PDA

View Full Version : Which Bible is Inspired, Infallible and Ierrant word of God.



ayojosie
Jul 11th 2003, 10:40 AM
I don't know if there is a thread that as dealt with this topic but I will like to know your opinion on the subject above.
There are many versions in existence and there are quite a few disparities in these versions so which meets the qualifications above? Also there seems to be disparities among the original manuscripts, which is right?
When the Bible says not to add or remove from THIS BOOK then it implies that some of this versions must be doing just that or probably all of them. :hmm:

Cilla
Jul 11th 2003, 10:54 AM
The best thing is to learn Hebrew and Greek, or get friendly with someone who can.
:)

Personally I go by the KJV which I think is the most accurate, although I think J.N.Darby's translation is reliable.

ayojosie
Jul 11th 2003, 03:13 PM
Again Cilla you fail to address the questions, I would appreciate if you would contribute to helping me understand these issues.

Mark G
Jul 11th 2003, 04:25 PM
ayojosie

There is not a best translation of the bible in the English language. If you really wanted the purest written words of God you would as Cilla said have to go to the original Hebrew and Greek.

However. if you don't have the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to you you can read everything ever written concerning God and not understand anything. With the Holy Spirits guidance you can learn who God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ is and what they ask of us, with out even being able to read.

"although I think J.N.Darby's translation is reliable" Cilla I also like Darby.

Mark

Baptist Mom
Jul 11th 2003, 05:20 PM
I believe the KJV is the best translation. I will give you the short version about why and then if you like I can point you to some good webpages that discuss this issue further.

All English Bibles are translated from two main texts. One is the Textus Receptus, the other is known as the Westcott and Hort. The KJV is the only Bible translated from the Textus Receptus. All others (including the NKJV) are translated from the Westcott and Hort.

I believe, (with good reason I believe) that the Textus Receptus is the superior text. The Spanish Reina-Valera 1960 and 1909 are based on the Textus Receptus so that is what we use in Spanish.

This is just a simple explanation for you and if you would like more info. just ask.

From Puebla,

Nicole

revrobor
Jul 11th 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by ayojosie
I don't know if there is a thread that as dealt with this topic but I will like to know your opinion on the subject above.
There are many versions in existence and there are quite a few disparities in these versions so which meets the qualifications above? Also there seems to be disparities among the original manuscripts, which is right?
When the Bible says not to add or remove from THIS BOOK then it implies that some of this versions must be doing just that or probably all of them. :hmm:

There is only ONE Bible but many different translations. The differences in the translations (with the exception of the New World JW translation and a couple of other minor translations) do not change the meaning of the text just the way it is expressed. You need to get a translation you can easily understand.

When the Bible says not to add or remove from THIS BOOK it is referring to the Book Of Revelation NOT the entire Bible although that would not be a good idea either.

So there is no BEST translation.

P.P.P.
Jul 11th 2003, 07:34 PM
I agree with Revrobor. The best TRANSLATION is one that you can read and understand and enjoy. I also read PARAPHRASES, but understand that those are not overly accurate and you should use a translation for serious study. BD has some really good threads on translations, I believe they are in anything goes, you can look them up for more info, he always has good, solid info.
:cool:
Hey, are there 2 threads with this name? I'm confused, I thought I saw 2 different ones :confused:

P.P.P.
Jul 11th 2003, 07:38 PM
I use the New Living Translation, by the way, most of the time, but I do also check out what other translations have to say, from time to time. ;)

young disciple
Jul 11th 2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by pastorsusie
I agree with Revrobor. The best TRANSLATION is one that you can read and understand and enjoy.
Hey, are there 2 threads with this name? I'm confused, I thought I saw 2 different ones :confused:

Yeah, and I posted on the other thread, so now I'll post here to even things out.

I agree with Pastor Susie, et al. God speaks to each person in the way they need to be spoken to. I believe that the Holy Spirit transcends mere language. What mere words could contain the Living Word?

YD

P.P.P.
Jul 11th 2003, 07:46 PM
Amen, YD! :D

P.P.P.
Jul 11th 2003, 07:55 PM
One of those threads I was talking about is in polls...what is your favorite translation to read...I think there might be another one in that section, too. But BD is supposed to be back from Russia today, so I'm sure he'll give his opinion on this thread when he gets on. (I hope) ;)

Matt14
Jul 11th 2003, 09:25 PM
There is only one Bible, but many translations. There are no translations that are 100 percent accurate, because they were made by falliable men. However, we can be assured that there are no mainstream translations that so distort the Word that we cannot learn about God's plan of salvation.

I personally prefer the KJV and the American Standard Version (ASV). Frequently I study later revisions, NKJV and NASB.

I believe we have as reliable a text to study as is possible. For instance, in the Greek New Testament text we have, the variations among the different manuscripts is less than one tenth of one percent.

Doctrinally, the versions are basically the same. Now, we can get technical and debate "you" and "ye," but I believe we can rely on most mainstream translations to communicate God's message to us.

In Christ,

keedy

ayojosie
Jul 11th 2003, 09:40 PM
I am told that not all the manuscripts are in total agreement and their are differences in the old manuscripts/transcripts. Which is the most reliable and why?
Also I have read a bit about Wescott and Hort and told they were occultist and pro catholics, is this true? (From defence of the King James). If yes, how reliable are these texts?
Is it all the letters of Apostles that were preserved?

Matt14
Jul 11th 2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by ayojosie
I am told that not all the manuscripts are in total agreement and their are differences in the old manuscripts/transcripts. Which is the most reliable and why?

Yes, there are some differences in manuscripts. I will look for a website with some historical information for you on how the translations we have now were made.

Basically there are two camps, as far as mainstream translations. First, there's the KJV, then most other versions are taken from the latest manuscripts found in the 19th century. These found in 19th century are supposed to be older, and thus more accurate, than those the KJV were based upon. However, there are valid arguments on both sides. It would take forever for me to type the history of textual criticism, but I will find you a link with some good info for you ASAP.



Also I have read a bit about Wescott and Hort and told they were occultist and pro catholics, is this true? (From defence of the King James). If yes, how reliable are these texts?

I've never heard that Wescott and Hort were occultists and pro-catholic. However, if they were pro-catholic, they didn't do much good for their catholic faith with their texts, because I've never heard of any pro-catholic slant in the Westcott-Hort text, but then I'm not a scholar of the highest magnitude! :)

I'll try to get some info on this, as well.



Is it all the letters of Apostles that were preserved? [/B]

If you are asking were all letters the apostles wrote preserved, this answer is certain: No.

Scriptures prove this:

Col 4:16 And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul is referencing a letter to the Laodicean church. This letter has obviously been lost. However, we can rest assured that though the letter was doubtlessly full of useful instruction, the Holy Spirit has provided all we need!

in Christ,

keedy

ayojosie
Jul 11th 2003, 10:20 PM
Thank you very much Keedy for your sincere answers. I would love to have the links you promised. God bless you. Holy :kiss:

P.P.P.
Jul 12th 2003, 01:14 AM
[You can tell alot about christians by the translations they read.
Walker...
I am interested in this statement. :) Do you care to elaborate? I'm truely interested in your observations. :) If you don't feel like doing it on forum, you can pm me.
Thanks!!
:cool:

TWTTTL
Jul 12th 2003, 02:11 AM
I believe that God inspired the first complete Bible that contains all the Books and verses, as does the King James for the English, in each language. He has never nor will He ever need anyone but The Holy Spirit to tell us just How, when, and where His Scriptures apply to our individual lives. This is where Eve fell, and was able to get Adam to consent. They accepted satans interpretation of God's word thou shalt not surely die. Then they let him build up their ego's until they obeyed him instead of God. His objective is to get us to alter God's word Just enough to cause us to miss that narrow gate. The farther away one is from the target the less is needed to accomplish this. God didn't intend it to be easy for us to understand His words. He wants us to search for Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and Strength. You will never find Scriptures that will tell you that getting to know God is going to be easy. In fact Jesus said if they do these things to me The Son what do you thing they will do to you my servants. And no one will argue with the fact that Jeus didn't have it easy. He also told us to pick up our crosses and follow Him.

I had a similar experience to what happened to Walker, but in addition to being told by The Holy Spirit to use the King James, He also took me to The Scriptures that say God is no respecter of persons, and that He wrote The Greek Scriptures for the Greeks, the Hebrew Scriptures for the Hebrews, The German, for the Germans etc.. I put my concordance away, and only use it if I want to know what the names of people places or things mean. In my 1611 King James is included the testamonies of those he sent to write it. Those testamonies are rife with The Holy Spirits using them to write. That along with the revelations He has given me of how I have lived God's Scriptures through out my life both the blessings, and the cursings, has remove any doubt in my mind whatsoever that the King James is for the English Speaking people.

Covenant Heart
Jul 12th 2003, 02:36 AM
All translations are the work of a fallible person (or committee). Each translation has strong and weak points. In my opinion, the RSV is very good in handling many verbs, but the I dislike the overall theological perspective and disagree with many of the decisions therein represented.

The translation process is of sufficient complexity that often, there is no “best” translation of a particular text. I often reference a number of texts to see how they handle a particular verse, passage or issue. First, one asks, “is this faithful.” That is, “will the grammar and syntax bear this translation?” Then I would ask, “in this situation, what translation brings out the particular aspect of the text most needs to be heard.”

The reader’s purpose is also an issue here. For pure reading pleasure, I love Eugene Peterson’s, “The Message.” But it would be disastrous for me to try and use this as a study translation. And ultimately, one’s own translation is best (as several have said).

Those who want a very wooden translation (as the King James family) often take exception to dynamic equivalence theory. But multilingual people know that many words and sayings have no direct translation because the cultures in which words are formed and used are different. As I see it, direct equivalence and dynamic equivalence sit on opposite ends of a continuum. The question is a translation sits between them.

The need of contemporary translations is more urgent than is thought. This is not always recognized because we don’t know how often our Bibles have been revised. The King James translation with people in the 40+ age bracket grew up was not the first King James Bible. It was in fact the 5th major revision. And it has undergone hundreds of minor revisions. We couldn’t read the original KJV translation because it is much closer to Chaucer’s language than the English we speak.

Language ever changes. As nuances are added, dropped and changed, God’s word must reflect these developments to be serviceable to us. Scripture must never attempt to be “trendy,” but it must ever be a “living” word” that speaks a living language to a living people.

But you ask, “which Bible is inspired, infallible, the inerrant word of God.” Here is your answer. These qualities adhere to the original autographs, that is–the original records on which the prophets and apostles recorded the revelation that they received from God. We no longer have autographs. We have only mss (manuscript) copies.

Some are bothered by this, but there is no reason to fear. Nor is this a theologically “liberal” perspective as some might suppose–not unless one cares to maintain that the Westminster Confession of Faith is a “liberal” manifesto. It says:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (...the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (...at the time of writing ... most generally known), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”

Inspiration is limited to the original records. The point to be heard is that inspiration carries the verbal idea of being God-breathed. It was to prophets and apostles (not translation committees) that God revealed himself and to whom God gave his word.

To say that translations are “inspired” means that everyone who ever translated Scripture was the recipient of direct messages from God. And when people say that God “told them this or that,” they claim a divine call to the prophetic office. As canonical theory has it, whatever God said to them is now Scripture itself.

Oh yes–for those claiming that God spoke to them when in fact he did not, Moses prescribed one, somple, clear penalty.

Death.

Covenant Heart

And remember–Palestine must be freed!
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=2003070617294168

moonglow
Jul 12th 2003, 03:02 AM
walker:"You can tell alot about christians by the translations they read." Please be careful with statements like this..ok? That could be taken the wrong way.

Because of my dsyxial which I sometimes can spell and something not like now..:( I couldn't make much sense out of the KJV...very confusing to me..so I use the New living translation and if I am not sure about something I check my KJV with it.

From what I have read though the KJS is full of flaws...I even read that IN an updated version of the KJV in my own church! And its on the net too if anyone cares to look. Things were left out and changed...:( The guy who wrote it was burned at the stake by the way for messing it up...:( yuck.

The NIV also has some flaws too from what I have read. But most bible pretty much as the same...the KJV is just old english lanuage which since we no longer speak, can be very confusing for a new Christian.

The verses and prayers I do have memorized are filled with the thees and thous and sound funny in the more modern lanuage bibles. I still say the Lord's prayer the way it was written in the KJV...

Oh a funny story.

I was trying to say the Lord's prayer to my son one night and he goes..Mom! I don't speak that lanuage! He had no clue what I was saying...so I had to break it down for him and explain each part of the prayer to him...I just don't know it any other way!

The point is..no matter what lanuage you speak, what bible you use...they all say the same thing...Jesus is our savior. :D

God bless
Julie

moonglow
Jul 12th 2003, 03:20 AM
I also wanted to add that this topic has been discussed before..a a search could be done to find the threads and many time they end up with major disgreements....which I hope won't happen on here...

I have notice the two topics ayojosie has posted on tend to be 'heated' topics, I hope this is just a concidence...especially since there were all ready existing threads on the same subjects.

And also since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they have backed up just how very accurate the bible is...even with all the different translations...its pretty amazing too that the bible's message has remained unchanged in all these years. :D

God bless
Julie

walker
Jul 12th 2003, 03:39 AM
Oh yes–for those claiming that God spoke to them when in fact he did not, Moses prescribed one, somple, clear penalty. - Death

for some reason the "oh yes" sticks out and i have the need to qoute these scriptures ->

Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Jhn 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.


To say that translations are “inspired” means that everyone who ever translated Scripture was the recipient of direct messages from God. And when people say that God “told them this or that,” they claim a divine call to the prophetic office. As canonical theory has it, whatever God said to them is now Scripture itself.

the message is inspired - not the translation.

canonical theory - i'm concerned with that word is this something taught by men's knowledge?

You make it sound like prophecy is something to be fearful of let me remind you something about prophecy in the end.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

So people claiming to hear from God will actually be a common thing in the last days. So if people are claiming divine calls than that should tell you something about the time were in.

TWTTTL
Jul 12th 2003, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Covenant Heart
All translations are the work of a fallible person (or committee). Each translation has strong and weak points. In my opinion, the RSV is very good in handling many verbs, but the I dislike the overall theological perspective and disagree with many of the decisions therein represented.
[Your first sentence is directly opposed to Scripture.]
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(KJV)

The translation process is of sufficient complexity that often, there is no “best” translation of a particular text. I often reference a number of texts to see how they handle a particular verse, passage or issue. First, one asks, “is this faithful.” That is, “will the grammar and syntax bear this translation?” Then I would ask, “in this situation, what translation brings out the particular aspect of the text most needs to be heard.”
[This doesn't line up with This Scripture.
2 Pet 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)



The reader’s purpose is also an issue here. For pure reading pleasure, I love Eugene Peterson’s, “The Message.” But it would be disastrous for me to try and use this as a study translation. And ultimately, one’s own translation is best (as several have said).

Those who want a very wooden translation (as the King James family) often take exception to dynamic equivalence theory. But multilingual people know that many words and sayings have no direct translation because the cultures in which words are formed and used are different. As I see it, direct equivalence and dynamic equivalence sit on opposite ends of a continuum. The question is a translation sits between them.

The need of contemporary translations is more urgent than is thought. This is not always recognized because we don’t know how often our Bibles have been revised. The King James translation with people in the 40+ age bracket grew up was not the first King James Bible. It was in fact the 5th major revision. And it has undergone hundreds of minor revisions. We couldn’t read the original KJV translation because it is much closer to Chaucer’s language than the English we speak.
[This won't wash with Scripture nor my own personal experience. I bought the 1611 Version, and asked The Holy Spirit to teach me to read it. I only have a 9th grade education, and struggled for a few days until He answered my prayer, and now I can read it as well as any modern language version. God does not need mans help to communicate with His Children.]

Language ever changes. As nuances are added, dropped and changed, God’s word must reflect these developments to be serviceable to us. Scripture must never attempt to be “trendy,” but it must ever be a “living” word” that speaks a living language to a living people.
[But God never changes and it's as easy today to communicate with people as it was for Him before ever a written language excisted.]

