PDA

View Full Version : How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated?



Marc B
Oct 30th 2008, 01:05 AM
I used to believe it was flawless without question until I found discrepancies in it.

1 John 5:7,8

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

These are Latin Vulgate manuscripts added to the Bible in the 16th century. Not written by John.

More to come later.....

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 01:59 AM
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is [I]Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.



Ezekiel 39:2 should read "And have turned thee back, and enticed thee, And caused thee to come up from the sides of the north, And brought thee in against mountains of Israel". The KJV translator mistook the Hebrew word "shashah" for "shawshaw", which alters the meaning of the text and adds the idea that a sixth of the invading armies will survive, when in fact, none of them will survive.


Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."


And none of this includes various passages that appear to have been added to the oldest, most reliable original texts by the texts used by the King James Translation, necessitating the "cleaning up" of the Bible by modern versions.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 02:04 AM
Hey Marc,

I am in agreement that μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα is not originally part of 1 John.

That being said, the answer to the title question of the thread How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? in all fairness is that it is a reasonably accurate English Bible. Of course, 1 John 5:7-8 is translated just fine. It's just not part of what was originally written. While I think there is no doubt that the modern translations are more accurate, the KJV is a fine translation. It's biggest fault is that it stopped being updated in 1769. English never stopped evolving and so as a result, the KJV is very outdated. This can be problematic as people can not only fail to understand what's being said, but sometimes they can even misunderstand what is being said.

You used to believe is was flawless. Well, it's not, as you realized. Neither is any other English translation. It's got it's faults, but it's still a decent translation of the Bible.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 02:25 AM
Hey Marc,

I am in agreement that μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα is not originally part of 1 John.

That being said, the answer to the title question of the thread How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? in all fairness is that it is a reasonably accurate English Bible. Of course, 1 John 5:7-8 is translated just fine. It's just not part of what was originally written. While I think there is no doubt that the modern translations are more accurate, the KJV is a fine translation. It's biggest fault is that it stopped being updated in 1769. English never stopped evolving and so as a result, the KJV is very outdated. This can be problematic as people can not only fail to understand what's being said, but sometimes they can even misunderstand what is being said.

You used to believe is was flawless. Well, it's not, as you realized. Neither is any other English translation. It's got it's faults, but it's still a decent translation of the Bible.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Joe,

Why do you say the comma was not originally there?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 02:30 AM
Hey Marc,

I am in agreement that μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα is not originally part of 1 John.

That being said, the answer to the title question of the thread How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? in all fairness is that it is a reasonably accurate English Bible. Of course, 1 John 5:7-8 is translated just fine. It's just not part of what was originally written. While I think there is no doubt that the modern translations are more accurate, the KJV is a fine translation. It's biggest fault is that it stopped being updated in 1769. English never stopped evolving and so as a result, the KJV is very outdated. This can be problematic as people can not only fail to understand what's being said, but sometimes they can even misunderstand what is being said.

You used to believe is was flawless. Well, it's not, as you realized. Neither is any other English translation. It's got it's faults, but it's still a decent translation of the Bible.

Grace & peace to you,

JoeWell said, thanks. :thumbsup:

Fenris
Oct 30th 2008, 12:13 PM
The KJV has some blatant mistakes when translating from Hebrew. But it's also very poetic, which perhaps captures the flavor if not the meaning of the Hebrew text.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 12:42 PM
Joe,

Why do you say the comma was not originally there?Hey Butch,

For a number of reasons:

1. The type of manuscripts that contain it.

Greek manuscripts are placed into four different categories. I will place them in the order of importance:


papyri
uncials
miniscules
lectionaries

The comma is absent from categories 1, 2 & 4 and is only in a handful of category 3. The fact that it is absent from categories 1 & 2 is significant. If it were original to the text, why should it never be found in these manuscripts, including ones that have a Byzantine leaning?

2. The dating of the manuscripts

The few Greek manuscripts that have it are very late in history. It's never found before the eleventh century. In every manuscript prior to the sixteenth century when it is found it is a variant reading, not part of the text. Again, if it is genuine, why in the few miniscule manuscripts in which it is found is it in the margin until the sixteenth century? Why is it never found in Greek prior to the eleventh century even in the margin? This is not what should be expected if John originally wrote this.

3. The questionable nature of the situations in which it was included.

Erasmus didn't include it in his 1st & 2nd editions. He made a rash promise to include it in later editions if someone could come up with a manuscript that contained it. All of a sudden miniscule 61 showed up on the scene - the first Greek manuscript that contains it in the text - a manuscript from the same century in which Erasmus was living. Does that sound fishy or what?

Luther doesn't include it in all of his versions either. Why not if it was original?

4. The context of the passage.

One of the false doctrines John was fighting against was docetism.
Docetism (Gk., dokein, to seem) Heretical theological beliefs held by some, called Docetae, in the early church that Christ did not have a real physical body and that his humanity and suffering as well as his crucifixion and Resurrection were illusory and not real.
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.


John's making a case that Jesus had a physical body at this point in chapter 5 and the comma has nothing to do with proving his point. Look at the KJV if we live the questionable portion out . . .
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record . . . the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Verse 6 mentions the three witnesses: water, blood, and the Spirit. The context makes better sense without the comma than with it for battling docetism.

Butch, if the comma was original, none of these things should be. If the comma was original, none of these things would be.

Grace & peace to you, Butch.

Joe

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 01:17 PM
I used to believe it was flawless without question until I found discrepancies in it.

1 John 5:7,8

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

These are Latin Vulgate manuscripts added to the Bible in the 16th century. Not written by John.

