PDA

View Full Version : "given by inspiration of God" or "God breathed"? 2 Tim. 3:16



brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 05:39 PM
2 Timothy 3:16 "given by inspiration of God" or "God-breathed"?

There are some Christians whom I have encountered that try to tell us that versions like the NIV that read: "All Scripture is GOD BREATHED" is a better and more accurate translation than the King James Bible's "All scripture is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD".

Not one of these people actually believes the NIV or any other version is in fact the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% pure words of God, but it seems that they think that if they can somehow show that the King James Bible is inferior in any way, then they have somehow scored a point for their "No Bible is Inspired" side and discredit to some degree the authority of the King James Bible.

You undoubtedly are going to encounter some "expert in the Greek" who will tell you that the word translated as "given by inspiration of God" in the King James Bible and many others, is actually better translated as "God-breathed".

Let's take a look at how the various Bibles through history have translated this word, and what the Greek lexicons and dictionaries have to say. We will compare Scripture with Scripture to see which translation is in fact the most accurate.

Not only does the King James Bible say that all Scripture "is given by inspiration of God" (or, inspired by God) but so also do the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1325, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's N. T. translation 1755, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, the 1950 Douay version, 1970 New American Bible, 1985 New Jerusalem Bible, Hebrew Names Version, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, Weymouth 1902, the New Living Translation, God's Word Translation 1995, the NASB 1963 - 1995, the New KJV 1982, the 21st Century KJV 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Holman Christian Standard Version 2003, and even Daniel Wallace's ongoing NET version.

The Spanish Reina Valera from 1602 all the way to 1995 read: "Toda la Escritura es inspirada por Dios".

Likewise so do the French Louis Segond, the Italian Diodati, and Riveduta -"Ogni scrittura è ispirata da Dio e utile a insegnare...", and the Portuguese Almeida.

The people who put out the NIV are inconsistent when they translate it into various foreign language versions. Though the English NIV version, put out by the International Bible Society, says Scripture is "God-breathed", yet when they translated the NIV in Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian, they all agree with the time tested KJB rendering of "insipired of God".

The Spanish Nueva Versión Internacioinal 1999 says: "Toda la Escritura es inspirada por Dios y útil para enseñar, para reprender, para corregir y para instruir en la justicia."

The NIV (International Bible Society) when translated into Italian also reads "inspired by God". "Tutta la scrittura è stata ispirato da Dio..."

As does the NIV Portuguese edition (International Bible Society): "Porque toda a Escritura é inspirada por Deus e é útil para nos ensinar,"

And also the French NIV (International Bible Society) reads: "Car toute l'Ecriture est inspirée de Dieu."

The new ESV of 2001, which is a revision of the revision of the revision (the RSV, and NRSV) now basically sides with the NIV, reading: "All Scripture is breathed out by God."

What picture comes to mind when a version like the NIV or ESV says that all Scripture is "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God"? The words "breathed out" seem to exclude the human instrument and make it sound as though the words came floating down through the air and somehow landed on pieces of parchment or paper. Is this what the Bible says about it's own inspiration? I think not.

What I believe the Scriptures teach is that God, either directly or through His Son or His Spirit, actually INspired BOTH the writers AND the Scriptures.

The word "inspire" does literally mean to breathe into, and this seems to be the method God has always used. In the very beginning when God formed man from the dust of the earth, we see intimations of this same process of INspiration taking place when God communicates His life to man. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED INTO his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

Let's see what the Scriptures teach about how God moved upon chosen men to give to us His pure and precious words.

1 Peter 1:20-21 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST."

Hebrews 1:1-2 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers BY THE PROPHETS, Hath in these last days spoken unto us BY HIS SON..."

Mark 12:36 - "For David himself SAID BY THE HOLY GHOST, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."

The Geneva Bible notes on Mark 12:36 - "There is a great power in this kind of speech, by which is meant that it was not so much David who was speaking, but instead the Holy Spirit, who in a way possessed David."

John Gill simply remarks: "For David himself said by the Holy Ghost… being inspired by the Spirit of God."

