Which translation is correct?

[TrustGzus]

I was speaking in the figurative sense and not the literal. Lets not get off on a rabbit trail.

Norman, then when Whitetiger challenged the idea, why did you reaffirm it? What does that even mean that the Bible is God in the "figurative sense"? That is a strange sounding claim.

Why will you not have a dialogue on--(a) Why the translators do not use the Septuagint in their translations?

Now I'm not a translator. I just read a ton about this stuff and occasionally talk to translators and those that work for the publishing companies.

Translators do use the Septuagint in their translations. Look at the multiple footnotes that mention it. I'm assuming that you mean why isn't it the base for the entire OT. The OT is a Hebrew and Aramaic document. I assume that would be the main reason. On this, I would venture that you and I agree that would be the reason.

Where we differ is you don't seem to think the Septuagint has any place at all in translating. My guess would be that the scholars would say that since copies of the Septuagint are many centuries older than the oldest available Hebrew, notable differences are noted in footnotes and differences that fix apparent errors in the Hebrew (such as Ahaziah's age) are incorporated into the text.

(b) Why are there no copies to be found of the (02)Codex Alexandrinus, the (03)Codex Vaticanus, or the (04)Codex Empraemi Recriptus containing the Old Testament in Greek.

They are, just not in the way you think they should be. All versions of the Septuagint that I own list differences. I don't know or claim they list them all. So why print multiple versions of the Septuagint? Why not print one and list differences in the footnotes?

What I see your request as being is like requesting they print a Nestle-Aland 27th and United Bible Society 3rd of every single Greek manuscript. Why do that? The costs would be mammoth for what isn't a large market anyway. The average Christian doesn't buy the Septuagint or Greek texts. The average Christian probably barely reads their Bible. Why print multiple copies when the info can be placed in notes and save a ton of costs?

And I think that's a big factor in this discussion. A lot of these things would be nice to have. However, all of this costs money. A lot of money. And how many copies of these would be sold to recover the costs? Not many at all. This isn't greed on anyone's part. It's just practicality. Front the money and I'm sure someone would do it.

(c) Why the first four Unicals contain the Old Testament and the next fifty Unicals do not?

Let me reply with a question of my own. Why do the next fifty not contain most of the New Testament? That's an important point isn't it? If they don't contain most of the New Testament, what's the big surprise they don't contain an Old Testament?

Not desiring to go the way of conspiracy, what logical answer to these questions have I missed? Do you have any answers?

I think those are reasonable, fair shots at answering those questions. Next time I talk to a professional translator, or person in the Bible publishing industry I'll ask if I remember.

Now, let me lay some ground work and ask a question or three.

Textual issues

The autographs are the Word of God. Any change to them constitutes a change to the Word of God. If you disagree with that, let me know. I'm assuming you agree with that.

We don't have the autographs.

Every manuscript has errors.

Every translation has errors.

The Bible never promises inerrant manuscripts or translations.

Not having the autographs, this is where the field of textual criticism comes in. Textual criticism done by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, along with follow up work of Beza and Stephanus is the basis for the KJV NT.

So every translation comes from textual criticism.

Textual criticism is the field for determining what the autographs said. It's not a monolith. Not everyone in the field agrees on everything. However, there is way more agreement than disagreement.

Translation issues

How to translate isn't a monolith either. The KJV itself is not a word-for-word translation. The KJV adds a lot of words. Many times they are italicized. Many times there are what could be called "free" translations in the KJV or what KJV adherents would call paraphrases if it were in another version.

So in places like those, did the KJV "change the word of God"? If one says "no", then one shouldn't have an issue when modern versions don't render something word-for-word but do "free" translating.

Having laid that ground work, back to a group of questions I and other have asked multiple times and frankly, is the first question that must be asked for your claim of changing the Word of God . . .

What are you calling the "Word of God"? When you say the Word of God is changed, you must appeal to something. It's not the originals. It could be a reconstruction based on textual criticism. However, you don't like textual criticism even thought the KJV itself came from textual criticism. So if you reject that field, do you have one manuscript that is the standard? If so, which one and why? Do you have one translation that is the standard? If so, how and why did that become the standard?