But you ask, “which Bible is inspired, infallible, the inerrant word of God.” Here is your answer. These qualities adhere to the original autographs, that is–the original records on which the prophets and apostles recorded the revelation that they received from God. We no longer have autographs. We have only mss (manuscript) copies.

Some are bothered by this, but there is no reason to fear. Nor is this a theologically “liberal” perspective as some might suppose–not unless one cares to maintain that the Westminster Confession of Faith is a “liberal” manifesto. It says:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (...the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (...at the time of writing ... most generally known), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”

Inspiration is limited to the original records. The point to be heard is that inspiration carries the verbal idea of being God-breathed. It was to prophets and apostles (not translation committees) that God revealed himself and to whom God gave his word.

To say that translations are “inspired” means that everyone who ever translated Scripture was the recipient of direct messages from God. And when people say that God “told them this or that,” they claim a divine call to the prophetic office. As canonical theory has it, whatever God said to them is now Scripture itself.

Oh yes–for those claiming that God spoke to them when in fact he did not, Moses prescribed one, somple, clear penalty.
[So are you then telling us that God did not speak to you on this post.]

Death.

Covenant Heart

And remember–Palestine must be freed!
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=2003070617294168


Prov 3:5-8
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
(KJV)

Rom 2:11
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
(KJV)

Josh 1:8-9
8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
9 Have not I commanded thee?
(KJV

Your post is directly opposed to these Scriptures.

walker
Jul 12th 2003, 03:59 AM
Hmm TWTTTL we just so happen to come out and say the samething at the sametime to the same person.

coincidence i think not... I think God is trying to tell you something Covenant Heart

TWTTTL
Jul 12th 2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by walker
Hmm TWTTTL we just so happen to come out and say the samething at the sametime to the same person.

coincidence i think not... I think God is trying to tell you something Covenant Heart

I say amen.
God says.

Ezek 18:23
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Ezek 18:32
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
(KJV)

Matt 23:37
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(KJV)

Luke 19:41-42
41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
(KJV)

Sky
Jul 12th 2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by moonglow
walker:"You can tell alot about christians by the translations they read." Please be careful with statements like this..ok? That could be taken the wrong way.



As a prof, speaking of concordances, said years ago, "Young's for the young, Cruden's for the crude, Strong's for the strong."

And, yes, you can tell a lot about anbody by what they put into themselves.

WhatEVER that might be.

CorpusIslander
Jul 12th 2003, 04:53 AM
If the people making the KJV translation were given special inspiration in making it does that mean the KJV Apocrypha is also the inspired word of God. If the Apocrypha isn't the inspired word of God then why is part of the KJV not inspired and rest is inspired?

CorpusIslander
Jul 12th 2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by TWTTTL

I had a similar experience to what happened to Walker, but in addition to being told by The Holy Spirit to use the King James, He also took me to The Scriptures that say God is no respecter of persons, and that He wrote The Greek Scriptures for the Greeks, the Hebrew Scriptures for the Hebrews, The German, for the Germans etc.. I put my concordance away, and only use it if I want to know what the names of people places or things mean.

Which verses?


In my 1611 King James is included the testamonies of those he sent to write it.

Actually you probably use the 1789 KJV because there are few publishers if any that publish the original 1611 edition.

faithnjc
Jul 12th 2003, 05:42 AM
http://www.equip.org/free/CP1006.pdf

And this link explains it well: http://www.equip.org/free/DB130.htm

DrRoi
Jul 12th 2003, 02:09 PM
This subject has started from a wrong conclusion that the bible is with out error, and is infallible. Where does the bible say that? This is an assumption made by some overly zealous person. The bible is not without it’s error, misunderstandings, and non- biased translations. We should spend more time building the house and not debating the merits of the various brands of tools we use to do it.

The bible is a book, inspired by God through men and therefore is not perfect, nor does it need to be. It is the principals that are important not the details. The bible is relatively new in its existence, compiled by mere men and their biased beliefs. Anyone researching the history of the formation, and compilation of the bible should see this.

Sometimes I think Christians worship the book rather than the one who inspired it. God is much greater than what can be contained in such a small book. Could you write every detail of your life in a book this small, or would it need to be much larger?

The NT is compiled of four points of view about the life of Jesus, and even they do not agree completely, the majority of the rest of it is made up of personal letters to individual people or groups set in the context of a given time period 2000 years ago. So again it is not the details, it is the principals that count.

Some of us need to get our faces out of the bible, and start walking in, and living out the principals contained therein. The bible is good for reproof, and teaching that is all. The translations are irrelevant, and so are the opinions of everyone if they are not walking in, and living out biblical principals.

moonglow
Jul 12th 2003, 03:07 PM
Dr. Roi:"Sometimes I think Christians worship the book rather than the one who inspired it. God is much greater than what can be contained in such a small book."

AMEN!!! I have said the same thing myself...lets not stuff God into one small book...

Dr. Roi:"Some of us need to get our faces out of the bible, and start walking in, and living out the principals contained therein. The bible is good for reproof, and teaching that is all. The translations are irrelevant, and so are the opinions of everyone if they are not walking in, and living out biblical principals."

Another Amen!!!

Lets really not get into this my bible is better then your bible stuff ok?

We DO NOT Woship the BIBLE!!

There are MANY people out there that cannot even get a bible or read a bible and God for them is just as important as He is to us. We are no better then they are...our relationship with the Lord no better then theirs.

In this thread...in talking about the bible...do YOU see your post DOING what the bible says in your responses to others on here??

Talking the talk is one thing, walking the walk is a whole nother thing....;)

Praise our Heavenly Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit! Thank you Lord that we can all come together like this and share our feelings, thoughts and ideas with other Christians. Lift us up and help guide us to lift each other up on this message board. WORDS do matter...The Living Word saves! :) (not in a book...but IN Jesus!)

In Jesus' Name I pray, Amen!

God bless
Julie

revrobor
Jul 12th 2003, 06:17 PM
And another "Amen!" Dr. Roi!

I was beginning to think the the Lord opened only my eyes to the fact that Christianity is full of "Bible worshippers".

Yes, let's get back to worshipping the Author. God is alive and well and can speak to us today in any way He chooses, through any translation, through friends and teachers or personally.

Praise His Holy Name!!!

Baptist Mom
Jul 12th 2003, 06:26 PM
Dr Roi,

You write, "This subject has started from a wrong conclusion that the bible is with out error, and is infallible. Where does the bible say that?"

I just want to say that I strongly disagree with you, that the Bible is without error and is infallible and that when I have time I will write the Bible verses that show this if no one else does.

Our whole Christianity depends on the Bible. If we cannot trust the Bible to be without error then how can we trust one single verse? How do we know if our salvation is truly by grace? How do we know that creation is true? The Bible is our only foundation for everything we believe and if we cannot trust that foundation then where does that leave us?

When witnessing to someone and trying to show someone how to be saved, that person must first believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If a person denies that, then any verses we show them are meaningless. The inspiration and preservation of the scriptures is an important and fundamental doctrine for Christians.

Why would you want anyone to doubt the Scriptures in the first place?

Respectfully from Puebla,

Nicole

P.P.P.
Jul 12th 2003, 06:37 PM
Dr Roi...
Amen, from me, too!

faithnjc
Jul 12th 2003, 07:09 PM
Don't take the Bible so lightly as if it is only a book and it isn't really important to read it. The Bible teaches us history, God's will, the way we should live our lives and what is to come. I myself have learned a great deal from the Bible. Enough to where I am confident no false teacher can deceive me.

Psalm 1:1
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

By reading the Bible we know how to walk, stand and sit.

Now listen, the problem today is very few Christians read the word of God. The majority haven't a clue. To me it is so simple, I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I always say to myself, "what would Jesus think of this?"

Of course reading the Bible isn't enough. Christians need to read and heed. Practice what you learn and live your life as Jesus taught.

P.P.P.
Jul 12th 2003, 07:41 PM
Amen to that, too, FNJC! I wasn't trying to say that we should take the Bible lightly, I was trying to say that God is the one we should worship. The Bible is our instruction book, our love letters from God, we are to worship Him, not it. So many people in the "Church" today are looking for anything that they can fight over, especially with people who are a bit different. My worship is better; my version of the Bible is better, my church is better, no tongues/ yes tounges, pre-trib/ post trib/ mid-trib/ no women in ministry; yes women in ministry; healings not for today/yes it is; no prophecy/yes prophecy...etc. We need to stop fighting and start PRAYING! :pray: If you believe someone is off their spiritual rocker :D PRAY that God will intervene. Trust Him to handle it. Romans 14:1
Accept christians who are weak in faith and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong...
Romans 14:4
Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let Him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord's power will help them do as they should.
NLT
All I'm saying is that the version of the Bible we use should not seperate us. How can we witness to the world when we are so busy fighting amongst ourselves all of the time? :idea: Where's speaking the truth in love? Where's holding up you christian brother/sister? (and not with a shot gun ;) ) I think all of this in-fighting amongst God's children must break His heart. :( I know it does mine. :(

revrobor
Jul 12th 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Baptist Mom
Dr Roi,

You write, "This subject has started from a wrong conclusion that the bible is with out error, and is infallible. Where does the bible say that?"

I just want to say that I strongly disagree with you, that the Bible is without error and is infallible and that when I have time I will write the Bible verses that show this if no one else does.

Our whole Christianity depends on the Bible. If we cannot trust the Bible to be without error then how can we trust one single verse? How do we know if our salvation is truly by grace? How do we know that creation is true? The Bible is our only foundation for everything we believe and if we cannot trust that foundation then where does that leave us?

When witnessing to someone and trying to show someone how to be saved, that person must first believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If a person denies that, then any verses we show them are meaningless. The inspiration and preservation of the scriptures is an important and fundamental doctrine for Christians.

Why would you want anyone to doubt the Scriptures in the first place?

Respectfully from Puebla,

Nicole

I didn't see anywhere that Dr. Roi said he wanted anyone to doubt the Bible.

Our "whole Christianity" does NOT depend on the Bible but on Jesus Christ. If we had no Bible God would find some other way to communicate these truths to us.

Our salvation is NOT based on what we believe about the Bible, or any other Christian doctrine, but only and simply the shed blood of our Lord. The person you witness to will be saved IF the Holy Spirit is drawing him and IF he accepts the free gift of salvation God has given us through His Son NOT because he believes the Bible is the word of God.

Your response makes you sound very much like the "Bible worshippers" mentioned above. It is Jesus and Him alone who saved us NOT anything we do or believe.

chal
Jul 12th 2003, 09:34 PM
I don't see how following scripture that is capable of error, would be any more profitable than following any other book with good intentions. The innerrancy of the Bible is God's Signature. It's what makes it unique and powerful in a tangible way. This stuff works because it's infallible. If anyone thinks that folowing the inerrant instructions of God is paramount to worshipping a book, I believe that they are in error, not the Bible. I don't think that God would give us flawed instructions. I don't think that the men who originally received the scriptures, being inspired directly by God for that express purpose were capable of erring in recording them, regardless of error in other aspects of their charachter.
Translations are another story. I believe not only that men are capable of error in translating scripture, but often there are no adequate words with which to translate. Therefore compromises are made, some closer to the original thought than others, depending on the skill of the translator.

If the Bible is not inerrant; Who gets to choose which parts are in error and which are not? This is the beginning link in a chain of doctrine that taken to it's logical conclusion, discounts the entire Bible.

I beleive any errancy is in our translating and in our understanding.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

all: Greek 3956, Strong’s
pas, pas; including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole :- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), × thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

scipture: Greek 1124, Strong’s
graphe, graf-ay'; from Greek 1125 (grapho); a document, i.e. holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it) :- scripture.

Romans 3:1-4 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? [2] Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
[3] For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? [4] God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

oracle: Greek 3051, Strong’s
logion, log'-ee-on; neuter of Greek 3052 (logios); an utterance (of God) :- oracle.

Matt14
Jul 12th 2003, 09:44 PM
Dr. Roi, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Bible is not infallible. The Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came to guide the apostles into all truth. It would seem to suggest that the Bible contradicts itself is to say that the Holy Spirit failed in His mission.

The Gospel of Christ is the only means by which we are saved.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Where is the Word of God for us today? The Bible! To say that the Bible contains error is to say that God erred.

In Christian love,

keedy

Matt14
Jul 12th 2003, 09:47 PM
A hearty amen to all of your points, chal.

keedy

revrobor
Jul 12th 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by keedy

The Gospel of Christ is the only means by which we are saved.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[/B]

Wrong!

It is the BLOOD of Christ that saves us NOT the Gospel and it is the faith that we place in Jesus that is strengthened by hearing the Word of God. We are not saved by hearing anything. Romans 1 confirms that a person can be saved without ever hearing the Gospel or having a Bible.

chal
Jul 12th 2003, 10:29 PM
The good news (Gospel) is that the kingdom of God is made manifest in Christ and that in Him we have Salvation. Salvation comes to us through the Blood of Christ. How can you seperate the two?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

logos, Greek 3056, Strong’s
logos, log'-os; from Greek 3004 (lego); something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty or motive; by extension a computation; specially (with the art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):- account, cause, communication, × concerning, doctrine, fame, × have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, × speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

revrobor
Jul 12th 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by chal
[B]The good news (Gospel) is that the kingdom of God is made manifest in Christ and that in Him we have Salvation. Salvation comes to us through the Blood of Christ. How can you seperate the two?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


So what's your point? No one is denying Jesus is God here. And if I wanted Mr. Strong's opinion on the matter I'd pick it up and read it myself (for, after all, anything in there is Strong's OPINION and NOT the inspired word of God).

The "Gospel" (good news) is the story of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ and there will be those who hear the story and those who don't hear the story that will be saved. The STORY does not save anyone. It is only the ACTION of Jesus on the cross that saves. What you are suggesting seems to be that it is what we believe that saves us and that cannot be supported Scripturally. When John 3:16 says "...believe..." it means "...put your trust in..." NOT what you believe is what saves you.

The sooner Christians stop propagating the idea that it is what one believes that saves the faster the Church will grow. People wisely don't buy the "it's what you believe" idea because they know there will be doubts and questions as one grows in the faith and if one is saved by what they believe they would live in a paranoid state as they would fear loosing their salvation over and over again.

CorpusIslander
Jul 13th 2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by revrobor
And if I wanted Mr. Strong's opinion on the matter I'd pick it up and read it myself (for, after all, anything in there is Strong's OPINION and NOT the inspired word of God).

Strong's is a dictionary (as well as a concordance) not a commentary-another words it doesn't have any opinion in it.


The sooner Christians stop propagating the idea that it is what one believes that saves the faster the Church will grow. People wisely don't buy the "it's what you believe" idea because they know there will be doubts and questions as one grows in the faith and if one is saved by what they believe they would live in a paranoid state as they would fear loosing their salvation over and over again.

Actually most congregations that reject inerrancy of Scripture have declining membership while most church growth are in congregations that hold to inerrancy. Nobody here is saying we should worship the Bible. God doesn't make mistakes. If it doesn't matter what we believe, then does it matter if I believe Jesus was a sinner or does it matter if I believe there are many gods that are equal to the Father in Heaven? Belief in inerrancy isn't required by any stretch of the imagination for salvation but confessing some truth such as the need for Christ's atonement is necessary. Some beliefs are necessary. In addition to those necessary beliefs I also know that the Bible is God's perfect word and the truth.

Psalm 119:96 To all perfection I see a limit;
but your commands are boundless.

Psalm 119:144 Your statutes are forever right;
give me understanding that I may live.

Psalm 119:160 All your words are true;
all your righteous laws are eternal.

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 01:53 AM
I only use the KJV. The problem with the newer translations is according to the copy right laws, in order for anyone to write anything of another book, they have to change 60,000 words per so many words. The words that they have to change are not words like the, we, us, it or any small words, they have to be the major words within the subject of each paragraph. So within this many of the major parts of the bible are lost.