More to come later..... So, you believe there aren't three that bear record in heaven? Which of the three do you believe does not? Or do you believe they are not one?

Firefighter
Oct 30th 2008, 01:51 PM
It does not matter if it is true or not Rufus. Since it is not in ANY of the 28,000 manuscripts with the exception of two very late ones (1400-1500) then it cannot be considered original nor can it be considered inspired.

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 02:38 PM
It does not matter if it is true or not Rufus. Since it is not in ANY of the 28,000 manuscripts with the exception of two very late ones (1400-1500) then it cannot be considered original nor can it be considered inspired. So the error is that truth was put in the Bible and it does not matter if it is true. Interesting.

Firefighter
Oct 30th 2008, 04:12 PM
Correct. You could put that I am a pastor in the Bible. While it is certainly true, it is not inspired nor is it original so we cannot say "The Lord thus sayeth."

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 04:13 PM
So the error is that truth was put in the Bible and it does not matter if it is true. Interesting.It's also true that Rhode Island is the smallest land area state in the USA. Shall we put that in the Bible just because it's true?

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 04:40 PM
Hey Butch,

For a number of reasons:

1. The type of manuscripts that contain it.

Greek manuscripts are placed into four different categories. I will place them in the order of importance:


papyri
uncials
miniscules
lectionaries
The comma is absent from categories 1, 2 & 4 and is only in a handful of category 3. The fact that it is absent from categories 1 & 2 is significant. If it were original to the text, why should it never be found in these manuscripts, including ones that have a Byzantine leaning?

2. The dating of the manuscripts

The few Greek manuscripts that have it are very late in history. It's never found before the eleventh century. In every manuscript prior to the sixteenth century when it is found it is a variant reading, not part of the text. Again, if it is genuine, why in the few miniscule manuscripts in which it is found is it in the margin until the sixteenth century? Why is it never found in Greek prior to the eleventh century even in the margin? This is not what should be expected if John originally wrote this.

3. The questionable nature of the situations in which it was included.

Erasmus didn't include it in his 1st & 2nd editions. He made a rash promise to include it in later editions if someone could come up with a manuscript that contained it. All of a sudden miniscule 61 showed up on the scene - the first Greek manuscript that contains it in the text - a manuscript from the same century in which Erasmus was living. Does that sound fishy or what?

Luther doesn't include it in all of his versions either. Why not if it was original?

4. The context of the passage.

One of the false doctrines John was fighting against was docetism. John's making a case that Jesus had a physical body at this point in chapter 5 and the comma has nothing to do with proving his point. Look at the KJV if we live the questionable portion out . . . Verse 6 mentions the three witnesses: water, blood, and the Spirit. The context makes better sense without the comma than with it for battling docetism.

Butch, if the comma was original, none of these things should be. If the comma was original, none of these things would be.

Grace & peace to you, Butch.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I think there is more evidence that needs to be looked at.

Here are a few quotes from the early Latin Fathers.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30) He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (John 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1 John 5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?

While this does not necessarily prove it is original, Cyprian's quote of the verse does give it a much earlier date than the manuscripts that you posted. Cyprian wrote between AD 200-258. Tertullian also quotes this verse, and He lived prior to Cyprian. Tertullian wrote around 195. It appears that it may have been in the Latin manuscripts. Anyway there is mention of the verse in the early church, which dates the verse relatively close to the time of the apostles.

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 04:45 PM
It's also true that Rhode Island is the smallest land area state in the USA. Shall we put that in the Bible just because it's true? American geography is somehow equivalent to whether or not the Godhead should be included in the Bible? My Bible includes the Godhead...I'm glad it does and I believe it. I'm not sure why folks who believe in the Godhead would spend so much time contending against the best verse in the Bible that most clearly explains the Godhead.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 30th 2008, 05:01 PM
American geography is somehow equivalent to whether or not the Godhead should be included in the Bible? My Bible includes the Godhead...I'm glad it does and I believe it. I'm not sure why folks who believe in the Godhead would spend so much time contending against the best verse in the Bible that most clearly explains the Godhead.

I'm sorry but Rufus are you really that dense? The issue here is that a passage was not in the earliest manuscripts, it was then added later, and then translated by the translators of the KJV. It is not that any of us don't believe in the Godhead, it is just that we want a Bible/Bible translation as close to the autographs as possible. Having this passage in there does not do that. I know you have this great love for your KJV, but most of us want to find what are the most acurate and earliest manuscripts and then translate those. Trying to get to what the orignal manuscripts said, ie what the Apostles and Evangelist and letter writers, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, wrote.

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 06:10 PM
I'm sorry but Rufus are you really that dense? You're sorry that I am dense or you are sorry to call me dense? If you're sorry to call me dense then why say that I am dense to begin with or is it that you are not in fact actually sorry?


The issue here is that a passage was not in the earliest manuscripts, it was then added later, and then translated by the translators of the KJV. It is not that any of us don't believe in the Godhead, it is just that we want a Bible/Bible translation as close to the autographs as possible. Having this passage in there does not do that. I know you have this great love for your KJV, but most of us want to find what are the most acurate and earliest manuscripts and then translate those. Trying to get to what the orignal manuscripts said, ie what the Apostles and Evangelist and letter writers, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, wrote. I would be glad to hear your rebuttal to Butch's post.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 06:21 PM
Hi Joe,

I think there is more evidence that needs to be looked at.

Here are a few quotes from the early Latin Fathers.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30) He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (John 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1 John 5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?