Simply, what is the standard "Word of God" you measure the changes by and how did you choose that standard?

[rejoice44]

I'm not even disagreeing with you that you do.

Can I make a suggestion?

I too am linguistically minded and anal retentive when it comes to certain things. I love word studies and findng the root of a word and its history. Not for a living but a matter of personal interest.

I do believe I understand where you're coming from and about the passion you have.

My suggestion to you is this: If you were to not treat this matter as your hill to die on and crusade to wage over, and if you were to let the preservation of truth be God's business (which it is), that would in turn free you up to pursue your passion by way of personal interest and hobby and open the door for you to gather with others who are of a like mind, and it would become something for you to ... I don't know ... actually rejoice over and enjoy?

Because honestly it seems to me right now that you treat this as a threat to faith or truth (which it isn't) which seems to be sucking the fun right out of it for you.

Like I said, just a suggestion. To do with as you wish.

What do you think the response of Peter, or Paul, or Steven, would have been if you had said that to them? It costs me little, with the exception of a few barbs, but many gave their lives for the Word of God, and many still are giving their lives.

[Dani H]

What do you think the response of Peter, or Paul, or Steven, would have been if you had said that to them? It costs me little, with the exception of a few barbs, but many gave their lives for the Word of God, and many still are giving their lives.

Not disagreeing with you there either. BUT ... they ultimately gave their lives for JESUS HIMSELF.

I've nothing but the utmost respect and thankfulness for those who have labored throughout the ages to preserve God's written word. It is to their credit that we can even enjoy the Bible today and read and study it for ourselves. I am in no way seeking to minimize that. There are people in prison today for no crime other than having smuggled a Bible somewhere it is forbidden to even be read. We have such a priviledged life in that we have not only one translation and maybe just a page or two we can access, but an entire library of translations to enrich our spiritual lives with. God has blessed us exceedingly! What are we doing with such a blessing?

However, to call people who dedicate themselves to the preservation of the written Word careless and pretty much faithless (as opposed to faithful) because of some noted deviations that ultimately affect nobody's salvation ... I'd tread very carefully, personally.

[rejoice44]

Had another thought I wanted to add real quick.
It doesn't seem to matter for me, which translation I am using at any particular time, if God does not seem to be presently illuminating it for me, none of them make a difference. Honestly, it might not be the best response and maybe I should try to struggle along anyway, but I have to admit, at those times, I just set my bible down and don't try to force a reading, because I get too carried away with the letter then. Do you guys think that is the wrong response to take?

Never try to read the Bible expecting to understand everything you read. There is the milk of the word for those that are babes in Christ, and as you get older you are able to absorb more substantial food, which is the meat of the word. You can study the bible ten lifetimes and always come up with something new. The Bible is inexhaustible.

Sometimes we try too hard to understand what we are reading. God reveals the word in his time frame. God wants seekers of him, therefore we are to search the scriptures. God did not make a book to be exhausted in a week or a month as other books, he made it so you will always come up with new fruit. So have patience and run the race well.

[Angel Water]

Along with translation issues and the exchanging of words that water down God's truth and deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.......



When are we going to REALLY HATE the things that GOD HATES?



ClayInHisHands

How does God hate anything? And how would anyone who loves God aspire to hate and thus sin against God?!

1 John 4:20
anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him

[Angel Water]

As to the OP query, I found this to be a fascinating article.

I too have searched for the most authentic translation, the closest to the original autographs, and have yet to find anything that satisfies the quest.

What Bible is from the most original and authentic Hebrew and Greek Scriptures? (Article)

Excerpt)
Answer:
Unfortunately, it will not be possible to obtain a Bible that is literally triue to the original texts. Not only were the original versions of the books revised and improved over time, the problem of manual copying gradually resulted in changes inadvertently creeping in. "Marginal glosses", originally intended as comments or clarifications, were sometimes incorporated into later copies, and material was added or changed to suit the times.

