was 70. The wives were in the count that Stephen gave that came to Egypt.

It's simple to see when reading the words of context.

 

[John146]

John... This is a bad argument. Its natural conclusion is that the KJV should never have been made, because there were bibles in English before the KJV. That you continue to use it (I've debunked it before) indicates a lack of understanding of basic logic or a closed mind. Please think through your arguments before posting them.

Not if you understand God's purification process.

When the translators of the King James Bible did their work beginning in 1604, they used Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) for their translating. But they were also provided with something else to assist them in their labors. Several other English translations of the Bible had been produced before the King James Bible of 1611 became the mainstay for 400 years. When the King James translators sat at their desks to do their translation work they were also provided with some of those previous translations. In fact the translators had loose-leaf copies of each of the following:
1. Tyndale’s translation (1525)
2. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
3. The Matthews Bible (1537)
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560)
6. The Bishops Bible (1568)
The seventh translation would be the “preserved” words of God. It is interesting to note that in creation (Genesis 1) six times God said “it was good”. But the seventh time He said “it was very good”.

 

[John146]

Anyone want to address why most new versions use the word love instead of charity? Using love instead of charity as in 1 Corinthians 13 is very misleading when viewing the context of Scripture.

 

[KJV1611]

The number 75 is in the same verse Stephen is talking about. So its very simple where he got it from. Yes, his description of events was not full, but it is normal when somebody talks in front of people. He made two sentences one. No big deal.

The original problem for KJV was, that Stephen said 75 and Genesis had 70.

You explained it that Stephen was talking about people coming to Egypt only. Ok, now you have 75 vs 66.
Plus you should give a reason Stephen use the number 75 nonexistent in KJV.

You did not help KJV much I am afraid

I give up lol.

 

[Grace777x70]

Anyone want to address why most new versions use the word love instead of charity? Using love instead of charity as in 1 Corinthians 13 is very misleading when viewing the context of Scripture.

Brother, this is so simple.

Because the word "charity" means something else in today's language instead of the love of God as it was used in 1611.

Simple Definition of charity

• : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
• : an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc.
• : the organizations that help people in need

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

The "love" of God in 1 John 4:8 is the "exact" same Greek word as "charity" in 1 Cor. 13

1 John 4:8 (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

At some point we have to come to our senses in this foolish debate. I just can't believe that this sort of nonsense is still going on? It just boggles my mind......it is almost as if we are in the "twilight zone".

 

[Grace777x70]

Here is the origin of the word "charity" - it comes from the Vulgate .

charity (n.) mid-12c., "benevolence for the poor," from Old French charité "(Christian) charity, mercy, compassion; alms; charitable foundation" (12c., Old North French carité), from Latin caritatem (nominative caritas) "costliness, esteem, affection" (in Vulgate often used as translation of Greek agape "love" -- especially Christian love of fellow man -- perhaps to avoid the sexual suggestion of Latin amor), from carus "dear, valued," from PIE *karo-, from root *ka- "to like, desire" (see whore (n.)).

Vulgate also sometimes translated agape by Latin dilectio, noun of action from diligere "to esteem highly, to love" (see diligence).

Wyclif and the Rhemish version regularly rendered the Vulgate dilectio by 'love,' caritas by 'charity.' But the 16th c. Eng. versions from Tindale to 1611, while rendering agape sometimes 'love,' sometimes 'charity,' did not follow the dilectio and caritas of the Vulgate, but used 'love' more often (about 86 times), confining 'charity' to 26 passages in the Pauline and certain of the Catholic Epistles (not in I John), and the Apocalypse .... In the Revised Version 1881, 'love' has been substituted in all these instances, so that it now stands as the uniform rendering of agape. [OED]​

Sense of "charitable foundation or institution" in English attested by 1690s.

Online Etymology Dictionary

--- - we use "language" and words to communicate with each other. The word "charity" is the word for love in the Vulgate from which the KJ version translators took it from. Charity now means something completely different. We need to communicate in our own language in order to be coherent and precise in our communication of ideas.

This is why we don't go around telling people that God so "agape" you..that He sent Jesus.

 

[Agricola]

Not if you understand God's purification process.

When the translators of the King James Bible did their work beginning in 1604, they used Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) for their translating. But they were also provided with something else to assist them in their labors. Several other English translations of the Bible had been produced before the King James Bible of 1611 became the mainstay for 400 years. When the King James translators sat at their desks to do their translation work they were also provided with some of those previous translations. In fact the translators had loose-leaf copies of each of the following:
1. Tyndale’s translation (1525)
2. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
3. The Matthews Bible (1537)
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560)
6. The Bishops Bible (1568)
The seventh translation would be the “preserved” words of God. It is interesting to note that in creation (Genesis 1) six times God said “it was good”. But the seventh time He said “it was very good”.