While this does not necessarily prove it is original, Cyprian's quote of the verse does give it a much earlier date than the manuscripts that you posted. Cyprian wrote between AD 200-258. Tertullian also quotes this verse, and He lived prior to Cyprian. Tertullian wrote around 195. It appears that it may have been in the Latin manuscripts. Anyway there is mention of the verse in the early church, which dates the verse relatively close to the time of the apostles.Hey Butch,

A major problem I see is that now you are arguing for what the original said based on a translation. The Latin is not the original language. Should we argue what was in the Greek based on what we have in English? That's quite a stretch. Why should we argue for what was in the Greek based on the Latin then?

I left a question hanging in the air that I think is huge and remains unanswered in every thread I've ever talked about this in.

If this was original, then why isn't it in any Greek manuscripts until the eleventh century (and then only in the margin)? Why isn't it in the Greek text (i.e. in the passage itself rather than in the margin) until the 16th century?

This is so much more weighty than a quote or two from a church father.

For what it's worth, Cyprian doesn't state the source of the quote. The Bible wasn't divided into chapter and verse in his day and thus the reference to 1 John 5:7 in parenthesis is a later addition and not part of Cyprian's original writing. I have the Anti-Nicean Fathers and here I'll provide a little more of the quote and you'll note there is no reference to where the statement about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is from . . . It's from the treatises of Cyprian and this is treatise 1.
The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure.
She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one
couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born
for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an
adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who
forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his
Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape
who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be
outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is
against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks
the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he
who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”
And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the
divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the
Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?
He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold
the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.The earliest this is ever attributed to the text of John directly is said to be by either the heretic Priscillian or Bishop Instantius (follower of Priscillian).

As for Tertullian, I know of quotes from him that say the same doctrine, but not in exactly the same way as the comma. So if you know a specific quote, that would help.

Anyway, the bolded questions above are what I see as the biggest problem for 1 John 5:7-8. If this really was written by John, it seems beyond belief that it would take sixteen centuries to find a Greek manuscript with this written in the text of 1 John itself. If you have a good suggestion as to how that happened, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Grace & peace to you, Butch.

Joe

Br. Barnabas
Oct 30th 2008, 06:39 PM
You're sorry that I am dense or you are sorry to call me dense? If you're sorry to call me dense then why say that I am dense to begin with or is it that you are not in fact actually sorry?

I would be glad to hear your rebuttal to Butch's post.

I am sorry that I even have to ask the question because you seem to be missing the whole purpose of the thread and want to take the examples that were given way too far.

I am not really interested in the thread at all. I am more worried about your almost fanatic devotion to one text and how you deny that any other ones could be right or holy or even correct.

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 06:41 PM
Hey Butch,

A major problem I see is that now you are arguing for what the original said based on a translation. The Latin is not the original language. Should we argue what was in the Greek based on what we have in English? That's quite a stretch. Why should we argue for what was in the Greek based on the Latin then?

I left a question hanging in the air that I think is huge and remains unanswered in every thread I've ever talked about this in.

If this was original, then why isn't it in any Greek manuscripts until the eleventh century (and then only in the margin)? Why isn't it in the Greek text (i.e. in the passage itself rather than in the margin) until the 16th century?

This is so much more weighty than a quote or two from a church father.

For what it's worth, Cyprian doesn't state the source of the quote. The Bible wasn't divided into chapter and verse in his day and thus the reference to 1 John 5:7 in parenthesis is a later addition and not part of Cyprian's original writing. I have the Anti-Nicean Fathers and here I'll provide a little more of the quote and you'll note there is no reference to where the statement about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is from . . . It's from the treatises of Cyprian and this is treatise 1.The earliest this is ever attributed to the text of John directly is said to be by either the heretic Priscillian or Bishop Instantius (follower of Priscillian).

As for Tertullian, I know of quotes from him that say the same doctrine, but not in exactly the same way as the comma. So if you know a specific quote, that would help.

Anyway, the bolded questions above are what I see as the biggest problem for 1 John 5:7-8. If this really was written by John, it seems beyond belief that it would take sixteen centuries to find a Greek manuscript with this written in the text of 1 John itself. If you have a good suggestion as to how that happened, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Grace & peace to you, Butch.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I wasn't trying to prove it original, I only submitted the quotes to show the antiquity of the comma. I was just showing that even though it doesn't show up in the Greek manuscripts until late, it was known much earlier. Actually I have not studied the issue of the comma so I can't say one way or the other. Here is a link to a forum where they do some rather in depth study.

http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/767

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 07:54 PM
American geography is somehow equivalent to whether or not the Godhead should be included in the Bible? My Bible includes the Godhead...I'm glad it does and I believe it. I'm not sure why folks who believe in the Godhead would spend so much time contending against the best verse in the Bible that most clearly explains the Godhead.Please quit ignoring the point, that just because something is true does not make is Scripture. If something that's in the KJV was not in the original texts, it should be thrown out, regardless of whether or not it's true.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 08:02 PM
I am sorry that I even have to ask the question because you seem to be missing the whole purpose of the thread and want to take the examples that were given way too far.

I am not really interested in the thread at all. I am more worried about your almost fanatic devotion to one text and how you deny that any other ones could be right or holy or even correct.Uriel, I'm sorry to have to say this, but in these posts here:
So you're saying that the KJV Bible supersedes the original language texts?
I'm saying I have a Bible, a Holy one, in my language. I read it, I believe it and I strive to obey it. If you believe that you do not have one, in your language and it's in the original languages then that's where you should be. If you are fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek and you have the incorruptible seed in those languages, then that's where you ought to be spending your time studying. Wherever, the pure word of God is, that's where you should be.you can see that Rufus considers the KJV to be superior to the original texts. Such "logic" is impossible to reason with, you're wasting your time. (So naturally, I'm doing the same thing in the previous post. :B )

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 08:09 PM
I am sorry that I even have to ask the question because you seem to be missing the whole purpose of the thread and want to take the examples that were given way too far.