The Christian Old Testament is copied from the Septuagint ('LXX'), an early, flawed Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, rather than from the Masoretic text. But even the Masoretic text is believed to differ from the Hebrew texts in use at the time the LXX was produced. (Continues @ Link)

[rejoice44]

Norman, then when Whitetiger challenged the idea, why did you reaffirm it? What does that even mean that the Bible is God in the "figurative sense"? That is a strange sounding claim.

What I said to Whitetiger was, "If your bible is the Word of God, it is God. If your bible is not the Word of God, then it is not God". I stand by that figuratively, literally however you want to take it. If the Bible=the Word of God, and the Word of God=God, then it stands that the Bible is God. Do you fully understand the Logos, or Words of God being God. I believe we all have trouble fully understanding that.

Now I'm not a translator. I just read a ton about this stuff and occasionally talk to translators and those that work for the publishing companies.

Translators do use the Septuagint in their translations. Look at the multiple footnotes that mention it. I'm assuming that you mean why isn't it the base for the entire OT. The OT is a Hebrew and Aramaic document. I assume that would be the main reason. On this, I would venture that you and I agree that would be the reason.

What I am saying is that if a manuscript is correct enough to replace that "vile Authorized version" in the New Testament by all new translations, why isn't it correct enough to use it for the Old Testament. If the Authorized version is corrupt, why only in the New Testament. (The Vatican is the one that called the authorized version vile, along with Hort, as well as Tischendorf.)

This is why I asked you about the copies from these manuscripts containing the Old Testament. Why are they not available, many copies were already made of the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Vaticanus. Where have these copies disappeared to?

They dug these manuscripts up after the reformation because know one ever heard of them before that. And the main manuscript(01) came from a trash can according to the finder, and the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century claimed he forged it. The friends of the Vatican presented these manuscripts, and I think these manuscripts, in light of this deserve a closer examination.

No one has copies of these manuscripts that contain the Old Testament for one to compare. The (01) manuscript has been put on line containing part of the Old Testament, but where is a copy of the Codex Alexandrinus, or the Codex Vaticanus to compare with the Codex Sinaiticus so we can make a judgment for ourselves.

When you consider that the first four manuscripts, (01) thru (04) all contained some of the Old Testament, and then the next 50, (05) thru (55) do not, there is problem. You just cannot say they were only fragments because many of them contained portions of all the books of the New Testament. And if you say they were only fragments, why were there no fragments of the Old Testament. Something smells here. Did they only need the New Testament for their goal of replacing the Authorized Text?

You want us to just trust these men, similar to what the Vatican expected from its church members. The Vatican said, we will tell you what is in the Bible. When you want to say my Bible is vile and you want to replace it, you better come up with something better than "trust me".

When you examine the men who set out on the course to change the Bible, you will find many had ties to the Vatican.

Tischendorf, who gave us (01) Codex Sinaiticus, (03) Codex Vaticanus, and (04) Codex Epraemi Rescriptus, needs to be examined first.

The following is an excerpt from Hort to the Reverend John Ellerton, April 1853-----" He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough ; and we hope to do a good deal with the Oriental versions."

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/discovery.html Tischendorf in a biography in 1866 of the Codex Sinaiticus said that he had an audience with Pope Gregory XVI in May 1843, and then an intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, and the following year he found 43 sheets of the Old Testament from the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste paper basket in Mt Sinai. In 1853, 9 years after finding the the 43 sheets of the Old Testament, and in the same year Hort said Tischendorf would find him rich material, Tischendorf went back to Sinai looking for more biblical manuscripts, and he found a fragment of Genesis of that same manuscript for which he found 43 leaves nine years earlier. And then 6 years later in 1859 we find Tischendorf back in Mt. Sinai where he finds more of the Old Testament, and all of the New Testament without a fragmented page.

You will also find in this same biography that Tischendorf was able to completely decipher (04) Codex Ephrem even though it had been undecipherable for 6 Centuries.