A good source is a video or the book by Gail Riplinger. I have the video and she explains it very well. I have searched out what she has said in the video and I have found what she states is true. She shows some of the examples of things lost in the newer versions.
She also shows the origins of these different versions. She shows how the KJV came from what is called the Textus Receptus, AKA Majority text and the newer versions came from what is called the Minority text, AKA Westcott and Hort. It maybe helpful for you to purchase this video. You can order it at;

www.chick.com

(click under video or book) New Age Bible Versions, by Gail Riplinger

I can show you a few examples as to what has been lost in these translations.

In the NIV translation, they have left out entire scriptures. Whole verses are gone.
Omitted in the NIV;

Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36, 23:17
John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29
Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7

The NIV omits all these 17 verses plus another 64,000 words.

Get a NIV and try to find these 17 scriptures, they are not in it.

Each time a new version comes out it is being watered down. Since the publishing of the NIV there have been many newer versions taken from it. Each time they copy somthing that has a copy right they have to change over 60,000 words in the context of so many pages. The NIV had to change 60,000 words, then each newer version that copies the NIV has to change another 60,000 words and so on and so on and so on. Until we no longer have the word of God. Each copy right has to take away thousands of words in order to be published. Do we really want a watered down version of the word of God?

God said;
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If God will take their names out of the book of life for taking away from his word, then why should we read any version that blatantly leaves out whole verses and major words of God?

I will try to get together some of the things that are missing within these newer versions and post them later. If you are reading a newer version, then you need to know what is missing from your bible.

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 02:55 AM
OUCH! :note: (And, Thanks, GC!) Many of these verses I consider of strong impact. Some chop up larger thought trains, even sentences. I don't just see this as "watering down" but as a leading in the direction of an acceptable and palatable "gospel" (small "g" intentionally used) for a New Age unified world religion. For example, take a look at the last verse listed, this is a major contention among the JW's. How many other "contentious verses have been removed? We must have all the Bible, every word of it; we cannot live without even one word, jot or tittle. To start whittling it down is to make the whole of It to crumble. And to think there are 60,000 changes in each re-write (how many NIV revisions so far? And how many spin-offs from the NIV itself?). I knew there were changes but I thought it was more of an attempt to bring it into modern day speech (which I oppose anyway; I, too, always use the KJV). I had no idea it was this demonic...and, yes, I mean that word in its all and full inclusive intended meaning. Zondervan's reputation just took a very deep nose dive in my opinion. My NIV copy (which is never used anyway except for very rare comparison) is going in the trash, I no longer consider it "The Bible".

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
Matthew 17:21, "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 23:14, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26, "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28, "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 23:17, "(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast)"

John 5:4, "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 15:34, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:7, "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

Acts 28:29, "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

CorpusIslander
Jul 13th 2003, 03:08 AM
A while back I wanted to learn about the differences between translations. I read some of one of Gail Riplinger's books about 4 years ago and you should do some research if you've been deceived by her. For example, you say the NIV has fewer words. If you look in the front her book New Age Bible Versions it asks "Is Your Bible Holy?" Then it lists verses in which "holy" is in the KJV but not the "NIV." Take that list and take Strong's and go through that list. You know what, the reason it isn't in the NIV is because it wasn't in the Greek text (and I am talking about the Textus Receptus) so the KJV translaters added to the text. A much bigger problem comes with her criticism of the NIV's translation of 1 Corinthian 6. Here is the passage:

KJV
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NIV
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

She claims the NIV had a known lesbian translate this verse and weaken it. For one thing does it sound like it was translated by a homosexual? (I do prefer the Jewish New Testament translation of this verse though) After translating was done the NIV translators asked an English professor to help them with a few verses. She had little affect on those verses she was not a translator she discussed with the translators possible ways of translating idioms without losing the meaning. She only looked at a few verses and none of them involved homosexuality and 1 Corinthians 6 wasn't a passage she looked at. Over a decade after the NIV came out she came publicly admitted to being lesbian.

People like Ripling lie and deceive and make a lot of money off their sales. I'm not accusing anybody here of lying but turned me off to the KJV only literature was how much of it was lies. It's been posted here that the KJV is the only translation of the Textus Receptus and that the NKJV is not based on it. In reality the NKJV and the Geneva Bible use the Textus Receptus exclusively and many KJV translators considered the Geneva Bible more accurate than the KJV. Nobody here has said it but often when I hear the KJV only rhetoric it says the KJV was the first English translation which ignores the Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop and other translations. If the KJV of 1611 was specially inspired then why does the 1789 edition which is the 4th version of this translation, the one we call the KJV, have over 100,000 changes from the 1611 edition? More importantly why does the KJV only propagandists have to mislead and frequently lie and slander to support their views? When I researched this issue the Holy Spirit brought John 8:44 to mind and that's why I oppose the KJV only theology.

Who are the people that support/supported the KJV only theology? The Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses before they had their own translation, Rastafaris, David Koresh, etc.

chal
Jul 13th 2003, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by revrobor

So what's your point? No one is denying Jesus is God here.
---------------------------------------------
chal: Yes, it's quite evident you didn't understand.

The good news (Gospel) is that the kingdom of God is made manifest in Christ and that in Him we have Salvation. Salvation comes to us through the Blood of Christ.

How can you separate the two?

I’m not sure if I can make the question any clearer, but I’ll try.

My point had nothing to do with Jesus being deity. The Word (logos) if you check the definition, (not commentary) encompasses both the treatise, the spoken word and the expression thereof.

You wrote; Wrong! It is the BLOOD of Christ that saves us NOT the Gospel.

My point is that they are one and the same.

And if I wanted Mr. Strong's opinion on the matter I'd pick it up and read it myself (for, after all, anything in there is Strong's OPINION and NOT the inspired word of God).

Well, if given the choice between Mr. Strong’s definition (not commentary) and your opinion, I'll go with Mr. Strong. Neither are the inspired Word of God. One is an aid in understanding the Word by knowledge of the original languages and the other is an aid in promoting a preconceived agenda.

The "Gospel" (good news) is the story of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ and there will be those who hear the story and those who don't hear the story that will be saved. The STORY does not save anyone.

The Gospel is not merely a “story.” You are dissecting the logos, by implying that.

It is only the ACTION of Jesus on the cross that saves. What you are suggesting seems to be that it is what we believe that saves us and that cannot be supported Scripturally.

It may ”seem” to you that this is what I’m saying, but that’s based on a misconception of what was actually said. No one suggested that a mere “story” could save anyone. The good news is not that there is a story about the Cross, but that the action of our Lord’s sacrifice saves us. The action cannot be separated from the story. The story is how we receive knowledge of the action.

When John 3:16 says "...believe..." it means "...put your trust in..."

Now you’re starting to get it!

NOT what you believe is what saves you.

Now you lost it again. What we believe in (put trust in) is in fact, not what, but who saves us.

The sooner Christians stop propagating the idea that it is what one believes that saves the faster the Church will grow.

It will do no good for the church to grow by abandoning Christ.

People wisely don't buy the "it's what you believe" idea because they know there will be doubts and questions as one grows in the faith and if one is saved by what they believe they would live in a paranoid state as they would fear loosing their salvation over and over again.

Paranoia is an irrational fear by definition. I'm not interested in changing the Gospel to cater to irrational fear. I hope this clears up the misconceptions you had about my post.

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by revrobor
if I wanted Mr. Strong's opinion on the matter I'd pick it up and read it myself (for, after all, anything in there is Strong's OPINION and NOT the inspired word of God).

Careful, at the least, your spiritual youth is showing.

The "Gospel" (good news) is the story of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ

Nope. It is not a "God/Jesus" and "us" situation. It is totally and only a one-on-one "Jesus and me" personal relationship with the living God. The "world" would have us believe it is an all inclusive "we", and that is another of the big lies.

and there will be those who hear the story and those who don't hear the story that will be saved.

That is still an issue under debate elsewhere here; and while I have a bit of a tendency to lean in that direction in a specifically limited fashion the evidence in favor is far from conclusive.

The sooner Christians stop propagating the idea that it is what one believes that saves the faster the Church will grow.

I'm surprised a Christian would make this statement; this is something someone like, say, a Universalist-Unitarian or other New Age adherent would say. Also, again you bring up the worldy "we" issue showing greater concern for the majority than the individual and personal relationship with God. It's as though you consider the world to be the church. It's personal salvation, not world salvation.

People wisely don't buy the

Claims of mass majority inclusion further weaken your argument

if one is saved by what they believe they would live in a paranoid state as they would fear loosing their salvation over and over again.

Now it sounds like an objection to OSAS on one hand and the desire to conform Scripture to personal lifestyles on the other; the former is questionable, the latter deadly.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by CorpusIslander
A while back I wanted to learn about the differences between translations. I read some of one of Gail Riplinger's books about 4 years ago and you should do some research if you've been deceived by her. For example, you say the NIV has fewer words. If you look in the front her book New Age Bible Versions it asks "Is Your Bible Holy?" Then it lists verses in which "holy" is in the KJV but not the "NIV." Take that list and take Strong's and go through that list. You know what, the reason it isn't in the NIV is because it wasn't in the Greek text (and I am talking about the Textus Receptus) so the KJV translaters added to the text.
I have went through the verses that were omitted from the NIV and yes they are in the Strong’s. So I’m not sure what you mean by they were not in the original text and not in the Strong’s. They are in my Strong's.

NIV Omitted verses;

Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands
Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Originally posted by CorpusIslander
She claims the NIV had a known lesbian translate this verse and weaken it. For one thing does it sound like it was translated by a homosexual? (I do prefer the Jewish New Testament translation of this verse though) After translating was done the NIV translators asked an English professor to help them with a few verses. She had little affect on those verses she was not a translator she discussed with the translators possible ways of translating idioms without losing the meaning. She only looked at a few verses and none of them involved homosexuality and 1 Corinthians 6 wasn't a passage she looked at. Over a decade after the NIV came out she came publicly admitted to being lesbian.
I have heard this, but I was not sure if it was true that there was a lesbian on the board of the translators of the NIV. If it is true and she came out publicly, then do you think that God would place a Lesbian on the board of translating his word? Would God not have known she was a lesbian before she got on the board?

Originally posted by CorpusIslander
If the KJV of 1611 was specially inspired then why does the 1789 edition which is the 4th version of this translation, the one we call the KJV, have over 100,000 changes from the 1611 edition? If I could read Greek or Hebrew, I would. I do not remember that figure being anywhere that high as 100,000. Please show me where you got that. Each translation does loose something. The older versions did not lose major words such as Jesus, the Lord Jesus, the word holy and such. The older versions only lost words that were hard to translate from Greek or Hebrew to english. So the translators found the best words to discribe them.
I guess the best thing for us to do is learn Greek or Hebrew.

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 04:51 AM
Regardless of sexual orientations or other demonic excuses, there are intentional deletions and changes altering original meanings. IMO that is enough to condemn it.

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Sky

My NIV copy (which is never used anyway except for very rare comparison) is going in the trash, I no longer consider it "The Bible".

I never read my NIV, but I have been looking to see what has been lost within the translation. So before you through it away, you may need it. If for nothing eles, just to see what is missing and for further reference.

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 05:14 AM
I've been considering that. Sad, but saving it only to know what's missing--and as a collectors item--really is sad.

revrobor
Jul 13th 2003, 05:39 AM
While we should never eliminate from the Bible any Scripture Rev. 22:19 is not a prohibition of that but is referring only to Revelation.

chal:

I praise God He has delivered me from believing I am saved by what I believe and has given me the freedom to put my trust ( "belief") in Jesus Christ rather than in a belief system. The "Gospel" is the name we have given the telling of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ and is in no way the Blood of our Lord.

I have been a Believer for 54 years and have been through all the misunderstandings, misconceptions and erroneous teachings you are struggling through now. It is my prayer that you will stop looking for answers in what you have been taught, or what man says and will ask God to reveal to you HIS truth and to help you sort out the truth from what you have been taught.

May you also put you faith in the One who shed His Blood for you rather than in the telling (Gospel) of that sacrifice or any other belief system.

No one likes to be told something they believe is wrong. But rather than exhibiting an arrogant attitude in defending it perhaps you should do some serious studying with GOD. To propagate what you are defending will not benefit the Kingdom of God.

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by revrobor
May you also put you faith in the One who shed His Blood for you rather than in the telling (Gospel) of that sacrifice or any other belief system.


Be it 1) the Power emanating from God at creation, 2) the Object of our faith, Jesus Christ, ) or the "telling" Gospel I see no difference, The Word is the same regardless of various manifested forms. True, paper, ink and a leather cover do not save. But the inherent manifested message possesses the same power as at creation when God said, "Let there be...". Despite whether those were actual spoken words or Power in some other form emanating from The Almighty, the effect on the willing submissive heart is the same. There is, indeed, Power in The Word just as there is Power in The Blood. And that Power is Jesus. Even if all the Bibles were burned and Jesus silenced not only the heart of submissive man but nature's very stones would cry out for since before the Beginning all Power has been given unto The Son and that Power is the very glue that binds creation into existence. That is not a belief system, but it is The System. Sadly, it is but much of God's crown of creation, man, through sin and pride that is unable to recognize this and, if and until they do, are no better off than the molecules that make up those stones.

chal
Jul 13th 2003, 07:17 AM
While we should never eliminate from the Bible any Scripture Rev. 22:19 is not a prohibition of that but is referring only to Revelation.

chal: Not sure why this is here. I didn’t post that.

I praise God He has delivered me from believing I am saved by what I believe and has given me the freedom to put my trust ( "belief") in Jesus Christ rather than in a belief system.



chal:

believe: pisteuo, Greek 4100, Strong’s
pisteuo, pist-yoo'-o; from Greek 4102 (pistis); to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ) :- believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

chal: You’re contradicting yourself. If you put your belief in Jesus Christ, you are in a belief system. It’s called Christianity.

“The "Gospel" is the name we have given the telling of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ and is in no way the Blood of our Lord.

chal: You have contradicted yourself again. Who do you think the Gospel is about, if not Christ? The good news is that the blood of Christ covers us. So, it is very much about the blood of our Lord.

I have been a Believer for 54 years and have been through all the misunderstandings, misconceptions and erroneous teachings you are struggling through now.

chal: If you’re going to accuse me of struggling through erroneous teachings, you should offer some kind of a logical explanation. So far all you have given me is oxymoron.

It is my prayer that you will stop looking for answers in what you have been taught, or what man says and will ask God to reveal to you HIS truth and to help you sort out the truth from what you have been taught.

chal: God has already revealed His truth to me in His Word. I gave you scriptural evidence, and logical explanations of what I presented. You have only given me half baked opinions.

May you also put you faith in the One who shed His Blood for you rather than in the telling (Gospel) of that sacrifice or any other belief system.

Chal: According to that logic, His sacrifice was real, but the telling of it is a lie. You can’t have it both ways. If the sacrifice was real then the telling of it is the truth.

No one likes to be told something they believe is wrong. But rather than exhibiting an arrogant attitude in defending it perhaps you should do some serious studying with GOD. To propagate what you are defending will not benefit the Kingdom of God.

chal: Doesn’t really bother me. If someone can show me with scriptural evidence, and logical explanation that I’m wrong, I will thank them. You have offered nothing but personal opinion, non sequiturs oxymoron and now ad hominem.

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 02:20 PM
In Isaiah 14:12 KJV uses the name of Lucifer, but the newer versions such as the NIV and the NASB calls Lucifer the “morning star”. This is very alarming, because Jesus is called the morning star in Rev. 22:16. The new versions takes out Satan name and replaces to what we refer to as being Jesus.

(KJV)Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

(NIV)Isa 14:12-15How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

(NASB) Isa 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

(KJV) Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Also another alarming fact is the word holy is being taken out all over these newer versions. Istead of holy men, they are just men. Instead of holy angels, they are just angels. Instead of holy brethren, they just say brethren, instead of holy prophets, it is just prophets. Instead of holy apostles and prophets, it is just apostles and prophets and instead of holy ghost, it is just spirit.
The word holy is to let the reader know that the person is of God. There are many men in the bible. Some good and some bad, but if we say holy men, then we know they are of God. Same with holy angels. There are angels in the bible, but not all are holy. Same with the word prophet. We know that there are false prophets, So the word holy tells us that they are of God. There is many spirits, but there is only one that is holy.