I am not really interested in the thread at all. I am more worried about your almost fanatic devotion to one text and how you deny that any other ones could be right or holy or even correct. I don't deny that other ones can be right or holy or correct. What I deny is that anything that comes out of the corruptible seed of the Alexandrian texts, (you know the texts from the basement of the Vatican and from the trash can of a Catholic monastery), can be right or holy or correct. There are two lines, a corruptible one and an incorruptible one. The incorruptible line has 1 John 5:7...the corruptible line takes it out.

Incorrupted


"For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon." - Wycliffe

"(For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)" - Tyndale

"(For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.)" - Coverdale

"For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one." - Bishop's

"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one." - Geneva

"For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. " - Authorized Version 1611

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." - King James Version Oxford Edition


Corrupted


"For there are three that testify:" - NASB

"For there are three that testify:" - NIV

"So we have these three witnesses" - NLT

"For there are three witness bearers," - NWT

"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." - ERV

"For there are three that testify:" - ESV

"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth." - RSV








"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." - 2 Corinthians 2:17

tgallison
Oct 30th 2008, 08:22 PM
You know what amazes me. All you fellows that hate. or at the least, dislike the King James Bible, state over and over again that the new translations have not changed doctrine.

Well if that is the case, why cause all this dissension and disunity in the Church. Before the new translations, the Bible was the Bible, no confusion. Now the Bible is whatever anyone wants it to be. Like the Tower of Babel.

You say you want it easier to read. Why not just change some of the Old English, yours for thine, do for doth, and etc. There are truly not that many words that have changed meaning, though you use that for an excuse. Any error you felt needed to be addressed could have been done in the footnotes.

Why wasn’t that done to keep unity? The answer is obvious. You could not do that and obtain a copyright.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 08:42 PM
Hi Joe,

I wasn't trying to prove it original, I only submitted the quotes to show the antiquity of the comma. I was just showing that even though it doesn't show up in the Greek manuscripts until late, it was known much earlier. Actually I have not studied the issue of the comma so I can't say one way or the other. Here is a link to a forum where they do some rather in depth study.

http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/767Hey Butch,

Thanks for clarifying.

I think the quote from Cyprian shows the ancientness of the idea, but not the ancientness of it being in 1 John. The Trinitarian doctrine started to formulated. It had to be put into words. I think the comma is an illustration of a misguided attempt to insert a formulated doctrine into the Bible.

Benjamin Franklin used to have access to printing materials and would insert stuff into the Bible to make his point because people revered the Bible so much. I think this is parallel. The comma is true in as far as it goes. The wording for the doctrine was being formulated early to fight anti-trinitarian heresies. Some got overzealous and added to the Scripture. Now some people try to read the comma into the ancient text.

The doctrine of the Trinity is true, but just because it's true we can't insert it if manuscript evidence doesn't support it just as we can't insert the Nicene Creed (or any other thing that's accurate in what it says of spiritual matters) just because it's true.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 09:06 PM
I don't deny that other ones can be right or holy or correct. What I deny is that anything that comes out of the corruptible seed of the Alexandrian texts, (you know the texts from the basement of the Vatican and from the trash can of a Catholic monastery), can be right or holy or correct. There are two lines, a corruptible one and an incorruptible one. The incorruptible line has 1 John 5:7...the corruptible line takes it out.This is circular reasoning. Rufus hasn't provided one bit of proof that 1 John 5:7 is original. All he is doing is asserting that ones that include it are not corrupted and that ones that don't included it are corrupted. But nothing is given to prove which is corrupted and which are not. Rufus just assumes his position is correct.

Rufus doesn't address the fact that not a single manuscript contains it in the text prior to the sixteenth century. Nor does Rufus address the fact that it isn't even written in the margin of the Greek manuscripts until the eleventh century.

Incorrupted
"For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon." - Wycliffe

"(For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)" - Tyndale

"(For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.)" - Coverdale

"For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one." - Bishop's

"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one." - Geneva

"For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. " - Authorized Version 1611

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." - King James Version Oxford Edition
Let's see . . .

Wycliffe - 1388
Tyndale - 1525
Coverdale - 1535
Bishops's - 1568
Geneva - 1560
KJV - 1611

All very late. Also this is an argument to correct the Greek from the English. All of thses are English translations. None of these are Greek manuscripts.

There is no need for me to discuss the so-called "corrupted" translations. They are going with the manuscript evidence that I posted earlier.

One other point . . . Rufus quotes this

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." - 2 Corinthians 2:17This is a mistranslations in the KJV. The word translated corrupt is καπηλεύοντες. Vine's tell us . . .
1. kapeleuo (καπηλεύω, 2585) primarily signifies “to be a retailer, to peddle, to hucksterize” (from kapelos, “an inn-keeper, a petty retailer, especially of wine, a huckster, peddler,” in contrast to emporos, “a merchant”); hence, “to get base gain by dealing in anything,” and so, more generally, “to do anything for sordid personal advantage.”
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:130). Nashville: T. Nelson.


This verse has nothing to do with scribes corrupting manuscripts. It simply tells us that there were hucksters who were using the Word of God to make a profit. This is something we see in many places today.