Some early English translations like Tyndale, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, Whittingham's, and the Bishops' Bible actually say: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost". The King James Bible is more literally accurate here than these previous English translations, but the point is, it has long been held by orthodox Christians that both the writers and the text are inspired of God.

Numbers 23:12 - Balaam answered and said "Must I not take heed TO SPEAK THAT WHICH THE LORD HATH PUT IN MY MOUTH?"

Nehemiah 9:30 - "Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them BY THY SPIRIT IN THY PROPHETS: yet they would not give ear..."

Ezekiel 2:1-2; 3:1-2 - And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me...Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll."

2 Corinthians 13:3 - "Since ye seek a proof of CHRIST SPEAKING IN ME, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you."

2 Peter 3:2 "That ye may be mindful of the WORDS which were spoken before BY the holy prophets, and of the commandment OF US the apostles of the Lord and Saviour."

1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath REVEALED THEM UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT."... Which things also we speak, not in the WORDS which man's wisdom teacheth, but WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

The essential point to be grasped is that when men wrote the Scriptures, their statements did not originate in their own thinking, but were put into their minds by the direct action of the Holy Ghost. They wrote the word of God in the sense that they wrote words that came directly from God. This is what the Westminster Confession means when it says that the original text of the Bible was "immediately inspired by God" (1.8).

Various Confessions of Faith by Baptists and other believers have used this same early English Bible terminology. The 1833 New Hampshire Confession stated: "We believe [that] the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired" (Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 361).

The first article of the 1920's Fundamentalist Baptist Confession referred to the writers of Scripture as "men supernaturally inspired" (Baptists and the Bible, p. 385). Many believers including Baptists and Fundamentalists have used this same terminology.

Consider another example, that of Jesus disciples who would be taken before rulers to give an account of their faith. Jesus told them "take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but WHATSOEVER SHALL BE GIVEN YOU in that hour, that speak ye: for it is NOT YE THAT SPEAK, BUT THE HOLY GHOST." (Mark 13:11).

Here the Lord Jesus explains what inspiration involves. When an inspired speaker or writer says something, it is not he who is speaking, but God. Now of course the person is speaking in the sense that he expresses thoughts that are in his mind, but he is not speaking in the more important sense that those thoughts were formulated by him. The inspired speaker or writer utters only words put directly into his mind by the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:4).

Consider the Psalms, which were written mostly by the prophet David and which contain many prophecies of Christ. Davids own testimony about the origin of the Psalms could not be clearer: "David the son of Jesse said...and the sweet psalmist of Israel said, The Spirit of the LORD SPAKE BY ME, AND HIS WORD WAS IN MY TONGUE." (2 Sam. 23:1- 2).

Similarly, Peter explains: "Men and brethren, this scripture must need have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost BY THE MOUTH OF DAVID SPAKE before..." (Acts 1:16).

David and the other Old Testament prophets did not always understand the very things God was prompting or inspiring them to write. 1 Peter 1:10-11 clearly tell us: "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ WHICH WAS IN THEM DID SIGNIFY, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow (1 Pet. 1:11).

Acts 3:19-21 = "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, WHICH GOD HATH SPOKEN BY THE MOUTH OF ALL HIS HOLY PROPHETS since the world began."

Acts 4:25 - "Who BY THE MOUTH OF THY SERVANT DAVID HAST SAID, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"

Acts 28:25 "after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the HOLY GHOST BY Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive..."

Deuteronomy 18:18 - "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, AND I WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

We see the fulfillment of this promise in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 12:48-29; 14:10 and 17:8 - "the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." - "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." - "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them..."

The Lexicons:

I do not hold Greek lexicons as my final written authority, but every one I have access to agrees with the reading found in the King James Bible (and numerous other translations) of "inspired of God".

The Greek word translated in the KJB and several other English bibles as "given by inspiration of God" is theopnustos. Diury's Modern Greek-English dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible as such but is a purely secular, modern dictionary of the Greek language today, defines this word in only one way - "inspired by God".

Liddell and Scott's Greek English lexicon 1968 Oxford Press, on page 791 gives only one definition of this word - "inspired of God".