Only cults take a single verse and make a whole new theology out of it. All you are doing is playing and manipulating numbers and making them fit your claim.

I see you now have re-worked this refined 7 times by stating its Bibles translators worked from and of course not all the translations of English. Wycliffe has been overlooked somehow. How do you know what they used anyway?

Tyndale's bible was incomplete, so that means the old testament in the King James had only been refined 6 times OOPS.

 

[John146]

Brother, this is so simple.

Because the word "charity" means something else in today's language instead of the love of God as it was used in 1611.

Simple Definition of charity

• : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
• : an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc.
• : the organizations that help people in need

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

The "love" of God in 1 John 4:8 is the "exact" same Greek word as "charity" in 1 Cor. 13

1 John 4:8 (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

At some point we have to come to our senses in this foolish debate. I just can't believe that this sort of nonsense is still going on? It just boggles my mind......it is almost as if we are in the "twilight zone".

[SUP] [/SUP]"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

I can give to the poor without having charity. Just because we have changed the meanings of words does not give us the authority to change the words of God.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5-6 we read that CHARITY "doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own". Charity as well "thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth". However when the new versions tell us that "love (agape) thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (NKJV), then this creates several direct contradictions with the rest of Scripture.
If "love seeks not her own and thinks no evil", and if "love rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth" then what do we do with the following Scriptures where "love" (agape) clearly seeks her own and does rejoice in evil and not in the truth?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God."

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them."

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..."

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness."

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Words have different meanings in different contexts, and in 1 Corinthians 13 the King James Bible's rendering of "charity" is far more accurate and consistent with the rest of Scripture. It is the modern versions that create the contradictions! Charity is type of love only the brethren should have towards other brethren.

 

[BeyondET]

Only cults take a single verse and make a whole new theology out of it. All you are doing is playing and manipulating numbers and making them fit your claim.

I see you now have re-worked this refined 7 times by stating its Bibles translators worked from and of course not all the translations of English. Wycliffe has been overlooked somehow. How do you know what they used anyway?

Tyndale's bible was incomplete, so that means the old testament in the King James had only been refined 6 times OOPS.

Interesting that church leaders had tynadale burned at the stake for his english translation for errors or incomplete etc, people don't always get things right all the time, burning a person to death isn't what I call compassion. Sometimes I think today people are ready to burn folks as well.

 

[Grace777x70]

We are making up our own meanings in trying to hold on the KJ "version" is the only true word of God. It is spiritual ignorance gone to seed. God's preserved word is the Lord Jesus Christ.

We speak "words" of life in what Jesus has done for us and this brings life - in every language of the world - in every written word of this truth. The bible is NOT God - it is to lead us to Christ. We speak Christ.

Are we saying that Paul did not have this "charity" at the end of his letter to the Corinthians. If "charity is the type of love only the brethren should have towards each other"? - Paul forget to let himself know about it at the end of his letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 16:24 (NASB)
[SUP]24 [/SUP] My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

We are talking about translating words that have meaning to us in the world we live in - NOT the application of the words - that is showing bias and personal interpretation whether right or wrong...This should not be in a translation of the scriptures.

 

[stonesoffire]

Could the love of God mean that it is our love for God that culminates in charity? Perhaps we are looking at it as His love working through us? But, that would culminate in charity too. So maybe we need to define love and charity as both situations?

 

[John146]

Only cults take a single verse and make a whole new theology out of it. All you are doing is playing and manipulating numbers and making them fit your claim.

I see you now have re-worked this refined 7 times by stating its Bibles translators worked from and of course not all the translations of English. Wycliffe has been overlooked somehow. How do you know what they used anyway?

Tyndale's bible was incomplete, so that means the old testament in the King James had only been refined 6 times OOPS.

Just before he died, Tyndale prayed that God would "open the eyes" of Henry VIII, thereby allowing people in England to have access to their own Bibles translated into their own language. Soon thereafter, that's exactly what He did.

 

[John146]

Could the love of God mean that it is our love for God that culminates in charity? Perhaps we are looking at it as His love working through us? But, that would culminate in charity too. So maybe we need to define love and charity as both situations?

Yes, in Scripture charity is not exactly the same as love. Charity never fails. Love can fail if misplaced upon worldly things like money. This is impossible to do with charity.

 

[hornetguy]

Anyone want to address why most new versions use the word love instead of charity? Using love instead of charity as in 1 Corinthians 13 is very misleading when viewing the context of Scripture.

It's not confusing at all.... 1 Corinthians is merely giving the qualities of "love"... pure love. It is talking about how love works between people. It does not say that people cannot "love" things...even the wrong "things". It is telling us how to recognize true love for our fellow man.

If people pervert that love, and "love" material things, it is wrong. If you "love" (cherish) money, you've missed the mark. If you "love" (cherish) the things of this world, you have missed the mark.