Grace & peace to all,

Joe

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 09:20 PM
You know what amazes me. All you fellows that hate. or at the least, dislike the King James Bible, state over and over again that the new translations have not changed doctrine.Nobody here has said that we "hate" or "dislike" the KJV. It has just as much right to exist as any other translation. What I "hate" is when other people try to impose upon me and other people a translation that is no better than any other and then attempt to falsely portray it as being "superior". That takes the focus off of my Father in heaven Who saved me and focuses it on what a good little Christian I am for using the "right" Bible.

And please explain for me what doctrinal errors you have noticed me posting here that are a result of using an "inferior" translation.........I'm waiting..............
Well if that is the case, why cause all this dissension and disunity in the Church.We, the users of modern translations, are not causing it. If you want to use the KJV, have at it. We have no problem with that. The argument/disagreement only begins when KJV-onlyers attempt to get the rest of us to use a translation that we have already decided to set aside. Had nobody attempted to get us to use a translation that we don't want to use, there would've been no disagreement.
Before the new translations, the Bible was the Bible, no confusion.Tell that to people in China or Africa who don't speak English.
Now the Bible is whatever anyone wants it to be. Like the Tower of Babel.Wrong. The Bible is what the original texts are. Since the KJV is based on newer texts that are further from the original source, that makes the KJV an inferior version.
You say you want it easier to read. Why not just change some of the Old English, yours for thine, do for doth, and etc. There are truly not that many words that have changed meaning, though you use that for an excuse.Sentence structure has changed in the last 400 years as well. Besides, why would I want to stick with a less accurate translation?
Any error you felt needed to be addressed could have been done in the footnotes.Oh, now wait a minute. That's EXACTLY what the NIV does, yet you accuse the NIV of "taking away" and "altering" Scripture. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Why wasn’t that done to keep unity? The answer is obvious. You could not do that and obtain a copyright.Oh brother here we go with the tired old argument of copyright. You know what? I don't own the copyright to the NIV/TNIV. It does me no good whatsoever. I'm making $0.00 off of the NIV/TNIV or any other modern translation. So what ulterior motive are you going to accuse me of having for supporting modern translations?

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 09:28 PM
This is circular reasoning. Rufus hasn't provided one bit of proof that 1 John 5:7 is original. All he is doing is asserting that ones that include it are not corrupted and that ones that don't included it are corrupted. But nothing is given to prove which is corrupted and which are not. Rufus just assumes his position is correct. It's not circular reasoning, it's picking a side.


Rufus doesn't address the fact that not a single manuscript contains it in the text prior to the sixteenth century. Nor does Rufus address the fact that it isn't even written in the margin of the Greek manuscripts until the eleventh century.
Let's see . . .

Wycliffe - 1388
Tyndale - 1525
Coverdale - 1535
Bishops's - 1568
Geneva - 1560
KJV - 1611

All very late. Also this is an argument to correct the Greek from the English. All of thses are English translations. None of these are Greek manuscripts. You say this as though it's a bad thing. You are on an English board typing to me in English. I am not fluent in Greek and have no need to be. I see the fruit my English ancestors bore by taking a Bible, believing it and not spending their every moment asking hath God said.


There is no need for me to discuss the so-called "corrupted" translations. They are going with the manuscript evidence that I posted earlier. Right...one line of manuscripts.


One other point . . . Rufus quotes thisThis is a mistranslations in the KJV. The word translated corrupt is καπηλεύοντες. Vine's tell us . . .This verse has nothing to do with scribes corrupting manuscripts. It simply tells us that there were hucksters who were using the Word of God to make a profit. This is something we see in many places today. So is your final authority Vine's? Do you have a book that you consider to be the perfectly preserved word of God in your language (or in any other for that matter)?


Grace & peace to all,

Joe

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 09:33 PM
... The Bible is what the original texts are. Since the KJV is based on newer texts that are further from the original source, that makes the KJV an inferior version... Do you have the original texts?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 09:35 PM
Do you have the original texts?The NIV translators had copies of them that were more authentic than the KJV translators had. The KJV is a less reliable translation.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 09:37 PM
Hey Terrell,
You know what amazes me. All you fellows that hate. or at the least, dislike the King James Bible, state over and over again that the new translations have not changed doctrine.This is simply categorically false. Who here "hates" the KJV? I've said many times in many posts that I like the KJV. I don't use it for various reasons I've given - the main being is that most people can understand modern translations better. And yes, it's true that modern translations don't change doctrine.
Well if that is the case, why cause all this dissension and disunity in the Church. Before the new translations, the Bible was the Bible, no confusion. Now the Bible is whatever anyone wants it to be. Like the Tower of Babel.Terrell, most of the denominations formed way before these newer versions were ever translated. So I guess if I use your reasoning, then we should blame the KJV or some other ancient version for all the denominations.

If I look at modern movements, Calvary Chapel started in 1965 breaking away from the Four Square denomination. But wait a minute, Calvary Chapel uses the KJV primarily and has several messages available from Chuck Smith arguing that we should only use the KJV for study. Can't blame Calvary Chapel on the modern versions.

D.A. Waite is KJV only and is a Baptist. Edward F Hills was a Presbyterian and was KJV only. Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel is a charismatic.

So much for the modern translations being the problem. All of them use the KJV. The fact is that translations aren't the cause of these things, fallible interpretations are. We are all guilty of this at various points.