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 19th Zondervan printing 1978, on page 287 again gives us only one definition - "inspired by God".

The Greek-English lexicon by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 4th edition 1952 on page 357 again gives only one definition of this word - "inspired by God".

Inspiration is the process whereby God "breathes into" a man His divine, perfect and inspired words and filters them through the individual personality of each man to bring forth His pure words of truth. Both the writer and the words are inspired of God. The King James Bible's "All scripture IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD" is right, and the most accurate... as always.

Will Kinney

RabbiKnife
Jan 19th 2009, 06:02 PM
"Given by inspiration of God" and "God-breathed" mean exactly the same thing.

TrustingFollower
Jan 19th 2009, 06:21 PM
The King James Bible's "All scripture IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD" is right, and the most accurate... as always.

Will Kinney
Wow that sure is one of the most lengthy ways I have ever seen for someone saying only the King James bible is truly God's word. Might I suggest that next time you want to write a blog that you use the blog section of this message board.

theBelovedDisciple
Jan 19th 2009, 06:21 PM
"Given by inspiration of God" and "God-breathed" mean exactly the same thing.


I concur with RabbiKnife....

Bladers
Jan 19th 2009, 06:31 PM
Wow that sure is one of the most lengthy ways I have ever seen for someone saying only the King James bible is truly God's word. Might I suggest that next time you want to write a blog that you use the blog section of this message board.

I was going to say what you said, but since you said it. I'm gonna say this...

BrckBrln
Jan 19th 2009, 06:33 PM
I think in modern language 'God breathed' is stronger than 'inspired by God'. You always hear of people saying they were inspired by different things to write music and movies and whatnot.

Psalms Fan
Jan 19th 2009, 07:04 PM
"Given by inspiration of God" and "God-breathed" mean exactly the same thing.

I was going to say the same thing almost word-for-word.

"Inspire" is Latin-based. English is Germanic at its core. So "inspire" was introduced to the English language from a Latin source, namely the French Normans after the Norman Conquest.

It just so happens that languages like French, Spanish, and Portuguese are all, basically, modified Latin. So of course modified Latin will use the modified Latin word for "breath".

English is a pretty neat language. We're basically Germanic, but we have borrowed words from a host of other sources. There are a lot of loan words from Latin via French from the Normans. There are also a lot of Latin words from the Roman Catholic Church's presence in England. There are Greek words from classical literature and medicine. In the US there are various Native American words due to the indigenous cultures, as well as some words from Spanish. So often there are two or more words that have the same or similar meanings due to the presence of different source languages.

So basically, "inspire" and "breath" mean the same thing - they just come from different sources.

This is entirely a non-point, sort of like arguing that the word "dozen" is more accurate than "group of twelve".

brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 07:18 PM
To Repeat:

Not one of these people actually believes the NIV or any other version is in fact the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% pure words of God, but it seems that they think that if they can somehow show that the King James Bible is inferior in any way, then they have somehow scored a point for their "No Bible is Inspired" side and discredit to some degree the authority of the King James Bible.

By the way, which of all these (I can give a hundred more examples) is "given by inspiration of God"?


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

The simple fact is, most Christians no longer believe that ANY bible in ANY language is now the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. They are bible agnostics, and each and every one of them disagrees with all the other bible agnostics about what should be or should not be in their imaginary "bibles"

Will Kinney[/QUOTE]

RabbiKnife
Jan 19th 2009, 07:53 PM
The original autographs were inspired by God.

They were inerrant and the perfect revelation of what God wanted to be communicated.

There is NO version of the Scripture, either in English or any other language, that is an original autograph.

That being said, all modern translations of the Bible, including, but not limited to, the KJV,the NASB, the NLT, the NIV, etc., are the most accurate translations of ancient writings ever made, without exception.

Emanate
Jan 19th 2009, 08:11 PM
To Repeat:

Not one of these people actually believes the NIV or any other version is in fact the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% pure words of God, but it seems that they think that if they can somehow show that the King James Bible is inferior in any way, then they have somehow scored a point for their "No Bible is Inspired" side and discredit to some degree the authority of the King James Bible.