Some examples of the word holy being taken out in the NIV and the NASB.

Men ............... .............2 Pet. 1:21....... holy men
Angels ............ ......... Matt. 25:31....... holy angels
Brethren ......... ...... ...1 Thes 5:27....... holy brethren
Prophets ............. .... Rev. 22:6 .......... holy prophets
Apostles/prophets.. ...Rev 18:20 holy apostles & prophets
Spirit.............................John 7:39............Holy Ghost
1 Cor 2:13
Matt 12:31
Acts 6:3
Acts 8:18

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 03:37 PM
"First, today, we're going to cut out the following verse:"

1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

"Now, boys and girls, can you say "Jehovah's Witnesses"?

"Good! Now, kids, let's read the next verses..."

(KJV)Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

(NIV)Isa 14:12-15How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

"That's wonderful; and now, boys and girls, can you say, "Mormons" and "Latter Day Saints"?

"Oh you are doing so good, you little angel children, now let's read the following:"

Instead of holy men, they are just men. Instead of holy angels, they are just angels. Instead of holy brethren, they just say brethren, instead of holy prophets, it is just prophets. Instead of holy apostles and prophets, it is just apostles and prophets and instead of holy ghost, it is just spirit.

"Can you spell "equal rights" boys and girls; and, oh, yes, class, can you say 'all men and gods are equal"?

"And finally, everyone all together now, let's say, "The world is one and we are as gods."
(edited by MG)

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 04:08 PM
Some scriptures that have been changed in the newer version translations.

Mark 10:24
Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.
(KJV) Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.
(implies that it is hard to enter the kingdom and leaves out what Jesus said about riches)

John 3:36
but he who does not obey the Son will not see life,
(KJV) he that believeth not the Son shall not see life
(changes believeth to obey. No one can obey the law, but they can believe and be saved)

Rom 1:16
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation
(KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;
(leaves out “of Christ” and just says gospel. There are many gospels, but only one of Christ. If someone comes and preaches another gospel, let that man be accursed)

Col 1:14
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
(KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(through his blood is taken out. This omits what happened at Calvery and that we are saved through his blood)

Mark 9:42
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck,
(KJV) And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
(NASB “in me” is taken out. People can believe in anything, but they must believe in Jesus to be saved)

John 6:47
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
(KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
("on me" is taken out. This does not tell them that they must believe in Jesus to have eternal life)

Acts 22:16
be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
(KJV) be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(takes away the word "Lord" in which we must be baptized in)

1 Tim 2:7 I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.
(KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
(The truth "in Christ" is taken out. Many claim to have the truth, but only in Christ do we have the truth.)

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
(KJV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
(in Christ Jesus is taken out. It is in Christ Jesus that we become a new creature.)

Eph 3:14
For this reason I kneel before the Father,
(KJV) For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
(“of our Lord Jesus Christ” is taken out. Many religions have a father, but there is only one of the Lord Jesus Christ and this is who we should kneel before.)

Eph 3:9
which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
(KJV) which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
(“by Jesus Christ” is taken out. Many religions believe in a god that created all things, but there is only one God by Jesus Christ)

Gal 4:7
but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
(KJV) but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
(through Christ is taken off. Many religions believe in a god, but not the God through Christ)

Col 1:2
To the holy and faithful[1] brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father
(KJV) To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
(“and the Lord Jesus Christ" is taken off. There are many religions that believe in a christ, but not the Lord Jesus Christ)

1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
(KJV) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: (“Christ is come in the flesh” is taken out. Many religions do not argue that Jesus was not from God, but they do argue that he was Christ and came in the flesh to take our sins.)

Phil 4:13
I can do everything through him who gives me strength.
(KJV) I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
(Through Christ is changed to him in the new versions. Him could mean anyone, but if it says Christ, then we know from where our strength comes from)

2 Cor 5:18
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
(KJV) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
(Jesus is taken out as being the Christ.)

1 Cor 16:22
If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord
(KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha
(Jesus Christ is taken off. Many religions have lords, but there is only one Lord Jesus Christ)

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 04:25 PM
sounds like It's being perverted from a book of faith to live by to a book of rules to be bound by. i really feel sorry for those that live to see the fruition of this and must live out those times.

22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

moonglow
Jul 13th 2003, 05:07 PM
God's Child,"I only use the KJV. The problem with the newer translations is according to the copy right laws, in order for anyone to write anything of another book, they have to change 60,000 words per so many words. The words that they have to change are not words like the, we, us, it or any small words, they have to be the major words within the subject of each paragraph. So within this many of the major parts of the bible are lost."

I heard this about the NIV that is why I don't use it...I use the NLT and have compared it with the KJV and don't see this happening in it...so it may be this only happened in the NIV...and WHO excatly has the copyrights on the bible anway????

God bless
Julie

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 05:11 PM
On the NIV it's Zondervan

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 05:31 PM
Some changes that have been made can have grave effects when the end times comes.

In the translation of Rev 13:16 (also Rev 14:1 and 14:11)in the newer versions translate the mark of the beast as mark on the hand or on the forehead. The KJV translates it as in the hand or in the forehead. Such a small change from in to on can have a great effect in the mark of the beast. The man who invented the bio-chip was a Christian. He thought that it could be the mark of the beast. He read one of the newer versions and saw that it said on the hand and on the forehead, so he thought that since the chip is in the hand and in the forehead it could not be the mark of the beast. When he was shown the KJV as stating that it was in the hand and in the forehead, he is now going around the country telling people that he had made a mistake and that it could be the mark of the beast. One little word change caused a Christian to develop the bio-chip. So word changes are very important in Gods word. How many Christians will take the mark because their translation tells them that the mark is on the hand? If the chip is the mark, it will be in the hand and many may take this chip because of these newer translations?

(NIV) Revelation 13:16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead.
(NASB) Rev. 13:16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
(NLT)Rev. 13:16He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
(NKJV) Rev 13:16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
(KJV) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by moonglow
I heard this about the NIV that is why I don't use it...I use the NLT and have compared it with the KJV and don't see this happening in it...so it may be this only happened in the NIV...and WHO excatly has the copyrights on the bible anway????

I just posted about the mark of the beast being in the hand and in the forehead. The NLT bible is translated as on the hand and on the forehead.
(NLT)Revelation 13:16He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
I gave a few examples as to what is changed or omitted in the new translations. Check them out in the bible that you are using.

The NLT has a copy right. Here is what is written in the NLT bible as the copy right;

Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.

Gods Child
Jul 13th 2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by moonglow
[WHO excatly has the copyrights on the bible anway????
Here are some of the copy rights to some of the versions; The KJV has no copy right, because it is under public domain. Public domain means that no one owns it, which means that you can copy it without permission. This does not mean that any of the words can be changed. You can copy it, but it has to be word for word. The other versions have copy rights which mean that you have to have that publishers permission to copy their work. A person can copy another translation, but they have to change the allotted amount of words in order to copy right it under their own name. So that any translation can be re-written, but it has to be within the alloted number of word changes to do so. So each version that copies another will have to change thousands of words in order to do so. Which means that we are losing the word of God.

New International Version (NIV) copy right;
© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

New American Standard Bible (NASB) copy right;
© Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

The Message (MSG) copy right;
© 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

Amplified Bible (AMP) copy right;
© Copyright 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation


New Living Translation (NLT) copy right;
Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
King James Version (KJV) no copy right
Public Domain

English Standard Version (ESV) copy right
Copyright 1995-2003 Gospel Communications International

Contemporary English Version (CEV) copy right;
© Copyright 1995 by American Bible Society

New King James Version (NKJV) copy right;
© Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

21st Century King James Version (KJ21) copy right;
© Copyright 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc.

American Standard Version (ASV) copy right;
© Copyright 1901

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) copy right;
© Copyright by SOON Educational Publications

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC) copy right;
2001 by Terrence P. Noble,

New International Version - UK (NIV-UK) copy right;
© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Sky
Jul 13th 2003, 07:09 PM
IBS does appear to hold the copyright; I found this at Zondervan's website:

A portion of the purchase price of all NIV Bibles is provided to International Bible Society to help spread the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world.

The New International Version

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.

The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.

The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978. Additional changes were made in 1983.

moonglow
Jul 13th 2003, 07:21 PM
Sky: "22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

This is much more true then I would have ever imaged Sky.

God's Child, I want to thank you so much for sharing all this information on here with all of us...I am going to talk to the admin about having this 'stuck' to the top of bible chat even when we are done with it, so new people that come along can read this.

I, personally is totally sickened that this has happened to our bibles. Yes, even one word being changed as God's Child as shown us, can be deadl in more ways then one. I have seen debates on the end times board about whether the mark is IN the hand or forehead or ON them...that can make a huge difference.

The implications of this...of so many bibles being altered like this, is straggering.

It upset me very much on a personal level also. Because of my dsyexlia the KJV is next to impossible for me to understand...so I was using more modern bibles and cross checking them with my KJV but still overlooked so many verses being left out...part of my reading problem is simply not seeing when something is omitted. It makes me wonder how many other bibles made for the disabled and blind have also been altered too..:( I used to get books on talking books through the library because my reading skills were so poor...makes me wonder how much a talking book bible has been messed with. :(

I am so very angry right now about this...but I am glad that this has been brought up.

Please forgive any of my other posts on here that were done in ingorants.

I want to repost what God's Child posted on these scriptures and include bold words for furture readers.

(NIV) Revelation 13:16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead.

(NASB) Rev. 13:16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

(NLT)Rev. 13:16He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.

(NKJV) Rev 13:16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

(KJV) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

I thought maybe I could use the NKJV but I can see that one cannot be trusted either. Thank you GC for the copyright information, that tells me alot...

Well, I guess I should be glad I still have several bibles around here that are KJV...too bad I can't understand them though...:( ahhh...this just breaks my heart...

God bless
Julie

Gods Child
Jul 14th 2003, 02:13 AM
Moonglow
You are so welcome!

It is funny, I just have been studying this for the last month or so. Then this subject came up on the board. I believe that this was the reason that I had learned it. It was not just good timing, but a divine plan.

What I posted here is just a dot compared to all the words that have been changed within the bible versions. I am just beginning to learn these things and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do you remember when you were a kid and played the game telephone? Where someone would say something in someone’s ear and that person would relay it in someone else’s ear. Then it would go on and on and when you got to the last person, you would ask him what the message was. When he told the message it was no where near the meaning of the original message. This is what is happening with the different bible versions. This will happen until when we get to the final bible version it will be nothing like the original and the message will be lost. I’m afraid by the time we get to the end, the bible versions maybe telling people to take the mark of the beast, form a world government, form a world religion and follow the antichrist when he comes. Is this were it is going? I hope not.

I use to have a really bad memory when I would read anything, I could not remember what I read after I read it. When I first got saved and started reading the bible, I could never remember where I read things. I prayed to God about it. It seemed that he was not answering my prayer, but then I noticed a pattern. When I didn’t remember a verse or where it was written, I would go into the bible to look for it. I noticed that when I did that, I would come out with 10 more things that I didn’t know. You see sometimes we think that we are not getting our prayers answered, but in reality we are getting 10 times more than we asked for. Sometimes it’s just God’s way of keeping us in his word.
After many prayers about it, I find that my memory is so much better now, perhaps 10 times. When I first was saved, I had a hard time understanding certain things in the bible and when I would come to something that I did not understand, I would bow my head right there and ask for understanding. Then the answer would just pop in my head and become so clear to me.
I do not have dyslexia, but I am sure that God can help you with it and with your understanding. I have the KJV bible on audio tapes, perhaps something like that can help you. I have the tapes so I can listen to the bible, when I am in my car.

I think that it would be a good idea to leave this posted for any new readers. I think it is something that every Christian should know. I know that some will disagree, but the proof is in the writings.

chal
Jul 14th 2003, 02:51 AM
Just a side note; Talking Bibles are usually read word for word from a particular translation. It should be listed somewhere on the tape, CD or packaging. There are also a few on the internet.

walker
Jul 14th 2003, 03:25 AM
(KJV) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or *in* their foreheads:

This is why i think there will be a physical and spiritual mark.

The physical pertaining to the physical world. Submission to the way's of society? permanent mark resembling pleasure

The Spiritual pertaining to the religious world. Submission to achieving enlightenment or the I AM presence? permanent mark in the soul, which is completly against God's will.

Sky
Jul 14th 2003, 04:02 AM
how can physical certainty apply where allegory is rampant?

chal
Jul 14th 2003, 04:11 AM
I told that boy to stop jumping those ramps!

Sky
Jul 14th 2003, 04:49 AM
yup anudder evil gran knieval kanyon hopper.

TWTTTL
Jul 14th 2003, 05:05 AM
The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.

This kind of pride is what satan promoted with Adam, and Eve in the garden. God is not impressed in anyway with this stuff. In fact He has written in His engrafted Word that He will confound the wisdom of the wise. And the evidence has been declared of the changes ommissions, and many other alterations which is the evidence that God has done just exactly that. There is no Scripture in The entire Bible that tells anyone to interpret His Engrated Word, Engrafted by The Holy Spirit. On the other hand you are told to meditate in His Scriptures night, and day, and to pray always in The Spirit. He being no respecter of persons, and the same yesterday, today, and forever tells us that we will all have the same word in each of our individual languages. You go find the original with all the chapters, and verses in your own language, and let those who are insisting that God was not able to give it to you without their help stew in their own juices. If you don't know which is the original in your language ask Him He will tell you. I know because He did it for me.

Gods Child
Jul 14th 2003, 11:57 AM
What is in bold is what is missing. Compare KJV to NIV;

Why did Jesus come to earth?
KJV Luke 9:56
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
NIV Luke 9:56
and they went to another village.

Matt. 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
NIV Matt. 18:11
missing=omitted

Is repentance important?

KJV Matt. 9:13
...I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
NIV Matt. 9:13
...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

For whom did Jesus die?

KJV I Cor. 5:7
...Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
NIV I Cor. 5:7
...Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed

In Whom must you believe to be saved?

KJV John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life
NIV John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Was Joseph really the father of Jesus?

KJV Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
NIV Luke 2:33
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Did Jesus give His disciples power to heal?

KJV Mark 3:15
...power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils.
NIV Mark 3:15
...authority to drive out demons.

If it's hard to do, should we just remove it?

KJV Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV Mark 11:26 (missing= omitted)

Who is in charge?

KJV I Cor. 10:28
...for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof:
NIV I Cor. 10:28
(last part of verse missing)

Gods Child
Jul 14th 2003, 12:10 PM
Things that have been changed or taken away within the NIV and the NASB versions.

Matt 6:33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
(KJV) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
( this changes “the kingdom of God to just “his kingdom”. His kingdom does not tell us to seek the kingdom of God)

Acts 4:24
When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.
(KJV) And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
(They left out “thou art God”)

Matt. 8:29
What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
(KJV)And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
(Omits Jesus as the Son of God)

Mark 2:15
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.
(KJV) And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
(Replaces Jesus with the word him)

1 Cor 14:2
For anyone who speaks in a tongue[1] does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit
(KJV) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(Changes “the spirit” to “his spirit”. Which makes it sound that anyone who speaks in tongues utters mysteries with his spirit)

Rev 15:3
Just and true are your ways, King of the ages.
(KJV) just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
(changes “saints” to “the ages”.)

Matt 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
(KJV) I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
(changes the word world to the word age)

Rev 21:24
The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.
(KJV) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
(talks out “of them which are saved”. It makes it sound that the nations will walk by the light, when it is the ones who are saved will walk by the light)

Acts 14:15
preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, (KJV) preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God
(They change “The living God” to “a living God”. When the antichrist comes he will show his self as a living god, but THE LIVING GOD)

Daniel 3:25
….fourth is like a son of the gods!"
(KJV) ….fourth is like the Son of God.
(They change “Son of God” to “son of the gods”)

Acts 17:29
Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.
(KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(They change the “Godhead” to the “divine being”)

Eph 5:9
for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness
(KJV)For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness
(changes “Spirit” to “light”. 2 Cor. 11:14 says And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Or NIV says And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.. So why do they change Spirit to the word light In Eph 5:9?)