Furthermore, your claim that they can make the Bible what they want it to be is categorically false and a total strawman of modern scholars. No one claims you can make it what you want. Terrell, if you can't defend your position with truth, but must twist things to make your position sound more viable, then it's time to change positions or drop out of these discussions. The Bible is not what anyone wants it to be, unless we are talking about the Watchtower, which this thread is not about.
You say you want it easier to read. Why not just change some of the Old English, yours for thine, do for doth, and etc. There are truly not that many words that have changed meaning, though you use that for an excuse. Any error you felt needed to be addressed could have been done in the footnotes.This was done. It's called the NKJV. It's a wonderful translation.
Why wasn’t that done to keep unity? The answer is obvious. You could not do that and obtain a copyright.Your view of unity I already demonstrated to be wishful thinking. There are KJV only advocates who are Baptists, Presbyterians and Charistmatics.

Futhermore, I can use you to prove this point. I don't own a single commentary made based on the KJV that holds your view of Job. Can't blame the modern translations for that when you are using the KJV and so are my commentaries that have a different view than you.

Lastly, give up your copyright soapbox. I've done many analyses with a computer between versions. Many translations differ by well under the 10% you claim they need to differ from each other by. Should I trust your percentages or a computer going word by word and the results it gives me? If a computer comes up with 4.2% difference, I'm sorry Terrell, I have to go with the computer's results over your opinion.

Now let me say this is getting way off track into another waste-of-time KJV only thread. The title is How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? In the beginning I was actually defending the KJV a bit, but now I'm dealing with all the usual KJV only arguments. The thread has been stolen like they always are. These discussions tend to be very unedifying. I want them to be edifying, but it's hard when modern translators are accused of corruption and peddling the Bible to make a buck. Why can't KJV advocates give brother in Jesus the benefit of the doubt? Why can't we discuss facts and have edifying discussions about why one translation reads one way and why one reads another without turning modern conservative, Bible-believing translators into spiritual criminals?

My summary on the topic of the thread title so far is that while 1 John 5:7-8 isn't original in 1 John, it is translated just fine. Also, I pointed out in my above post that modern versions do a better job with 2 Corinthians 2:17 by stating that people peddle the word for profit (as opposed to corrupting manuscripts as KJV only tries to make this verse say). However, overall the KJV is an accurate translation. Sure we can point out some problems, but the same can be done with other translations as well.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Rufus_1611
Oct 30th 2008, 09:43 PM
The NIV translators had copies of them that were more authentic than the KJV translators had. How can you be sure of this? How is this any thing other than a subjective opinion?


The KJV is a less reliable translation. I appreciate but disagree with your opinion.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 30th 2008, 09:46 PM
How can you be sure of this? How is this any thing other than a subjective opinion?Because they had fewer generations of copying between them and the originals, therefore they would be less likely to have copyist errors.
I appreciate but disagree with your opinion.You have the right to do that. And that should be the end of this discussion right there, our agreement to nicely disagree.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 09:55 PM
It's not circular reasoning, it's picking a side.Sorry Rufus, If you don't provide reasons for picking one over the other and just assert your position, then it's circular reasoning. All you leave us with then is picking sides. I provided reasons for why 1 John 5:7-8 isn't part of the original. Address the reasons. If you don't, call it picking sides, but anyone trained in logic will tell you it's circular reasoning.
You say this as though it's a bad thing. You are on an English board typing to me in English. I am not fluent in Greek and have no need to be. I see the fruit my English ancestors bore by taking a Bible, believing it and not spending their every moment asking hath God said.The Bible didn't fall out of the sky as the KJV. The NT was written in Greek. But before it's translated, one must know what to translate. The comma doesn't make or break anyone's theology. This verse is not essential. Trinitarianism is clearly taught whether that verse is there or not.

But if it isn't original, then why should anyone accept it? If this is the case, now we have the KJV advocates doing what Terrell (tgallison) accused the modern versions of doing. We have the KJV advocates making the Bible say anything they want it to say whether it was originally there or not.

Bottomline is there was a process that got that KJV in your hand. You accept the Bible you have, but rebuke the process that got that Bible to you. This is a very confused position on your part. Every time the KJV translators chose Stephanus over Beza or vice versa, they asked the question hath god said and then picked one or the other. Ignore the history of your KJV if you like but that's what happened. The choice is yours. Do you want to grow in understanding of how you got your KJV or would you like to continue rebuking the process the men used who gave you that Bible in the first place?
Right...one line of manuscripts. This is false. But it's clear that your failure to understand how you got the KJV is consistant with a failure to understand how we get modern versions. They don't use just Alexandrian texts. They use them all and sometimes go with Byzantine readings. Are you interested in knowing the truth on these things? I can gladly discuss some examples.
So is your final authority Vine's? Do you have a book that you consider to be the perfectly preserved word of God in your language (or in any other for that matter)?No, Vine's is not the final authority. But it is a source many people have access to and it is coordinated with the KJV for easy use for KJV people. I can quote a number of other sources that state that this is what καπηλεύοντες means. How many would you like me to quote before you accept this?

Why don't you tell me how you determine the meaning of καπηλεύοντες? How do you know for sure the KJV translators got that correct?

Alright, how about we get back to discussing how accurate the KJV translates some things rather than continue having a KJV only debate? There are plenty of those already at this website.

Grace & peace to you, Rufus.

Joe

tgallison
Oct 30th 2008, 11:21 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;1847267]
Lastly, give up your copyright soapbox. I've done many analyses with a computer between versions. Many translations differ by well under the 10% you claim they need to differ from each other by. Should I trust your percentages or a computer going word by word and the results it gives me? If a computer comes up with 4.2% difference, I'm sorry Terrell, I have to go with the computer's results over your opinion.

Well if your computer is not programed to consider prepositions and conjunctions and words that basically mean the same but are different, and does not consider sentence structure and placement, maybe it could come up with 4%. But if you go with a word for word reading it is closer to 20% or more.