Tischendorf collated Codex Vaticanus 1209 while the Vatican would not allow any one else to see it.

Will address Hort next.

[awestruckchild]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. It just feels different to me somehow that it's God's words. Prob just me and my silly self!

[TrustGzus]

What I said to Whitetiger was, "If your bible is the Word of God, it is God. If your bible is not the Word of God, then it is not God". I stand by that figuratively, literally however you want to take it. If the Bible=the Word of God, and the Word of God=God, then it stands that the Bible is God. Do you fully understand the Logos, or Words of God being God. I believe we all have trouble fully understanding that.

If by "the Word of God" the biblical authors always meant Jesus and always meant the Bible, then your idea would be true. However, that's a claim you'd have to prove. And I don't know any scholar: fundamentalist, conservative or liberal that interprets that way. It seems that the plain reading of the various texts that calling Jesus "the Word" was purely a thing John did. And it also seems that John didn't always mean Jesus every time he used the word logos.

To take logos to always refer to Jesus and always refer to the written word is not sound exegesis and a way to misunderstand the text. Just go through John and substitute Jesus for logos (and vice versa) every time and you'll have a lot of nonsense readings.

What I am saying is that if a manuscript is correct enough to replace that "vile Authorized version" in the New Testament by all new translations, why isn't it correct enough to use it for the Old Testament. If the Authorized version is corrupt, why only in the New Testament. (The Vatican is the one that called the authorized version vile, along with Hort, as well as Tischendorf.)

This should be evident in the answer I gave. The reason the Septuagint is not the primary source for English translations is because it isn't the primary language that the OT was originally written in. However, Greek was the primary language of the NT. So it makes sense to use an early uncial as a very direct source for the NT but as a secondary source for the OT due to the primary language of each Testament.

This is why I asked you about the copies from these manuscripts containing the Old Testament. Why are they not available, many copies were already made of the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Vaticanus. Where have these copies disappeared to?

When have these ever been accessible to laymen like you and I? Disappeared? You and I never had direct access. And if you want access, put the money up front. You've got million dollar ideas that cost millions of dollars. Who's going to pay for your wants?

They dug these manuscripts up after the reformation because know one ever heard of them before that. And the main manuscript(01) came from a trash can according to the finder, and the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century claimed he forged it. The friends of the Vatican presented these manuscripts, and I think these manuscripts, in light of this deserve a closer examination.

No one has copies of these manuscripts that contain the Old Testament for one to compare. The (01) manuscript has been put on line containing part of the Old Testament, but where is a copy of the Codex Alexandrinus, or the Codex Vaticanus to compare with the Codex Sinaiticus so we can make a judgment for ourselves.

Again, give them the money, Norman. Your ideas take loads of money. Who's going to pay for all your ideas?

When you consider that the first four manuscripts, (01) thru (04) all contained some of the Old Testament, and then the next 50, (05) thru (55) do not, there is problem. You just cannot say they were only fragments because many of them contained portions of all the books of the New Testament. And if you say they were only fragments, why were there no fragments of the Old Testament. Something smells here. Did they only need the New Testament for their goal of replacing the Authorized Text?

You are simply mistaken here. Most of those uncials only had gospels or some of Paul's writings. Norman, have you ever hand-written an entire Bible? Why do you expect that every manuscript should have all of these writings? Let's have you hand write the gospels, in a culture where you had to work hard for your food and couldn't just go to the market and have lots of leisure time, and then finish the rest of the NT and then make a copy of the OT. That's a boatload of work. The fact that there are complete manuscripts at all is amazing. No reason to expect that of most of them.

You want us to just trust these men, similar to what the Vatican expected from its church members. The Vatican said, we will tell you what is in the Bible. When you want to say my Bible is vile and you want to replace it, you better come up with something better than "trust me".

Complete apples-and-oranges. Didn't let the people have the Bible at all in any shape, size or form. People didn't own Bibles. People couldn't read the Bible. That is nothing like today and you wanting 5800 manuscripts at your disposal. They had it in a dead language only the leaders knew. That is a terrible comparison and an extremely weak argument.