Ex. 6:3
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.
(KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
( They take away the name “Jehovah” and replace it with LORD. Throughout the bible we are told to serve the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In this passage it gives the name of the God we should serve, but in the newer translations his name is taken out here. So we would not know his name.)

ayojosie
Jul 14th 2003, 12:10 PM
I just want to thank everyone for there contributions so far, it has been quite enlightening.
Does anyone know why some of the scriptures mentioned previously were omitted from the newer translations?
Also anyone done any research on Wescott and and Hort?

You might think that all these is not important, but remember the word of God has been under attack from the very beginning.

Gen 3:1: "and he (Satan) said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

And if you read further down Gen 3:3b-4a. God said"...lest ye die". The serpent said, "Ye shall not surely die". By adding three words man made a grave mistake.

I hope you all see how relevant this is. We should not attack each other but seek to clarify issues and I am glad that the Lord is guiding this discussion.

I believe we can learn from a forum like this because we come from different backgrounds and we can speak out openly without fear.

God loves you all.

Matt14
Jul 14th 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by revrobor
While we should never eliminate from the Bible any Scripture Rev. 22:19 is not a prohibition of that but is referring only to Revelation.

chal:

<snipped for length>

No one likes to be told something they believe is wrong. But rather than exhibiting an arrogant attitude in defending it perhaps you should do some serious studying with GOD. To propagate what you are defending will not benefit the Kingdom of God.

revrobor, I've not responded to your comments because chal did a great job doing so, answering what I would have said and more. I don't see where he has been arrogant. I think he was been very patient. To imply, as you have above, that chal hinders the kingdom by believing that the blood of Christ and the gospel are the same thing is contrary to scripture.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The gospel is indespensible. The Word is the cornerstone of Christianity, because Christ is the Word:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Please don't defile the importance of the Word.

In Christ,

keedy

Gods Child
Jul 15th 2003, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by ayojosie
I just want to thank everyone for there contributions so far, it has been quite enlightening.
Does anyone know why some of the scriptures mentioned previously were omitted from the newer translations?
Also anyone done any research on Wescott and and Hort?
Dear ayojosie;

May God bless you in bringing this subject up. I do not want to be a board hog, but the last month or so, God has been bringing this subject into view for me. I am beginning to understand the origins of the Bible versions and this alarms me to the very depths of my soul. It seems to me that God is bringing this subject into to view for you as well.

There are two reasons why “some of the scriptures mentioned previously were omitted from the newer translations”;
(1) They have used a different text to write the new versions, than the KJV used.
(2) the copy right laws. In order for them to copy a writing, they have to change words, which loses the meaning thereof.

I have come to understand that the Newer Bible Versions came from a totally different text, then the KJV. The KJV was known as the majority text and it was used during the time Jesus was on earth. I feel that if this text was used during Jesus time, if it was wrong, then he would have changed it then.

The text that the newer version’s are using is called the minority text. It is corrupt and even though it was available during Jesus time, it was not used. This should tell us something. If it was available during Jesus time and he did not use it, we should not use it.

About Westcott and Hort at;

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/wh/wh.htm

There were two types of text used in producing different bibles. The KJV used what was called The Byzantine Text or The Received Text also known as the Textus Receptus or the Majority text. It was referred to as the majority text, because the majority of the people used it. The majority used this text from the time before Jesus to about the 1800’s.

The other text that was used by Westcott and Hort was called Alexandrian Text or Hesychian Texts. Also known as the Minority text. It was called Minority, because the minority of the people used it until around the 1800 when Westcott and Hort used it. Since Westcott and Hort used the minority text, every translation since has used it.
The Alexandria text that Westcott and Hort used came from a renegage Jew named Philo Judaeus. Philo lived from about 20 BC to 50 AD. He did not agree with the text that had been used for centuries and so he moved to Egypt to write his own interpretation. Even though Philo lived during the same time period as Jesus, his writing were not used by Jesus.

In the writing of the King James Version, they did not consider the Alexandria text (Philo Judaeus text) as God’s word and did not use it, but since the writing of Westcott and Hort, every newer translation has used the corrupt text of Philo to translate these newer versions.

You can read some about Philo at;
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p/philo.asp

To learn more about the different texts at;
http://www.sermons.org/sermons/sermon29.html


Originally posted by ayojosie
You might think that all these is not important, but remember the word of God has been under attack from the very beginning.
I say AMEN!!!!!
We are in the end times and we are under attack. It is an attack upon our foundation (the word). If he can attack our foundation (the word) then he can lead us astray.

Ask any contractor, if you want to take down a building, then you must do so by it’s foundation. In order to take us down, Satan must pull out our foundation, which is the word of God, but it can not be done to quickly, but slowly, that no one notices. Between you and me, ayojosie, we notice!!!!!! . But he will try to pull the rug out beneath us. The rug is our foundation (the word) and we will not let our building crumble. We will not let him take our foundation or our word which is in Jesus!!!!!!!!

To you ayojosie, I say we will not let him take those things given to us from God.

Gods Child
Jul 15th 2003, 02:09 PM
Since Westcott and Hort (who were not Christians) followed the teaching of Philo, then it would be a good idea to see what Philo believed and who he followed. Philo followed mainly 3 Greek scholars; Socrates, Plato & Aristotle.

Philo of Alexandria believed;

a. Totally rejected the Old Testament as an accurate revelation from God. He used it, but changed it wherever it did not line up with his own beliefs. (See Gen. 3)
b. He was a follower of the ideas of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle and incorporated them into the Old Testament at will.
c. Philo did not believe that Adam and Eve were real people; he believed that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were a myth.
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/athenians.html

Socrates (470-399 BC) He was irritated by the Sophists and their tendency to teach logic as a means of achieving self-centered ends, and even more their promotion of the idea that all things are relative. It was the truth that he loved, desired, and believed in.
Philosophy, the love of wisdom, was for Socrates itself a sacred path, a holy quest -- not a game to be taken lightly. He believed -- or at least said he did in the dialog Meno -- in the reincarnation of an eternal soul which contained all knowledge. We unfortunately lose touch with that knowledge at every birth, and so we need to be reminded of what we already know (rather than learning something new).
One example of his effect on philosophy is found in the dialog Euthyphro. He suggests that what is good is not good because gods say it is, but is measured by practical usefulness. This means that ethics is no longer a matter of surveying the gods or scripture for what is good or bad, but rather thinking about life. He even placed individual conscience above the law -- quite a dangerous position to take!

Plato (437-347 BC) was Socrates’ prized student.
The soul includes reason, of course, as well as self-awareness and moral sense. Plato says the soul will always choose to do good, if it recognizes what is good. This is a similar conception of good and bad as the Buddhists have: Rather than bad being sin, it is considered a matter of ignorance. So, someone who does something bad requires education, not punishment.
The soul is drawn to the good, the ideal, and so is drawn to God. We gradually move closer and closer to God through reincarnation as well as in our individual lives. Our ethical goal in life is resemblance to God, to come closer to the pure world of ideas and ideal, to liberate ourselves from matter, time, and space, and to become more real in this deeper sense. Our goal is, in other words, self-realization.
Paralleling these three levels of pleasure are three souls. We have one soul called appetite, which is mortal and comes from the gut. The second soul is called spirit or courage. It is also mortal, and lives in the heart. The third soul is reason. It is immortal and resides in the brain. The three are strung together by the cerebrospinal canal.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) He was Plato’s prize student. What Plato called idea or ideal, Aristotle called essence, and its opposite, he referred to as matter. Matter is without shape or form or purpose. It is just “stuff.” pure potential, no actuality. Essence is what provides the shape or form or purpose to matter. Essence is “perfect,” “complete,” but it has no substance, no solidity. Essence and matter need each other!
Like Plato, he postulates three kinds of souls, although slightly differently defined. There is a plant soul, the essence of which is nutrition. Then there is an animal soul, which contains the basic sensations, desire, pain and pleasure, and the ability to cause motion. Last, but not least, is the human soul. The essence of the human soul is, of course, reason. He suggests that, perhaps, this last soul is capable of existence apart from the body.
He foreshadowed many of the concepts that would become popular only two thousand years later. Libido, for example: “In all animals... it is the most natural function to beget another being similar to itself... in order that they attain as far as possible, the immortal and divine.... This is the final cause of every creatures natural life.”
And finally, self-actualization: We begin as unformed matter in the womb, and through years of development and learning, we become mature adults, always reaching for perfection. "So the good has been well explained as that at which all things aim."

What was taught by these men is what we would call today as New Age Teaching.

BadDog
Jul 15th 2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by ayojosie
I don't know if there is a thread that as dealt with this topic but I will like to know your opinion on the subject above.
There are many versions in existence and there are quite a few disparities in these versions so which meets the qualifications above? Also there seems to be disparities among the original manuscripts, which is right?
When the Bible says not to add or remove from THIS BOOK then it implies that some of this versions must be doing just that or probably all of them. :hmm:

ayojosie,

I have posted a few comments on such things to various threads on this message board. IMO, get an English Bible that you can read and understand. I prefer ones that are more "FE" (formal equivalent) such as the NASB or NKJV. The NIV is quite popular.

Bottom line, it's OK to use any of these. I do have some training in Greek, in which the NT was written. The more free reading versions, often called "DE" (dynamic equivalent) will vary with one another more as their focus is more on understanding and readability.

Now we have over 5000 Greek manuscripts or portions of it. We also have old Latin versions and other versions in Syrian and other languages to compare and give us a high degree of confidence in the manuscripts we have. The mistakesmade in copying by hand the original Greek manuscripts were in general not intentional. And we dcan compare the various manuscripts we do have to help decide in such cases.

I would say get yourself a good more word-for-word type translation such as the NASB, KJV (actually, I can't recommend this as it reads so awkwardly. Don't use it unless you grew up with it & feel comfortable with it. If you like the KJV tradition, then get a NKJV) NKJV or the HCSB (NT only) for studying the Bible more carefully, and a good DE (more free) translation for reading the Bible to get an overview, and to help you undertstand passages that aren't clear i ntheFE translation you're using. Some good ones are: NIV (more literal than most), NLT, CEV (reads probably the best of any Bible, but it is inaccurate at pleces) or the Good News (TEV).

If you have more questions I suggest you find one of those threads & read up some there. You can also send a pm or just reply to this post.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Jul 15th 2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
Since Westcott and Hort (who were not Christians) followed the teaching of Philo, then it would be a good idea to see what Philo believed and who he followed. Philo followed mainly 3 Greek scholars; Socrates, Plato & Aristotle.

Philo of Alexandria believed...

<snip>

What was taught by these men is what we would call today as New Age Teaching.

God's Child,

FYI, I too prefer the MT over the CT (the Westcott & Hort text typically represented by the UBS or the Nestle/Aland 27th edition of the Greek NT).

But what you've done here is not fair to Westcott & Hort. To say that they were not Christians is very arguable. To say such a thing you really need to quote them to show that they were not believers.

New Age?! What specifically did they teach that was New Age?

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Jul 15th 2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by ayojosie
I just want to thank everyone for there contributions so far, it has been quite enlightening.
Does anyone know why some of the scriptures mentioned previously were omitted from the newer translations?
Also anyone done any research on Wescott and and Hort?

You might think that all these is not important, but remember the word of God has been under attack from the very beginning.

Gen 3:1: "and he (Satan) said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

And if you read further down Gen 3:3b-4a. God said"...lest ye die". The serpent said, "Ye shall not surely die". By adding three words man made a grave mistake.

I hope you all see how relevant this is. We should not attack each other but seek to clarify issues and I am glad that the Lord is guiding this discussion.

I believe we can learn from a forum like this because we come from different backgrounds and we can speak out openly without fear.

God loves you all.
ayojosie,

FYI, I am a majority text supporter. I have the Greek NT in both the MT and in the CT (critical text). I use both.

But you should know that probably 95% of theologians in Bible schools & seminaries in the world are CT people. Most of these are committed, sincere, evangelical believers. So I personally think we should all be careful about just dismissing them out-of-hand.

I too have done some research on Westcott & Hort. FYI, I also participated for over two years in a revision of the ASV-1901 - which was originally based on Westcott-Hort's Greek text. The revision (called the WEB - located at www.ebible.org) as based on the majority text.

I mention this only so that you will understand that I do have some experience not in just reading about what others say about this controversy, but in actually helping make revisions & comparing for each chapter of the NT the CT & the MT (I used Hodges/Farstad's Majority Text Greek text & apparatus) the Greek differences.

Most of the differences were:
spelling differences,
untranslated words added or missing,
word order change, which makes little difference in the Greek. Word order can provide a bit of emphasis.
missing words ("Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ") that don't change the meaning.
FYI, I contributed on the average 3 or 4 changes per chapter in the English translation of the WEB based on differences between the MT & the CT. The editor, Michael Johnson, had developed a macro to automate much of the process, based on Robinson & Pierpont's Greek majority text. I caught what fell through the cracks.

My opinion is that the MT is to be preferred. But I don't think that there is some sort of conspiracy to change the NT & bring in New Age teachings or deny the deity of Christ. In fact, any web site that claims such should probably be avoided as reactionary. There are many good links that do support the MT yet are fair to the CT.

Surprisingly the Massoretic Hebrew OT texts are much more comparable than the NT manuscripts. The MT itself is very consistent, but the CT is not nearly as much consistent. Most decisions for the CT are based on just two manuscripts, & sometimes, when they disagree, on just one.

Also, FYI, there is a resurgence among academia of support for the MT. That is good news. But the CT is not an attack by Satan, FYI. And modern translations based on the CT are quite accurate & reliable.

Incidentally, when we refer to the majority text we are referring to about 5000 documents. But the MT that the KJV was based (and NKJV as well) is called the textus receptus (TR) and was based on just 9 known Greek manuscripts at that time. Incidentally, Erasmus, who did the work, had one of those two manuscripts (Vaticanus) available to him, but he rejected it as "corrupt."

Also, interestingly, Erasmus has often been classified as an unbeliever also, & with perhaps more evidence of such. But I just look at the quality of the Greek work he did, which was commendible.

You should also know that the TR itself has many errors, since Erasmus only had 9 MT manuscripts to follow. He composed his TR Greek manuscript as a compilation of what he considered the best, most likely representation of the original documents he could discern from these 9 manuscripts. He did an excellent job. But modern scholarship has thousands more MT manuscripts to work from.

Incidentally, the ASV is a revision of the KJV/Tyndale text. (The KJV was not an original work, but a revision primarily of the Bishop's Bible & many others... all of which were 90% based on William Tyndale's NT) It was based on the CT, though. So the WEB should be a revision of the KJV essentially but based not on the TR alone, but the MT, and hence correct many of the numerous errors in the Erasmus text (TR). It also modified much of the archic vocabulary.

FWIW, I hope this gives you something to think about.

BD

Covenant Heart
Jul 15th 2003, 09:29 PM
Several brief comments.

I certainly take exception to Erasmus’ doctrine at many points, but that is not the same as saying that he was an unbeliever. That is not my call. But in either event, one need not be a believer to translate text. The issue is whether the translation is faithful.

Your textual comparison (differences in spelling, word order, etc.) rightly notes that these issues do not change meaning. I would stress that this is the key issue. The question is whether or not our Bibles are fully trustworthy (infallible) guides in all matters of faith and practice. On that, we may say “yes” without hesitation or equivocation. What questions may remain in no wise imperil the doctrine of the church.

I am particularly fond of the lines from the Westminster Confession as it speaks of Scripture. “Being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, [they are] kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.” In other words, we may trust our Bibles implicitly and explicitly. Praise God!

Thank-you for speaking with an even hand and for sharing your experience.