Now let me say this is getting way off track into another waste-of-time KJV only thread. The title is How accurate is the KJV Bible really translated? In the beginning I was actually defending the KJV a bit, but now I'm dealing with all the usual KJV only arguments. The thread has been stolen like they always are. These discussions tend to be very unedifying. I want them to be edifying, but it's hard when modern translators are accused of corruption and peddling the Bible to make a buck. Why can't KJV advocates give brother in Jesus the benefit of the doubt? Why can't we discuss facts and have edifying discussions about why one translation reads one way and why one reads another without turning modern conservative, Bible-believing translators into spiritual criminals?

That you can determine how accurate the translation is of the King James Bible, is a false premise, and high minded. It is merely preference and opinion. Only God could answer the question.

By the way, the NKJV is merely another modern translation with a copyright.

TrustGzus
Oct 30th 2008, 11:59 PM
Well if your computer is not programed to consider prepositions and conjunctions and words that basically mean the same but are different, and does not consider sentence structure and placement, maybe it could come up with 4%. But if you go with a word for word reading it is closer to 20% or more.Terrell, this is only true if you go with translations that have totally different translation philosophies such as the KJV v. NIV or NASB v. NIV.

Frankly, my computer overstates its case. It calls for ever and forever a variant for example. I wouldn't count that. So the percentage is actually less. I'll trust the computer, Terrell. I've poured over many of the verses and the differences it points out. I wouldn't use the data if I didn't think it was sound information. Believe when I say it goes word-by-word or don't believe me - your choice.

This is so unedifying. Why do you malign the entire translation endeavor? Why are you so ungracious and so suspicious of Christians in this field? This is just the opposite of what John 13:34-35 and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us to be.
That you can determine how accurate the translation is of the King James Bible, is a false premise, and high minded. It is merely preference and opinion. Only God could answer the question.Then if it is mere preference and opinion, how in your last post do you accuse modern translators just make the Bible what they want it to be. If it is merely preference and opinion, then you just gave the okay for this. In one post, you malign modern translators and claim they make the Bible whatever they want to be, then in the next post, you claim it's merely preference and opinion. Which is it?

Also, if it is merely preference and opinion, why do you make the fuss about Job 33:6 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1839722&postcount=144)? It's just preference and opinion. Or were you just being high-minded?

Terrell, you can't have this stuff both ways. You can't argue for objective facts in support of the KJV when it supposedly works for the KJV and preference and opinion when it doesn't.
By the way, the NKJV is merely another modern translation with a copyright.How'd you conclude it's just another modern translation? You stated . . .
You say you want it easier to read. Why not just change some of the Old English, yours for thine, do for doth, and etc. There are truly not that many words that have changed meaning, though you use that for an excuse. Any error you felt needed to be addressed could have been done in the footnotes.The NKJV did exactly that. It replaced yours for thine and do for doth. They addressed concerns in the footnotes.

So once again, you say modern translators could do X. They did X. Then you malign them. Why?

I hope you can find some grace to extend one day, Terrell. I hope you can find it in your heart to grant some benefit of the doubt.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

Rufus_1611
Oct 31st 2008, 02:15 AM
Sorry Rufus, If you don't provide reasons for picking one over the other and just assert your position, then it's circular reasoning. All you leave us with then is picking sides. I provided reasons for why 1 John 5:7-8 isn't part of the original. Address the reasons. If you don't, call it picking sides, but anyone trained in logic will tell you it's circular reasoning.The Bible didn't fall out of the sky as the KJV. The NT was written in Greek. But before it's translated, one must know what to translate. The comma doesn't make or break anyone's theology. This verse is not essential. Trinitarianism is clearly taught whether that verse is there or not.

But if it isn't original, then why should anyone accept it? If this is the case, now we have the KJV advocates doing what Terrell (tgallison) accused the modern versions of doing. We have the KJV advocates making the Bible say anything they want it to say whether it was originally there or not.

Bottomline is there was a process that got that KJV in your hand. You accept the Bible you have, but rebuke the process that got that Bible to you. This is a very confused position on your part. Every time the KJV translators chose Stephanus over Beza or vice versa, they asked the question hath god said and then picked one or the other. Ignore the history of your KJV if you like but that's what happened. I know how the KJV got in my hands. Men like Tyndale and Wycliff were killed by the RCC in order to get it in my hands. Now the RCC gives Christians "Bibles" from their "oldest and best" manuscripts and ya'll buy it hook, line and sinker.



The choice is yours. Do you want to grow in understanding of how you got your KJV or would you like to continue rebuking the process the men used who gave you that Bible in the first place? I am confident that I have a Bible in my hands that I do not need to question. Now, I believe reading, understanding and applying those words (and contending for it when it is under attack) is time better spent then saying, well God didn't say that in the original Greek etc. etc. etc.



This is false. But it's clear that your failure to understand how you got the KJV is consistant with a failure to understand how we get modern versions. They don't use just Alexandrian texts. This is just not true. They are Alexandrian Bibles using Alexandrian texts. Origen to Wescott & Hort to Mellencott...it's all the same spirit.


They use them all and sometimes go with Byzantine readings. Are you interested in knowing the truth on these things? I can gladly discuss some examples. This is one of the many things that are great about God. He makes it so men do not have to go through the "smart" people in order to know His word. People who speak English do not need to be educated by people who think they know Greek better than the 47 translators of the KJV and the many others that worked on the previous translations. All they have to do is trust in a perfect Holy God, who sent a perfect Jesus to die on a cross, who perfectly inspired His perfect word and perfectly preserved His perfect word. That's all.