When you examine the men who set out on the course to change the Bible, you will find many had ties to the Vatican.

I can't believe the things you say. You and I have been down this Roman Catholic road before. I've pointed out that the new versions contain none, absolutely none, of the RCC distinctives. Yet the KJV is based off the works of Erasmus and that doesn't imply some RCC problem for you. Now I don't vilify either new versions or the KJV of Roman Catholic influences. But you do if it's for the side you don't like. This smacks of double-standards.

Tischendorf, who gave us (01) Codex Sinaiticus, (03) Codex Vaticanus, and (04) Codex Epraemi Rescriptus, needs to be examined first.

The following is an excerpt from Hort to the Reverend John Ellerton, April 1853-----" He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough ; and we hope to do a good deal with the Oriental versions."

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/discovery.html Tischendorf in a biography in 1866 of the Codex Sinaiticus said that he had an audience with Pope Gregory XVI in May 1843, and then an intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, and the following year he found 43 sheets of the Old Testament from the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste paper basket in Mt Sinai. In 1853, 9 years after finding the the 43 sheets of the Old Testament, and in the same year Hort said Tischendorf would find him rich material, Tischendorf went back to Sinai looking for more biblical manuscripts, and he found a fragment of Genesis of that same manuscript for which he found 43 leaves nine years earlier. And then 6 years later in 1859 we find Tischendorf back in Mt. Sinai where he finds more of the Old Testament, and all of the New Testament without a fragmented page.

You will also find in this same biography that Tischendorf was able to completely decipher (04) Codex Ephrem even though it had been undecipherable for 6 Centuries.

Tischendorf collated Codex Vaticanus 1209 while the Vatican would not allow any one else to see it.

Will address Hort next.

And again we have conspiracy. And again, unbelievably again, you don't tell us what is your standard for determining what is the word of God and what is not since you don't have the autographs.

And you love pointing out the waste basket story as if that makes your point. Frankly, I think it makes mine if we want to put spins on the story. If God is omnipotent, and this text was corrupt, then why did God fail to destroy? It seems Satan is more powerful than God. However, if the text wasn't corrupt, then it seems God in his omnipotence rescued a very early witness.

However, it differs from the KJV at a bunch of trivial points that don't define Christianity. So you keep spinning the conspiracy theory that is loaded with holes and double-standards.

Norm, part of me wonders why I even started talking in another Bible thread to you. We get nowhere. Then another part of me doesn't want you to take away people's trust in their Bibles and so I find myself having to reply so that people can realize it's alright to read a newer version than the KJV.

We've put the ball back-and-forth in each other's court enough in this thread. I've got better things to do. I imagine you do too.

[rejoice44]

This should be evident in the answer I gave. The reason the Septuagint is not the primary source for English translations is because it isn't the primary language that the OT was originally written in. However, Greek was the primary language of the NT. So it makes sense to use an early uncial as a very direct source for the NT but as a secondary source for the OT due to the primary language of each Testament.

Then you agree that the Septuagint is inferior. If you don’t agree than the translators should not have stopped with just rewriting the New Testament. You can’t have it both ways.

When have these ever been accessible to laymen like you and I? Disappeared? You and I never had direct access. And if you want access, put the money up front. You've got million dollar ideas that cost millions of dollars. Who's going to pay for your wants?

Unless you haven’t looked, the New Testament is accessible to us layman. It is just the Old Testament that they keep from us. http://www.csntm.org/ (click on manuscripts)

Again, give them the money, Norman. Your ideas take loads of money. Who's going to pay for all your ideas?

Why are you talking about loads of money? They already have the copies, how much more does it cost to print a few sheets of paper. You can get a ream of paper for 5 to 8 dollars. Then again you have the ink cost, that could run a person 20 dollars for 200 sheets. The truth is they do not want to make them available.