Covenant Heart

And remember–Palestine must be freed!
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?list=type&type=29

BadDog
Jul 15th 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Covenant Heart
Several brief comments.

I certainly take exception to Erasmus’ doctrine at many points, but that is not the same as saying that he was an unbeliever. That is not my call. But in either event, one need not be a believer to translate text. The issue is whether the translation is faithful.

<snip>

Thank-you for speaking with an even hand and for sharing your experience.

Covenant Heart

And remember–Palestine must be freed!
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?list=type&type=29
Covenant Heart,

FYI, I do not know nor do I believe that Erasmus was an unbeliever. But many people do think this, & I've read some of their arguments. I don't take them too seriously, any more than the ones about Westcott & Hort.

I agree wholeheartedly that the issue is whether the work done was faithful and sound. Erasmus did a good job, IMO, FWIW.

Now I don't agree w/ W & H's basis for textual criticism nor w/ the basis for determining which Greek text should be followed:
They say take the shorter text & the more difficult reading. !!?? It seems to me that it would more likely happen that someone would drop something accidentally when copying (making the copy shorter - the MT is in general longer) & why in the world take a more obscure reading? The reasoning is that those intentionally making changes would try to make things make more sense. But if most changes were accidental, then such changes would more likely make the text more confusing than clear. So I say take the longer reading & the clear one. But what do I know?!

Thx,

BD

CorpusIslander
Jul 16th 2003, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Gods Child
I have heard this, but I was not sure if it was true that there was a lesbian on the board of the translators of the NIV. If it is true and she came out publicly, then do you think that God would place a Lesbian on the board of translating his word? Would God not have known she was a lesbian before she got on the board?
If I could read Greek or Hebrew, I would. I do not remember that figure being anywhere that high as 100,000. Please show me where you got that.
I guess the best thing for us to do is learn Greek or Hebrew.

It took me a while to remember the name of the author of the source for the 100,000 changes. It comes from a pamphlet written by Ron Rhodes to help people make the right choice of Bible translation. The lesbian mentioned wasn't on the board of translation. A couple of the translators were having translating a couple of passages in a way that made sense in English and they left the other translators and found a local English professor to help them with stylistic issues.

You know some leaders wanted to make Hebrew the national language of the US after the American Revolution. I want to learn Hebrew and started studying it 2 years ago. I was learning quickly but then I became busy and forgot most of what I learned. I'm going to start studying again soon.

Sky
Jul 16th 2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by CorpusIslander
You know some leaders wanted to make Hebrew the national language of the US after the American Revolution.

Fact or rumour?

Names. Dates. Evidences. Please.

CorpusIslander
Jul 16th 2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Sky
Fact or rumour?

Names. Dates. Evidences. Please.

I learned that in college in American History class. I've also seen it a couple times on internet sites but I don't remember where although it was on sites related to learning the Hebrew language. In college my professor told us there were some leaders that wanted to make a language other than English the national language and asked us to guess which language. We were guessing German and French and she said it was an ancient language and they wanted a Biblical language so Americans would better understand the Bible since education at the time was mostly about being literate enough to read the Scriptures. Then we were all guessing Greek or Latin since we knew many people read those languages at the time.

Another thing I learned in that class was the difference between American and British English was created by Webster with the help of Benjamin Franklin. Webster, an English teacher, saw that most languages were phoenetic but English wasn't. He wanted the language to be phoenetic because that would make English easier to learn. He was one of only a few publishers in the nation and he and Benjamin Franklin were the two largest publishers in America. Webster and Franklin agreed that they should change the language to make it phoenetic by the use of their publishing businesses. Webster made the first dictionary of American English, which quoted Bible verses in its definitions, and the two publishers spelled everything in their publications phoenetically according to the spelling found in Webster's Dictionary. Also one state voted on whether English or German would be the official language of that state and English won by a single vote. I learned that in high school though. I know this isn't relevant, but I love history and I always found this fascinating.

Sky
Jul 16th 2003, 06:15 AM
Well, neither paragraph have I heard before, though the second wouldn't surprise me. However, the first I think is some teacher's pure imaginative figment. It certainly wasn't taught when I was in high school. Nothing against you, but I'd need proof of that one. As far as the public school system is concerned while it's been going downhill for the better part of a hundred years the last forty years has been a complete rewriting replete with actual deletions to substantiate the rewrites. A shameful sham for sure.



Originally posted by CorpusIslander
I learned that in college in American History class. I've also seen it a couple times on internet sites but I don't remember where although it was on sites related to learning the Hebrew language. In college my professor told us there were some leaders that wanted to make a language other than English the national language and asked us to guess which language. We were guessing German and French and she said it was an ancient language and they wanted a Biblical language so Americans would better understand the Bible since education at the time was mostly about being literate enough to read the Scriptures. Then we were all guessing Greek or Latin since we knew many people read those languages at the time.

Another thing I learned in that class was the difference between American and British English was created by Webster with the help of Benjamin Franklin. Webster, an English teacher, saw that most languages were phoenetic but English wasn't. He wanted the language to be phoenetic because that would make English easier to learn. He was one of only a few publishers in the nation and he and Benjamin Franklin were the two largest publishers in America. Webster and Franklin agreed that they should change the language to make it phoenetic by the use of their publishing businesses. Webster made the first dictionary of American English, which quoted Bible verses in its definitions, and the two publishers spelled everything in their publications phoenetically according to the spelling found in Webster's Dictionary. Also one state voted on whether English or German would be the official language of that state and English won by a single vote. I learned that in high school though. I know this isn't relevant, but I love history and I always found this fascinating.

Gods Child
Jul 16th 2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by BadDog
God's Child,

FYI, I too prefer the MT over the CT (the Westcott & Hort text typically represented by the UBS or the Nestle/Aland 27th edition of the Greek NT).

But what you've done here is not fair to Westcott & Hort. To say that they were not Christians is very arguable. To say such a thing you really need to quote them to show that they were not believers.

New Age?! What specifically did they teach that was New Age?

Thx,

BD
I have read before that Westcott and Hort were not Christians. Now it is not my intent to say who is saved and who is not, but we are to test the fruit of the spirit. It is apparent that Westcott and Hort omitted a vast amount of scriptures within the new translation. A true Christian would never even consider to omit one word of God. If these men were of God, they would not have changed nor omitted any scripture. In a Quote by Hort, he sited their intention to change the word of God;

In 1853, Dr. Hort wrote, "He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible”.

“To edit”, means to change, so their desire was to change the word of God.

http://watch.pair.com/another.html

The quote that they were not Christians came from;

http://www.sermons.org/sermons/sermon29.html

Westcott and Hort
a. These two men were the founders of the modern movement known as higher criticism.
b. We could speak volumes as to their credentials but let this suffice.
1). They were not Christians, so how could they have been able to discern that which was pure from that which was corrupt.
2). They had an overt prejudice against all Byzantine texts.
3). They excused their errors by creating in their own conjecture, a position which they believed the original authors most assuredly must have held. They had no proof that such a position was in fact the case.
4). There is great evidence from the secular biographies of these men that they were involved in what we would refer to today as New Age religion.
c. Yet their work is accepted as the foundation for every English translation of the Bible since the King James.
------------


As I have shown earlier, Westcott and Hort were followers of Philo. Philo followed mainly 3 Greek scholars; Socrates, Plato & Aristotle.

Philo and these Greek scholars believed in reincarnation of an eternal soul among other ungodly theories. In which they believed “Then there is an animal soul, which contains the basic sensations, desire, pain and pleasure, and the ability to cause motion. Last, but not least, is the human soul.”

To test the fruit of the spirit of Westcott and Hort, it is apparent that these men were not of God.

Gods Child
Jul 16th 2003, 12:02 PM
The Greek Textus Receptus, from which the Authorized King James Version was translated, is the true Word of God.

The New Greek text was used to translate the newer versions of the bible. It was a corrupt text.

The New Greek Text, from which modern versions are;
Revised Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version, and New King James Version) are derived, is a corrupted Greek text.

Within the newer versions if is evident that the intent was to change certain doctrines of the bible; Doctrines such as;
The deity of Jesus Christ, That Jesus came in the flesh, the atonement through the blood, the resurrection, the ascension, the Trinity, faith in Jesus Christ alone, Inerrancy of scripture, exalt man, prayers, 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, sin, the judgment, hell, bible prophecy, recognizing the antichrist, the mark of the beast.
Comparison of these scripture differences can be seen at;

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

Gods Child
Jul 16th 2003, 12:18 PM
In researching this further, I have come across the names of the homosexuals that were on the committee of the translation of the NIV. This is only a portion of what is written about these two people. There is implications that there were more then just two homosexuals on the board. You can read the whole article at;

http://watch.pair.com/another.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm
http://www.rcrc.org/religion/es1/author.html

Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 46. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, 47. and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 48.

“Mollenkott is a pro-abortion feminist who claims to be a ‘left-leaning’ evangelical. In reality she denies the very God of the Bible and worships an idolatrous female god of her own imagination. She grew up in a Plymouth Brethren fellowship and moved in Fundamentalist circles during her early years. She studied at Bob Jones University and taught at Shelton College in the 1950s. She has moved miles from that position, though. Today she moves in the most radical ecumenical feminist circles. In the 1970s, Virginia Mollenkott was a consultant to the New International Version translating committee. She was involved with this project through its completion.

“In 1978 Mollenkott co-authored (with Letha Scanzoni) the book entitled Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, in which she called for nondiscrimination toward homosexuality. The book argues that the Sodom account in Genesis does not teach the evil of homosexuality, but the evils of violent gang rape and inhospitality to strangers. The book also claims that ‘the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible’ (p. 71), and that Romans 1 does not ‘fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian’ (p. 62).
Dr. Mollenkott earned her BA at Bob Jones University, her MA. at Temple University, and her Ph.D. at New York University.. She is the author of 11 books, including Women, Men, and the Bible; Godding: Human Responsibility and the Bible; and Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism, both available from The Crossroad Publishing Company in New York City. She served as stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible and was a member of the National Council of Churches committee to prepare An Inclusive Language Lectionary: Readings for Years A, B, and C. Dr Mollenkott is currently a Professor of English at William Paterson College of New Jersey.
Virginia Mollenkott was not the only homosexual who worked on the New International Version. Consider the following letter we received from a friend in Britain --
(THERE WAS ANOTHER HOMOSEXUAL ON THE NIV COMMITTEE)

"A while ago I heard a rumour that Marten Woudstra, who was apparently not just on the Committee for Bible Translation of the NIV, but actually head of the Old Testament Committee, was a homosexual and friend of Evangelicals Concerned. He has been dead for a couple of years at least, but I thought this was vitally important information considering the way the NIV handles homosexuality/sodomy.
I asked Dr. Blair if he knew Marten Woudstra. Yes, he was very familiar with him. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned from its inception. Although Woudstra had no formal ties with ECI, once when he was in New York he called in and had tea with Dr Blair. Dr Blair told me that Marten Woudstra was a life long bachelor, was a homosexual (Dr Blair would not commit himself as to whether Woudstra was celibate or active), and shared the viewpoint of ECI that a life long 'loving monogamous relationships' between gay men or women was acceptable to God.

"Dr Blair categorically stated to me on the phone today (23.9.97) that other members of the NIV translation committee were quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me any names for obvious reasons."

Matt14
Jul 16th 2003, 02:25 PM
BadDog, maybe you could help with a few questions:

1. When we speak of the critical text (minority texts) of the NT, how many are we talking about? 10? 100? I hope with your knowledge of manuscripts you can help with this question.

2. How many manuscripts make up the majority texts? Is it around 5,000 or 5,500?

3. You said in a previous post that you prefer the MT over CT, but the NASB NT that I have is based on the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament text. Isn't the Nestle derived from the CT? I think you also said you prefer the NASB for its accuracy. Please correct me if I've gotten your preferences wrong here.

4. What Bible translations are truly based on the MT? I know we can count the KJV, since the Textus Receptus is very close to the MT. What others are there?

Sorry for so many questions! :)

Thanks,

keedy

Matt14
Jul 16th 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
The Greek Textus Receptus, from which the Authorized King James Version was translated, is the true Word of God.

The New Greek text was used to translate the newer versions of the bible. It was a corrupt text.

The New Greek Text, from which modern versions are;
Revised Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version, and New King James Version) are derived, is a corrupted Greek text.



Gods Child, just wanted to make one comment.

The New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text) as well, not on the Critical (Minority) Text. Where there are variations from the TR from the Majority Text and the Critical Text, the NKJV puts those mentions in the footnotes.

Thanks,

keedy

BadDog
Jul 16th 2003, 02:47 PM
God's Child,

I'm sorry if I come across as abrasive, but these wholesale attacks on Westcott & Hort and on the NIV are unfair and do not serve any purpose.

Now I say this as one who prefers the MT tradition...
as one who has in fact spent a few hundred hours helping in the revision process of the ASV-1901 to the WEB, looking at specific Greek differences between the MT & the CT (therefore somewhat familiar w/ specific textual criticism issues)...
as one who does not particularly like the NIV...

When Dr. Hort wrote that he was going to "edit" the Greek text he was only saying that he was going to do the same thing as Erasmus did when he developed (edited) the TR that the KJV is based upon. What is meant is that they considered certain Greek manuscripts & tried to use a logical means of determining what was most likely the original Greek text. Their synthesized Greek text was the basis for the present UBS and Nestle/Aland 27th edition (I think there may be a 28th edition out now)

And Erasmus did not have available to him the vast thousands of Greek manuscripts that we do now. He only had 9. That is not much of a "majority." The CT is based on many more manuscripts than that. Now the TR is a good representative of the MT. But to say that it is the true Word of God is ridiculous. There are many mistakes in it. Pick a chapter of the Bible & we can find some.

The argument that the KJV must be God's preserved Word for us in English goes something like this: Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth.

Then they reason that such words make it clear that God's preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere. ... But why must there be an infallible Word of God in English? The original text IS infallible. But people make mistakes. The argument about God's sovereign preservation is valid, but why pick the English KJV as that text?

Now if the TR is the true Word of God, then how about 1 John 5:7, 8? I'm sure that you are aware that when Erasmus was developing his edited Greek text he did not include those verses. But King James I wanted the Latin Vulgate text to be there. (You know, the part about there being 3 witnesses - the Father, Son & Holy Spirit) Erasmus refused, saying it was not found in even 1 Greek text. When the king kept pressing he finally relenetd & said if it was found in even one Greek text he'd add the phrase.

Well, lo-and-behold, amazingly the king did find a copy that had that... but it was a manufactured copy - a fake!

Well Erasmus stuck to his word & included it. But he included a note in the Greek text he'd created stating that he greatly doubted the validity of that text.

So if the TR is the true Word of God, how do you explain such things? Even now I believe it can be found in only 1 or 2 Greek manuscripts out of thousands, & very recent Greek texts at that, of course. Today I would be very surprised if you can find a single Greek authority who supports that passage. I say this not to disparage the TR but to show that it was the work of a man, & as such is fallible. It was NOT inspired.

Now the KJV was an excellent revision when it was revised from the Bishops Bible & Tyndale's Bible in 1611. You were aware that it was not translated using the Greek & Hebrew from scratch, right? It is 90% the Tyndale translation in the NT of 1525/6. The revisors stated that their intent was "not to make a bad Bible good, but a good Bible better & many Bibles into one ... Bible." (I forget the exact quote, but the translation committee stated that this was not a new translation, FYI.)

And it is a good revision of the Tyndale Bible, if you can get past the thees/thous/dosts.

You were aware that the translation committee did not make its changes for the most part based on the original Greek & Hebrew manuscripts, right? Now, since it was a revision, they looked at the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale Bible, & even some at the Wycliffe Bible, as well as the Latin Vulgate. They did refer to the original languages at times.

But let's not attack the NIV. Or at least let's be fair. Many good men & women were on the NIV translation committee. The question should not be if some homosexuals were consulted in the translation process, but if we can find any evidence in the NIV text of a slant that accepts homosexuality within the text itself. That would be a concern.