No, Vine's is not the final authority. But it is a source many people have access to and it is coordinated with the KJV for easy use for KJV people. What is your final authority then? You went to Vine's to prove what God said but then say Vine's is not your final authority. What book is your final authority if not Vine's?


I can quote a number of other sources that state that this is what καπηλεύοντες means. How many would you like me to quote before you accept this?

Why don't you tell me how you determine the meaning of καπηλεύοντες? How do you know for sure the KJV translators got that correct? Questions like this give me cause to think you are not reading what I write. I don't speak Greek, I don't know Greek, and I have no desire to. I have no immediate plans to go to Greece. 3.5 Billion people in the world today speak English, 15 Million speak Greek. Yet, by your logic you would have us think that God only desires to talk to 15 Million Greek folks and you would further have us believe He used the Greeks to evangelize the world in the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. I speak English, I have a Bible in my language and the people that spoke this same language are responsible for the bulk of the world's contemporary evangelism...oh and it happens to be the language we're speaking on this very forum. What's the most popular Greek Christian site you know of and how often do you frequent it? Also,how long have you been fluent in the Greek language? Are you fluent in both classical and Koine Greek?


Alright, how about we get back to discussing how accurate the KJV translates some things rather than continue having a KJV only debate? There are plenty of those already at this website. The KJV translated everything accurately. It's the pure word of God in the language of the end times. Kind of makes for a short discussion, I know, but there it is.


Grace & peace to you, Rufus.

Joe..and to you as well.

tgallison
Oct 31st 2008, 02:19 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;1847423]Terrell, this is only true if you go with translations that have totally different translation philosophies such as the KJV v. NIV or NASB v. NIV.

Well isn't that what we are talking about. The difference between the KJB and the new translations that all have their basis on the KJB, through there family tree. At least that is what the foundation of the new translations stated.


This is so unedifying. Why do you malign the entire translation endeavor? Why are you so ungracious and so suspicious of Christians in this field? This is just the opposite of what John 13:34-35 and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us to be.

Loving someone and believing what they say are not the same. I trust God. I do not trust anyone who says "hath God said" and then therefore omits God's word. I don't believe God commands me to believe them.


Then if it is mere preference and opinion, how in your last post do you accuse modern translators just make the Bible what they want it to be. If it is merely preference and opinion, then you just gave the okay for this. In one post, you malign modern translators and claim they make the Bible whatever they want to be, then in the next post, you claim it's merely preference and opinion. Which is it?

You are twisting my words. I said, deciding how accurate the KJB was translated cannot be determined today. That was three years shy of four hundred years ago. We do not know whether God had his hand on the translation. We do know that they didn't have the obstacle of having to meet criteria to obtain a copyright. I did say it was preference an opinion.

When I say that modern translators make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, that is basically true. They can make it gender neutral. They can decide that Mary was not a Virgin. Or at the least that somebody added it, and it doesn't belong in a certain spot. The English speaking people censored those that wanted to change the Bible in the past. Just ask the ASV translation committee. They kept their work a secret, so as to prevent the outrage of the people from stopping them. That is not the case today. Anybody that has the money to invest can produce their own Bible.


Also, if it is merely preference and opinion, why do you make the fuss about Job 33:6 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1839722&postcount=144)? It's just preference and opinion. Or were you just being high-minded?

When you make a statement like that, it should come with some clarity.


Terrell, you can't have this stuff both ways. You can't argue for objective facts in support of the KJV when it supposedly works for the KJV and preference and opinion when it doesn't.How'd you conclude it's just another modern translation? You stated . . . The NKJV did exactly that. It replaced yours for thine and do for doth. They addressed concerns in the footnotes.

Seven of the translators were from the NIV translation committee. And they did much more than change yours for thine and do for doth. They had an agenda and it is evident. Anyone that says otherwise has not done an honest evaluation. It is subtle in that it claimed to be one thing, and yet is another. It too, like the other translations had to do verbal gymnastics to get a copyright.


I hope you can find some grace to extend one day, Terrell. I hope you can find it in your heart to grant some benefit of the doubt.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.
Joe

Grace is unmerited favor. I try to extend that as much as I am able from that which is mine. The Word of God is God's grace, and I don't believe it would be honoring to him, to not stand strong in what I have come to believe, and know to be the Word of God.

TrustGzus
Oct 31st 2008, 05:02 AM
Guys,

This isn't worth my time. I can't say I won't pop in and help someone else in this thread. But I'm not going to keep arguing with guys that tell me things like modern versions follow Westcott & Hort when I have Westcott & Hort's text myself and can tell you many places where modern versions do not follow W&H.

I'm not going to continue to argue with guys that claim that modern translations follow manuscripts given by the Roman Catholic church. Never mind that Vaticanus contains no doctrines that are distinctives of the RCC (such as purgatory or the Marian doctrines) Never mind that the KJV is based largely off the work of Stephanus who based his work off the 4th & 5th texts of Erasmus, himself a Roman Catholic (and the opponent to whom Luther responded in On the Bondage of the Will). How does the KJV escape the RCC charge when it's Greek text was a result of the hard work and sweat of one of Luther's main opponents?

Who's really buying theories hook, line and sinker?

The KJV is a fine translation. People who use it will be fine if they take the time to work through the archaic English. I've never argued the KJV is a bad Bible and I'm not arguing it here. But debating with people about modern versions coming from Westcott & Hort's text when I'm looking at the differences directly and arguing that these versions come from the RCC when the KJV is a based off the texts of one of Luther's main opponents . . . those are two of many reasons why this just isn't worth my time.

Grace & peace, guys. God bless you.

Joe