It is expensive if you want a fancy copy, and that is the only kind they are willing to sell. They are asking $6,500 for a copy of the Vaticanus. How much does a regular bible sell for?

You are simply mistaken here. Most of those uncials only had gospels or some of Paul's writings. Norman, have you ever hand-written an entire Bible? Why do you expect that every manuscript should have all of these writings? Let's have you hand write the gospels, in a culture where you had to work hard for your food and couldn't just go to the market and have lots of leisure time, and then finish the rest of the NT and then make a copy of the OT. That's a boatload of work. The fact that there are complete manuscripts at all is amazing. No reason to expect that of most of them.

You can’t be serious. I will repeat, slowly, the four earliest manuscripts, for which reason the men with Vatican ties said we have to get rid of the Authorized Version, all had the Old Testament as part of their manuscripts. After checking the next fifty Unical manuscripts, I could not find one containing the Old Testament. Don’t tell me about them having to work hard for food. There is a serious problem here. It is not only illogical that not one of the following manuscripts, NOT ONE, contained the Old Testament, but indicative that something very unusual was happening.

First we have to ask ourselves why did all these copies start showing up after the reformation, some thirteen to fourteen hundred years after they were written? The logical answer is supply and demand. That demand started when Hort sent Tischendorf to find “rich material”. When ever there is a demand some one will come up with the supply, it is called economics. Of the top four manuscripts, one had already been in existence, and contained the Old Testament. So if your are going to supply “rich material” it is going to require manuscripts that at least equal the one already in existence. The three that Tischendorf supplied all had the Old Testament attached. And thus, we end up with four Alexandrian manuscripts all containing the Old Testament.

Why didn’t the next fifty manuscripts, or fragments, contain the Old Testament? The Vatican only needed to destroy the credibility of the New Testament in the Authorized Version to start its demise. They said over and over again the Authorized Version was vile. In order to back up their first four manuscripts they needed more material. They no longer needed the Old Testament, since the Old Testament was only needed to compete with the Codex Alexandrinus, and now they only needed more material to support the first four manuscripts in the New Testament portion. If there was no demand for the Old Testament, then there was no supply needed. The money was not there for something that was not needed.

[Angel Water]

TrustGzus,

Which Bible or source for what you deem the word of God, do you use, please?

[rejoice44]

I can't believe the things you say. You and I have been down this Roman Catholic road before. I've pointed out that the new versions contain none, absolutely none, of the RCC distinctives. Yet the KJV is based off the works of Erasmus and that doesn't imply some RCC problem for you. Now I don't vilify either new versions or the KJV of Roman Catholic influences. But you do if it's for the side you don't like. This smacks of double-standards.

I never said the Vatican wanted to put indulgences or anything else into the Authorized Version. They had their own version, the Douay-Rheims, which was completed in 1610, one year before the Authorized Version. The stated purpose of the Douay-Rheims purpose "was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation ".

In 1545 The Council of Trent was convened and its number one stated purpose was, 1. To condemn the principles and doctrines of Protestantism and to clarify the doctrines of the Catholic Church on all disputed points.

We see in the Biographical Introduction on page 25 of the 1611 Authorized version, a letter between A Cardinal from Douay College (Cardinal Allen) speaking to a colleague about the heretics (Protestants) having an English version of the bible, and thus having an advantage for the minds of the unlearned. The year was 1578.

So Joe, you see the purpose of the RCC was not to add to the Authorized Version, but rather to destroy any version of the Protestants. The Authorized Version was the enemy that came on the scene one year after the RCC's version, and has never truly stopped being the enemy.

We step up to the year 1850 And we find Westcott and Hort along with Henry Bradshaw defending the Pope at Cambridge. The following is an extract from "Undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw"--http://www.archive.org/stream/henrybradshaw00prothuoft/henrybradshaw00prothuoft_djvu.txt--

Starting in just above paragraph 36.

"In connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called "Papal aggression." The Pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen of the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the Pope and the Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Llewellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and resolved to put a stop to it. A deputation accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Bradshaw, along with his friends Hort and Wescott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition, which was successful, and the meeting was stopped."