An argument that really bugs me is that the TR is superior to other Greek "texts" because God providentially preserved it. Where is there even a suggestion in Scripture that God would do this? But even allowing this for the sake of argument, how can we tell which manuscript is the particular one He preserved?

Where is the historical evidence that the text family from which the TR descends was chosen by God over and above all other texts? And remember, the TR is not actually a text but a compilation made by Erasmus who did the same kind of work with the 7 - 9 documents at his disposal that those who later compiled the present day CT have done these days, and the TR went through several revisions. If it was providentially preserved, why did it need to be compiled, and what was wrong with the first edition?

Now let me make clear that I do believe that the TR represents a family of manuscripts that descends from a more reliable manuscript family. But Erasmus compiled the original edition of this TR from only 7 different manuscripts that he was able to find. Originally, it was even missing the last part of Revelation. Many of the manuscripts considered by the CT are much older than the those used by the TR.

I am aware of many of the textual criticism arguments made to support the MT tradition, & I agree w/ many of them. And I love the story of Tyndale and his open defiance of the Pope. Tyndale was committed to taking the Bible directly to the people. Tyndale said that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even a ploughboy to know more about Holy Scripture than the Pope himself! Cool.

But if we question the quality of a particular tranlation, such as the NIV, let's give specific passages with which we find fault & our reasons. I could find places in the NIV that I don't agree w/ what was done as I'm sure & others could find also, & this is ultimately better than just bashing the NIV generally.

Thx for considering this,

BD

Matt14
Jul 16th 2003, 03:01 PM
Now, before reading this, know that I trust and study the KJV and NKJV. This is just further proof that translations are not perfect.

Here's my favorite King James bias:

KJV
1Sa 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king.

ASV
1Sa 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom Jehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him along all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, Long live the king.

LITV (literal translation)
1Sa 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, Do you see him whom Jehovah has chosen, for none is like him among all the people? And all the people shouted and said, May the king live!

The Hebrew literally says, "Let the king live." "God save the king," while a popular royalist slogan in England, is not a fair interpretation of the Hebrew here.

BadDog
Jul 16th 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by keedy
BadDog, maybe you could help with a few questions:

1. When we speak of the critical text (minority texts) of the NT, how many are we talking about? 10? 100? I hope with your knowledge of manuscripts you can help with this question.

2. How many manuscripts make up the majority texts? Is it around 5,000 or 5,500?

<snipped - used below>

keedy,

Good questions. I believe that there are about 5300 Greek manuscripts (mostly complete manuscripts of varying age). There are also many partial texts.

A good link is ->

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/9633/biblechapter5.html

But there are about 100 manuscripts which includeall or large portions of the NT used by the CT people in compiling the UBS text used by nearly all modern translation committees. Most are significantly older than the vast majority of the MT manuscripts, which mostly date from the 4th century or more recently. Some CT manuscripts are dated to the early & mid 2nd century. There are a couple of fairly old (say late 2nd & 3rd century) MT manuscripts. Because ofthe dry conditions in Alexandria, where the CT manuscripts are found, they were preserved longer.

But this needs to be qualified, since the two most used manuscripts (uncials) are: Codex Sinaiticus which contains all of the NT (c. 350), and Codex Vaticanus also containing almost the entire NT (c. 325). These two uncials are old... but not as old as many of the partial manuscripts (papyri). But theCT typically gives great weight to these two documents. Nearly all decisions are made based on these two documents, and often on just one (Vaticanus) when those two differ. Yeah, that's the same document that was fished out of the Vatican trash, & that Erasmus refused to use deeming it to be corrupt.

Typically only 4 - 6 manuscripts are really considered by the MT, with a great reliance on just 2.

keedy ->
3. You said in a previous post that you prefer the MT over CT, but the NASB NT that I have is based on the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament text.
BD -> Theactual Greke text changed almost not at all sincethen. The real changes were in the apparatus at the bottom of the page explaining the textual decisions.

lkeedy->
Isn't the Nestle derived from the CT?
BD -> CT is just another way to refer to the Nestle/Aland or UBS text that derived from Westcott/Hort's work. The N/A & UBS text are identical... just packaged differently.)

keedy ->
I think you also said you prefer the NASB for its accuracy. Please correct me if I've gotten your preferences wrong here.
BD -> You got me right. It is in the KJV/Tyndale tradition, & it follows a highly FE process, more than the KJV even. Though it differs at times due to a different textual basis (CT rather than MT), it does an excellent job of handling the grammar IMO. The NASB was a revision ofthe ASV-1901. The WEB was also a revision, but based on the MT, so I like the WEB also. I also like a bunch of other translations. The NASB is probably one of the most difficult to read. Get rid of those Thees/Thous of the KJV & it would read better than the NASB! But for study, the NASB is great.

keedy->
4. What Bible translations are truly based on the MT? I know we can count the KJV, since the Textus Receptus is very close to the MT. What others are there?
BD -> Good question. Not many. The WEB is, as is the 3rd Millinnium Bible (based on the Robinson/Pierpont MT). Art Farstad developed a NT (completely new translation) based on the MT, but he passed away about 3 years ago before he finished it. It was called Logos21. You can still get gospels of John I believe of it. The SBC bought the rights t ouse it, 7 finished his work in the OT & revised his NT work. It is the basis for... the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible).

One problem... the committee doing the revisions prefer the CT & made many changes in Farstad's work, so it is really now a hodgepodge of the CT & MT... perhaps more closely now reflecting the CT tradition. But it is a good translation, and the NT is availablenow in bookstores. I like it. (Farstad BTW was theeditor of theNKJC revision of the KJV.) You can read it on Crosswalk.com.

There are a few others online... don't know that any are really in mass production. Only the KJV & NKJV to my knowledge.

keedy ->
Sorry for so many questions! :)

Thanks,

keedy

BD ->

No problema. I guess one reason I like the NASB & many other CT Bibles is that there just aren't any truly MT Bibles out. The KJV and NKJV are based on the TR, which is in the MT family, but has some errors. They almost based the NKJV on the MT, but decided to stick w/ the TR due to a possible reaction.

BD

CorpusIslander
Jul 16th 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
The New Greek Text, from which modern versions are;
Revised Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version, and New King James Version) are derived, is a corrupted Greek text.

These web sites say only the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus but if you research it the New King James uses only the Textus Receptus.

BadDog
Jul 16th 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by CorpusIslander
These web sites say only the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus but if you research it the New King James uses only the Textus Receptus.

Right. To say that the NKJV was based on the critical text is just absurd.. .and ignorant!

If someone likes their KJV, that's great. But don't put down other versions based on untruths.

BD

Matt14
Jul 17th 2003, 03:30 PM
BadDog, thanks for the info! As always, you are a wealth of information, and I really appreciate it. I think we can all rest assured that our Bibles contain all we need to follow God's plan for us and reach heaven!

One comment:



But this needs to be qualified, since the two most used manuscripts (uncials) are: Codex Sinaiticus which contains all of the NT (c. 350), and Codex Vaticanus also containing almost the entire NT (c. 325). These two uncials are old... but not as old as many of the partial manuscripts (papyri). But theCT typically gives great weight to these two documents. Nearly all decisions are made based on these two documents, and often on just one (Vaticanus) when those two differ. Yeah, that's the same document that was fished out of the Vatican trash, & that Erasmus refused to use deeming it to be corrupt.

I know with all your study that you know this, and that it just slipped by. But I think the Codex Sinaiticus was the manuscript of which portions were found in the trash at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai.

Just wanted to point this out for anyone who may not go from here to a study of the origins of manuscripts.

Thanks for all you do, BD!

Sincerely,

keedy

BadDog
Jul 17th 2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by keedy
BadDog, thanks for the info! As always, you are a wealth of information, and I really appreciate it. I think we can all rest assured that our Bibles contain all we need to follow God's plan for us and reach heaven!

One comment:



I know with all your study that you know this, and that it just slipped by. But I think the Codex Sinaiticus was the manuscript of which portions were found in the trash at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai.

Just wanted to point this out for anyone who may not go from here to a study of the origins of manuscripts.

Thanks for all you do, BD!

Sincerely,

keedy
Actually, I knew it was one of the two, but forgot which one... assumed it was Vaticanus. Thanks for clarifying.

FYI, I should mention just in passing that some refer to what's often called "eclectic" texts... ones that are based on more than one tradition. Sturr (sp?) believes in following the Byzantine (MT), Alexandrian (CT) and what he refers to as Western families... basically giving them equal weight. But most consider the Western to be a subset of the MT... & there are relatively few manuscripts of this Western type.

But the HCSB is probably now such an eclectic Bible. It was produced originally based on the MT, & then modified to reflect the CT tradition. There are a handful of such Bibles out... I don't know if any are actually in production.

I haven't taken the time to figure out to what degree the HCSB is divided between these two traditions. I'll have to do that some day... it's just boring methodical work. ugh!

BD

Matt14
Jul 17th 2003, 04:27 PM
I can understand forgetting. I forgot what I had for breakfast this AM! :)

The study of manuscripts is pretty complicated, I'm finding out. Interesting though, and I think all Christians should have a basic knowledge of how we arrive at the translations we have today.

Thanks BD,

keedy

BadDog
Jul 17th 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
I have read before that Westcott and Hort were not Christians. Now it is not my intent to say who is saved and who is not, but we are to test the fruit of the spirit. It is apparent that Westcott and Hort omitted a vast amount of scriptures within the new translation. A true Christian would never even consider to omit one word of God. If these men were of God, they would not have changed nor omitted any scripture. In a Quote by Hort, he sited their intention to change the word of God;

In 1853, Dr. Hort wrote, "He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible”.

“To edit”, means to change, so their desire was to change the word of God.

<snip>
1). They were not Christians, so how could they have been able to discern that which was pure from that which was corrupt.
<snip>

Gods Child,

Does anyone have any quotes from either Westcott or Hort that would indicate that they were not believers?

I've already addressed that Dr. Hort's comment about "editing" the Greek text did not at all mean what you thought here. He was trying to come up with what he thought would most likely have been the original Greek text. This was excatly what Erasmus himself did when he developed the TR that the KJV is based upon. He edited a Greek text. The TR is not identical to a single manuscript that can be found... it was manufactured, as Erasmus' attempt to ascertain what the original documents said. This was not wrong, as W & H's manufactured Greek text was not wrongly developed... but it isn't based on what I would consider to be documents as close to the original as theMT manuscripts are.

As you know, I disagree w/ their scholarship & the CT that resulted from their work. But if we're going to assert that they were not believers, then I need actual words that they spoke to that effect.

Of course the bottom line is whether or not the Greek family of manuscripts they support are indeed representative of the original Greek documents. I don't think they are, but I don't want to see their name disparaged, without evidence.

Thanks much,

BD

BadDog
Jul 17th 2003, 10:15 PM
Just read this quote from a member ofa bibletranslation list I'm a member of. I'll suppress his name, but here's his comment. (He's a Bible translator, FYI).

Most of what you say I completely agree with you but the "literary beauty" of the KJV that I question. The KJV is the sum of all the English versions that proceeded it especially Tyndale's (about 90%) and Douay (about 7%). The KJV' translators reintroduced many Latin words back into the text from the Latin Vulgate. In light of this can we say that this is a "literary beauty"? I am just asking.

B** I**

It was his reference to many Latin Vulgate terms being introduced back into the English that interested me, & the influence of the Douay Bible on it. One of those terms that has played havoc with our present day gospel is "repentance" from the Latin "penance." Our present day dictionary meaning for "repentance" is no longer near the original Greek meaning.

Andif you've got the Greek, why use an intermediate translation? Of course Martin Luther's German translation from the original languages influenced many of those early Bibles too. Luther was quite a gifted linguist.

Just some FYI.

BD

CorpusIslander
Jul 18th 2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Gods Child
He has been dead for a couple of years at least, but I thought this was vitally important information considering the way the NIV handles homosexuality/sodomy.

I would like to know what is meant by "the way the NIV handles homosexuality/sodomy"? Do the KJV only supporters have a problem with homosexuality being considered a sin and a perversion? If not I'd like them to show me evidence "the NIV handles homosexuality/sodomy" improperly.

Virginia Mollenkott came from a evangelical fundamentalist background with a degree from Bob Jones University so nobody suspected her real beliefs until she came out of closet years later. She only looked at a small number of already translated verses and gave advice on the quality of style in those verses. Nobody claimed that Marten Woudstra was gay when he was alive but now he's passed away he's open game for slander. This is so shameful.

BadDog
Jul 18th 2003, 04:40 PM
FYI, following are some English words which were "developed" as a result of the Latin Vulgate:

repentance (from Latin "penance"), propitiation, justification, & sanctification. These are basically all transliterations of the Latin and were probably unknown in English before theological discussion started to take place in English.)

I would guess that many of these words are taken from the Wycliffe Bible, which was translated from the Vulgate alone.

Interestingly, do any of us feel comfortable using any of those words? i don't. That's why I look to see how these words are handled in modern free translations. IMO, I would prefer to see them not even used... perhaps only mentioned in footnotes. They're theological terms that those of us who have been Christianized have grown to understand.

It's a sort of "biblish." Interestingly, most of us probably could notcome up w/ very acurate statements of what those terms really mean anyway, so why use them?

But as I was thinking about this I wondered what other terms we tend to toss around as Christians which unbelievers & young Christians usually don't have a clue about. I'm going to start a new thread on this to see what words we all sruggle with... biblish!

Thx,

BD

Mark G
Jul 18th 2003, 07:33 PM
Hi

Here’s my go at these words. I added some more for fun. I have some older dictionaries and Propitiation's def. seams to be quite clear and reasonable.

Consecration- Speaks of presenting or offering. Consecration must be done in the realm of resurrection. In other words the believer must consecrate them-self on the bases of the Lord's resurrection. The result of consecration will be, "seeing" our co-death with Christ and the ability to resist sin. After consecrating our-self to the Lord we then have to actively practice righteousness. Consecration and surrender goes together. See Rom 6

Holy/holiness to be set apart (wholly) for God. Goes with sanctified which is the objective fact. Holiness is a subjective promise. Only holy things will enter heaven. Man's holiness is not derived from his own works but his appropriation of the experience of the Lord as his own experience. Fire is God's judgment, which is God's holiness in active opposition against evil.

Justification- The objective work of the gospel of Christ in a Christians life. This work concerns our new position before God. To be justified speaks of being "released or freed" from sin or the Adamic life. Goes with regeneration, which speaks of our new life. John 3:14. We can't be justified (objective) without regeneration (subjective). They have to work together or balance each other. Condemnation is the opposite of justification.

Righteousness Speaks of God being a fully legal and fair judge. He cannot over look any transgression from His Law's. He will judge everyone exactly the same, Angels and Man. See Fear of God and 2 Cor 2:5-

Regeneration- Deliverance from hell or sin. The subjective work of the gospel of Christ in a Christian’s life. This work concerns our new life with God through Christ. John 3:7. Goes with justification, which speaks of our new position. We can't be justified (objective) without regeneration (subjective). They have to work together or balance each other. Salvation and regeneration is not the same thing. Salvation points to being severed from today's world system or the system of Satan (which we are born into) and regeneration concerns being saved from hell or sin.

Repentance- Speaks of not only seeing that we are "sinners”, but also point to the decision made by us to change. Without change there is not a true repentance.

Salvation is essentially a present exit from a doomed order, which is Satan's. Escaping/rescued from the world controlled by Satan. A "coming out" or making a exit from the all embracing Kosmos or world. Entering into something "new". Stepping into God's eternal purpose in Christ (God's plan) and being delivered from Satan's "patter of things". Taking a step in faith, saying; I believe and am baptized, and "come out" a saved man. Mark 16:15-16. We are saved through death (baptized into Christ's life). Salvation and regeneration are not the same thing. Salvation points to being severed from today's world system or the system of Satan (which we are born into) and regeneration concerns being saved from hell or sin. See baptism redeemed, regeneration, sanctified, consecration, rescued. Goes with "world".