It Becomes obvious from the above excerpt that Wescott and Hort were on the side of the Vatican. The Vatican still considered the Authorized Version as vile and we hear those same words from Hort.

When you consider that Tischendorf had a meeting with the Pope and was only one, of a few men that have ever been allowed to examine the Codex Vaticanus, then you begin to understand what side of the fence they where on, and what their intent was. Tischendorf called the Authorized Version vile as well as did Hort.

[Boo]

None of this is essential to our lives. What IS essential is that we are on the side of God.

We have today, through our computers and internet resources, the ability to search out manuscripts and different translations of our manuscripts in English. We have dictionaries to search with to determine what God's message to us is. Unfortunately, most of us will not want to invest the time and effort into the search and will, instead, rely on commentaries which serve to support some demoniational creed instead of actually using all of scripture to provide the teaching we need.

The Catholic faith has a lot of God's Word correct, but they strayed in their own way. The reformation period saw a lot of this good interpretation of God's Word denied in order to establish the Protestant movement. The protestant beliefs skewed the teachings to suit their own purposes but, in the end, altered God's instructions for us.

King James did his own damage with the people he commissioned to provide his translation - adding and changing words to support his desired outcome. Unfortunately, he was in a position to do so and the royalty that followed him kept it up. The people of England did not accept the KJV for many years until it was made the only version permitted to be produced. That is the way it was "authorized."

The only way to actually get God's message is to diligently seek it for yourself or find someone else who actually has. You can tell who that person is by the way that they can lead you through sciptures - using ALL of scripture to support their beliefs - without resorting to proof-texts that support a denominational doctrine and disregarding those verses which serve to disprove what they are trying to teach.

Seek and you shall find. Ask and it will be given to you. - and all this takes time and a desire to know God's truth. I might mention that is also requires that we take our denominational blinders off.

[rejoice44]

None of this is essential to our lives. What IS essential is that we are on the side of God.

How can you be on God's side when God's Word is being added to, and subtracted from on a yearly basis?

We have today, through our computers and internet resources, the ability to search out manuscripts and different translations of our manuscripts in English. We have dictionaries to search with to determine what God's message to us is. Unfortunately, most of us will not want to invest the time and effort into the search and will, instead, rely on commentaries which serve to support some demoniational creed instead of actually using all of scripture to provide the teaching we need.

We have a bible that was handed down from generation to generation, why do we want to change it with material that came out of nowhere?

The Catholic faith has a lot of God's Word correct, but they strayed in their own way. The reformation period saw a lot of this good interpretation of God's Word denied in order to establish the Protestant movement. The protestant beliefs skewed the teachings to suit their own purposes but, in the end, altered God's instructions for us.

You are saying the Protestant movement was wrong?

King James did his own damage with the people he commissioned to provide his translation - adding and changing words to support his desired outcome. Unfortunately, he was in a position to do so and the royalty that followed him kept it up. The people of England did not accept the KJV for many years until it was made the only version permitted to be produced. That is the way it was "authorized."

United States had no king, and had no bible with a copyright, they chose the bible of their choice.

The only way to actually get God's message is to diligently seek it for yourself or find someone else who actually has. You can tell who that person is by the way that they can lead you through sciptures - using ALL of scripture to support their beliefs - without resorting to proof-texts that support a denominational doctrine and disregarding those verses which serve to disprove what they are trying to teach.

That is what RCC said, we will tell you what God's word is? The Authorized version was the end result of the Reformation movement. You evidently see the Reformation as a mistake.

Seek and you shall find. Ask and it will be given to you. - and all this takes time and a desire to know God's truth. I might mention that is also requires that we take our denominational blinders off.

I agree with you here, I have no denomination.

[Arrow]

I hear what you are saying, but isn't it better to listen to the Spirit's voice to get what He is saying. Yes we need the bible, but only byand in the Spirit do we hear Him.

Can you see what I am saying?