Sanctified- Made Holy or being made Holy. With an emphasis on being called out of the world. The world spoken of here is the world that is ruled by Satan. We live in this world, but are not of it. Sanctification is not our work (it is a objective fact) it is done by God for us through the blood of Jesus Christ. Goes with Holiness, which is the subjective promise.

JESUS is LORD
Jul 18th 2003, 10:39 PM
The KING JAMES version. You say why. Because its sealed to people who don,t seriously worship GOD. GOD open the mind up and he knows who will abuse his word.JOHN 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. GOD word is easy to understand in some places then hard in others.And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. LAMBS wife is harder to understand. That when GOD has to show YOU. The KING JAMES BIBLE is written not to be understood sometimes. Daniel 8:22
And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. I just hope some of the people that don,t understand the KJB will ask GOD to open there understanding. GOD knows the true hearts and gives freely.

Gods Child
Jul 20th 2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by CorpusIslander
[B]I would like to know what is meant by "the way the NIV handles homosexuality/sodomy"? Do the KJV only supporters have a problem with homosexuality being considered a sin and a perversion? If not I'd like them to show me evidence "the NIV handles homosexuality/sodomy" improperly.


This was not a quote from me, but taken from a web site that I gave.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

Gods Child
Aug 3rd 2003, 03:51 PM
I found this very interesting. This website shows a symbol used in the NKJV bible that is of a pagan origin. Does anyone have a NKJV bible. Is this symbol in it?

Take a look at;

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

BadDog
Aug 4th 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
I found this very interesting. This website shows a symbol used in the NKJV bible that is of a pagan origin. Does anyone have a NKJV bible. Is this symbol in it?

Take a look at;

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
This is ridiculous. The symbol on the NKJV Bibles is NOT the same - it's a symbol for the trinity used for centuries. God gave us all some common sense - let's use it.

BTW, I don't see how anyone can find a basis for rejecting the NKJV, which is based on the same Greek text, the textus receptus, yet accept the KJV. Could someone who does please give some specific verses that differ? Be prepared to back them up from a Greek and English standpoint.

If not, please do not criticize God's Word - many men and women of God devoted many years of their lives in preparing the NKJV for those who loved the KJV and wanted one that they could actually read and understand more clearly.

I knew the man who was the editor of the NKJV & has since gone to be with the Lord - Art Farstad - a real man of God, quite humble, as many of his opponents have not demonstrated.

BD

chal
Aug 4th 2003, 04:56 PM
One of the biggest non sequiturs the writer of that web page makes is to assume that there is some big conspiracy behind translating the word "testament" as "covenant." There are several more if you look closer.

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Testament Tes"ta*ment, n. F., fr. L. testamentum, fr. testari
to be a witness, to make one's last will, akin to testis a
witness. Cf. Intestate, Testify.
1. (Law) A solemn, authentic instrument in writing, by which
a person declares his will as to disposal of his estate
and effects after his death.

Note: This is otherwise called a will, and sometimes a last
will and testament. A testament, to be valid, must be
made by a person of sound mind; and it must be executed
and published in due form of law. A man, in certain
cases, may make a valid will by word of mouth only. See
Nuncupative will, under Nuncupative.

2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes
toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general
divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures,
in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the
Old Testament; the New Testament;

-- often limited, in
colloquial language, to the latter.

He is the mediator of the new testament . . . for
the redemption of the transgressions that were under
the first testament. --Heb. ix. 15.

Holographic testament, a testament written wholly by the
testator himself. --Bouvier.



"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

Covenant Cov"e*nant (k?v"?-nant), n. OF. covenant, fr. F. &
OF. convenir to agree, L. convenire. See Convene.
1. A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, or
one of the stipulations in such an agreement.

Then Jonathan and David made a covenant. --1 Sam.
xviiii. 3.

Let there be covenants drawn between us. --Shak.

If we conclude a peace, It shall be with such strict
and severe covenants As little shall the Frenchmen
gain thereby. --Shak.

2. (Eccl. Hist.) An agreement made by the Scottish Parliament
in 1638, and by the English Parliament in 1643, to
preserve the reformed religion in Scotland, and to
extirpate popery and prelacy; -- usually called the
``Solemn League and Covenant.''

He Wharton was born in the days of the Covenant,
and was the heir of a covenanted house. --Macaulay.

3. (Theol.) The promises of God as revealed in the
Scriptures, conditioned on certain terms on the part of
man, as obedience, repentance, faith, etc.

I will establish my covenant between me and thee and
thy seed after thee in their generations for an
everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee. --Gen. xvii.
7.

4. A solemn compact between members of a church to maintain
its faith, discipline, etc.

5. (Law)
(a) An undertaking, on sufficient consideration, in
writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from some
act or thing; a contract; a stipulation; also, the
document or writing containing the terms of agreement.
(b) A form of action for the violation of a promise or
contract under seal.

Syn: Agreement; contract; compact; bargain; arrangement;
stipulation.

Usage: Covenant, Contract, Compact, Stipulation.
These words all denote a mutual agreement between two
parties. Covenant is frequently used in a religious
sense; as, the covenant of works or of grace; a church
covenant; the Solemn League and Covenant. Contract is
the word most used in the business of life. Crabb and
Taylor are wrong in saying that a contract must always
be in writing. There are oral and implied contracts as
well as written ones, and these are equally enforced
by law. In legal usage, the word covenant has an
important place as connected with contracts. A compact
is only a stronger and more solemn contract. The term
is chiefly applied to political alliances. Thus, the
old Confederation was a compact between the States.
Under the present Federal Constitution, no individual
State can, without consent of Congress, enter into a
compact with any other State or foreign power. A
stipulation is one of the articles or provisions of a
contract.

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Covenant Cov"e*nant (k?v"?-n?nt), v. i. imp. & p. p.
Covenanted; p. pr. & vb. n. Covenanting.
To agree (with); to enter into a formal agreement; to bind
one's self by contract; to make a stipulation.

Jupiter covenanted with him, that it should be hot or
cold, wet or dry, . . . as the tenant should direct.
--L'Estrange.

And they covenanted with him for thyrty pieces of
silver. --Matt. xxvi.
15.

Syn: To agree; contract; bargain; stipulate.

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Covenant Cov"e*nant, v. t.
To grant or promise by covenant.

My covenant of peace that I covenanted with you.
--Wyclif.

Matt14
Aug 4th 2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
I found this very interesting. This website shows a symbol used in the NKJV bible that is of a pagan origin. Does anyone have a NKJV bible. Is this symbol in it?

Take a look at;

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html


I have two NKJV versions, but don't see that symbol anywhere.

k

Gods Child
Aug 5th 2003, 04:07 AM
Thanks keedy

I was wondering.

It says: Thomas Nelson Publishers (publishers of the NKJV) claim, on the inside-cover, the symbol, ". . .is an ancient symbol for the Trinity."

Also say; "I think it is quite interesting to see that this same symbol appears on the cover of the New King James Bible as well!"(Dr. Cathy Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, pp. 242-243)


Is yours a Thomas Nelson Publishers? Perhaps this is another book?

I think I'll go to the book store and check out what is on the cover of the NKJV. But if you have two of them, maybe this if something false. I don't know, but thank you for looking.

Have you ever seen this symbol? I haven't and it makes me wonder if it is real.

Blessings,

MAC
Aug 5th 2003, 04:39 AM
I am also curious (why) that the gedions change their KJV to NKJV!

Matt14
Aug 5th 2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Gods Child
Thanks keedy

I was wondering.

It says: Thomas Nelson Publishers (publishers of the NKJV) claim, on the inside-cover, the symbol, ". . .is an ancient symbol for the Trinity."

Also say; "I think it is quite interesting to see that this same symbol appears on the cover of the New King James Bible as well!"(Dr. Cathy Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, pp. 242-243)


Is yours a Thomas Nelson Publishers? Perhaps this is another book?

I think I'll go to the book store and check out what is on the cover of the NKJV. But if you have two of them, maybe this if something false. I don't know, but thank you for looking.

Have you ever seen this symbol? I haven't and it makes me wonder if it is real.

Blessings,

Yes, both of my NKJV's are Nelson publications. But the symbol is not there, at least not that I can find. Just their symbol for their publishing company, which has an 'n' a cross and a 'p.'

I have see the symbol before, I used to listen to Led Zepplin a little, and it's on some of their albums.

There is an ancient symbol for the trinity that has three interlocked circles. The symbol in questions appears to be the inner portions of the three interlocking circles, with the rest of the circles broken off.

Maybe someone has a NKJV that has this? Can anyone confirm? I'd be very surprised if this were true, but if it is, it certainly doesn't mean that the translation is corrupt.

Thanks,

keedy

ayojosie
Aug 5th 2003, 02:46 PM
I have seen the symbol in question. I was told and I believe my Pastor got his information from the site quoted by Gods Child, that it represents the number 666 and it has been used by various occultic groups.
You need to check the link Gods Child gave, http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html .
I don't know how true most of the claims are but it is worth checking out.

Mark G
Aug 5th 2003, 02:56 PM
Hi

I also have a NKJV study bible published by Nelson. No symbol. I believe that T. Nelson pub. is as good or better then most other study bibles.

Mark

Matt14
Aug 5th 2003, 04:19 PM
Be careful where you spread this 'NKJV symbol' thing, so far no one has been able to confirm that it is even in the Nelson NKJV.

May be a net hoax...

k

BadDog
Aug 5th 2003, 05:44 PM
I have two NKJV Bibles. One of them has it on the cover. The other has it I believe on the inside cover - title page.

But regardless, this is an ancient symbol for the trinity. The publishers explain that in the preface. Why try to distort this and claim it's some Satanic thing?

I do not use the NKJV all that much, but I hate to see any translation unfairly attacked. No one should EVER attack a sound Christian organization like Nelson Publishers until they've thoroughly researched their "facts."

That link was to an off-the-wall url where someone who believes the KJV is the one-and-only translation God uses, & all others are the work of Satan. Sometimes I wish that Nelson would sue them for libel.

Christians have got to stop making such irressponsible assertions. We could come up with a long list of issues with the KJV, but what would that accomplish? God is using these Bibles to impact people's lives. Let's thank the men who invested many years of their lives for a low income or for some for volunteered work. Sure, they made some mistakes. We all do.

But their desire is to serve God and us.

BD

CorpusIslander
Aug 6th 2003, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by BadDog
I have two NKJV Bibles. One of them has it on the cover. The other has it I believe on the inside cover - title page.

But regardless, this is an ancient symbol for the trinity. The publishers explain that in the preface. Why try to distort this and claim it's some Satanic thing?

If you're talking about the same site I'm thinking about I noticed that site had more about that symbol than about the NKJV. This shows if you don't have anything of substance you have to drudge up anything. I've seen this symbol in many different places and I've never seen it used for anything nonChristian.

Victorious1
Oct 3rd 2007, 09:55 PM
I don't know if there is a thread that as dealt with this topic but I will like to know your opinion on the subject above.
There are many versions in existence and there are quite a few disparities in these versions so which meets the qualifications above? Also there seems to be disparities among the original manuscripts, which is right?
When the Bible says not to add or remove from THIS BOOK then it implies that some of this versions must be doing just that or probably all of them. :hmm:Excellent question. I believe the following information may be very helpful to you.

The Translations of The Word of God

As a workman of the Word of Truth, there is basic information that must be kept in mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may properly be called the Word of God.

The Bible from which I frequently quote is called the King James Version. It is not the King James translation. If we had the King James translation in our possession, we would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens Test from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes a version.

Again, no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original text in existence today. The oldest dated manuscipt is written in Estrangelo Aramaic. There is a possibility that some of the older Estrangelo Aramaic manuscripts will pre-date 434 A.D. When students or scholars refer to as original really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not original -- the originals are those which holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best we have copies of the originals. When we refer to the Word of God, we do not mean a copy or translation or a version; we mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men.

Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God it cannot have a contradiction because God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's understanding. When we get back to that original God-breathed Word, then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets, Thus saith the Lord."

Note carefully the following about the Word:

1. There are no original texts in existence today.
2. There were no chapter divisions in the original manuscripts
3. There were no verse divisions in the original manuscripts
4. Chapters were first put into the Bible in 1250 A.D.
5. Verses originally appeared in the Geneva Bible in 1560 and then in the 1611translation known as the King James.

God cannot be blamed for the errors in the division of verses or chapters. Chapters and verses are good only for quick references. But we must keep in mind that chapters and verses are all man-made and, therefore, devoid in authority in rightly dividing the Word of God.

Here is an examples of poor divisions in chapters and verses.

Genesis 3:1:


And God saw everything that he hath made, and behold it was very good. and the evening and the moring were the sixth day.

Then comes chapter 2, which begins with "thus." The first word immediately tells that something is wrong because "thus" shows the result of what has already been said. Chapter 1 closed with "And the evening and the moring were the sixth day." And chapter 2 begins, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Verse 2:

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he hath made.
Verse 3:

And God blessed the 7th day, and sanctified it: because that in it he rested from all his work which God created and made.Verse 4:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created ....
If chaptering was not in the originals, what about chapter headings? Chapter headings are also not part of the God-breathed Word. Chapter headings are found below the chapter markings and are usually in italics. These are what man has added. An example of erroneous chapter heading in some King James editions is Isaiah 29. Chapter 29 heading says, "The heavy judgment of God upon Jerusalem." The heading on chapter 30 says, "God's mercy towards His Church." The text says in Isaiah 1:1, The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem." Either the man who put "To the church is wrong or the Word in Isaiah 1:1 is wrong.

Paragraphs and center references are all man-made. Paragraphs are the interpretations of what the translators think. They indicated when one paragraph is complete and when a new paragraph should begin. Sometimes translators fail to recognize proper subject division. Center references, which run down a long column in the center of each page, tell what the editors think has some connection with that verse. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. All these markings have been added and they can confuse the average new student in the Bible because he may think they have been given by God Himself.

God gave the original Word. He is not at all reponsible for the errors that men have introduced by their chapter headings or by their center references or by their paragraph markings. Man made all those mistakes.

Punctuation is also man-made. If you want the Word of God to say something to substantiate your theology, all you have to do is to manipulate the punctuation. The Word can be made to say something that it does not really say by just putting in a comma. Each translator followed his own plan or his own pattern which makes all punctuation devoid of divine authority.

For example, in the book of Luke.

Luke 23:43

And Jesus said unto him [the malefactor], Verily I say unto you thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Some translators have the comma after the word "today," so that it reads Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt ...." The King James puts the comma before "today," while other translators put the comma after "today." Why? Because one group teaches that the moment one dies, he goes to heaven. While other groups teach that when one dies he does not necessarily go to heaven because there is a period before going to heaven. If there is a waiting period between death and heaven, then Jesus could not say to that malefactor, "Today you are going to be with me in heaven," for the malefactor would have had to wait a duration. On the other hand, others say man goes to heaven immediately after death so that comma before the word "today" fits in with their theology.

If man is going to heaven today, heaven must be available. Some teach that heaven is available. However, this verse talks about paradise --- and paradise is not heaven. Heaven is heaven and paradise is paradise. When the Word of God says paradise, it means paradise. Paradise is present in Genesis chapter 1 and 2, at the end of which paradise is no longer accessible. It is not again available until the book of Revelation which speaks of a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwell righteiousness.

Paradise is always a place upon earth. If we are going to paradise, it has to be available. Was Jesus saying to the malefactor that day, "...Verily I say unto thee Today," or was it "...Verily I say unto thee, Today ...."? Since paradise was nonexistent on the day of the crucifixion, Jesus had to say to the malefactor that sometime in the future he would be with Him, not in heaven but in paradise.

Let us read the sentence with the literal accuracy of the word "paradise" in mind.


...Verily, I say to you Today, thou shalt [the day is coming in the future when you are going to] be with me in paradise.

This fits with the rest of the Word of God. One little comma has caused so much error in dividing The Word.

If you would like to know what resources you can use to help you in your study of the Word of God let me know and I will post them for you.


To God Be The Glory!