By the way, which of all these (I can give a hundred more examples) is "given by inspiration of God"?


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

The simple fact is, most Christians no longer believe that ANY bible in ANY language is now the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. They are bible agnostics, and each and every one of them disagrees with all the other bible agnostics about what should be or should not be in their imaginary "bibles"

Will Kinney[/quote]


I still say that changing the name of the brother of Messiah to honor a king does something to diminish the KJV standing as 100%. Ommitting the name of the creator also kocks it down a bit. Changing the times of events also knocks it down.

Just because someone says something first does not make it right.

Jemand
Jan 19th 2009, 08:45 PM
The words “given by inspiration of God” found in the King James translation of the Bible are not a literal translation of the Greek; they are a paraphrase of the Greek word, θεοπνευστος. The first part of this word literally means “God;” the second part of this word literally means “breathed.” The literal translation, therefore, would be “God-breathed” (as in the NIV and the ISV, ) or “inspired of God” (as in the ASV) or “inspired by God” (as in the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NJB, and the NAB).

Jemand
Jan 19th 2009, 09:09 PM
The simple fact is, most Christians no longer believe that ANY bible in ANY language is now the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. They are bible agnostics, and each and every one of them disagrees with all the other bible agnostics about what should be or should not be in their imaginary "bibles"

Will Kinney[/quote]

This does not, of course, have anything at all to do with the Bible translation or translations used. The Bible is today the most studied book that has ever been written, and because of that fact newer and more accurate translations of the Bible have been made possible as the years have passed. In recent years, a very different factor has been responsible for new English translations coming on the scene—the English language is going through a period of very rapid and unprecedented change.

The most popular versions of the Bible are being revised frequently because of progress in Biblical scholarship and because the English language is rapidly changing. Here are some examples along with their revision dates:

Jerusalem Bible, 1966
New Jerusalem Bible, 1985

New American Bible, 1970
New American Bible, with the Revised New Testament, 1986

Revised Standard Version, 1946, 1952, 1971
New Revised Standard Version, 1989

New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977
New American Standard Bible, Updated Version, 1995

New English Bible, 1961, 1970
Revised English Bible, 1989

Unfortunately, however, there are also other factors responsible for the plethora of recent English translations of the Bible, including the desire for financial gain and the desire to influence the interpretation of the Bible.

brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 09:55 PM
The original autographs were inspired by God.

They were inerrant and the perfect revelation of what God wanted to be communicated.

There is NO version of the Scripture, either in English or any other language, that is an original autograph.

That being said, all modern translations of the Bible, including, but not limited to, the KJV,the NASB, the NLT, the NIV, etc., are the most accurate translations of ancient writings ever made, without exception.

In other words, you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. Gee, why didn't I see that coming;)

Will K

brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 10:03 PM
The Bible is today the most studied book that has ever been written, and because of that fact newer and more accurate translations of the Bible have been made possible as the years have passed.

BALONEY! It is a fact that fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the newer versions are a confused mess. Most people don't even read them much let alone study them. They all have provable errors and show themselves to be false witnesses.

Show me one bible you believe is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, if you can. You won't do that though, will you. Why? Because you don't believe such a thing exists. Each one of you guys becomes your own final authority, and you don't always agree with anybody else about what you think may or may not be the true words of God.

"More accurate translations" - What a hoot!

Happy hunting,

Will Kinney

RabbiKnife
Jan 19th 2009, 10:26 PM
In other words, you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. Gee, why didn't I see that coming;)

Will K

No, I do believe in a complete, inspired, and inerrant Bible. I have said so. The translation that I use is probably 99.8% or better accurate.


You, on the other hand, believe in a complete, inspired, and inerrant TRANSLATION of the Bible. Your chosen translation is very accurate as well, but it is neither inspired nor inerrant.

Psalms Fan
Jan 19th 2009, 10:29 PM
You undoubtedly are going to encounter some "expert in the Greek" who will tell you that the word translated as "given by inspiration of God" in the King James Bible and many others, is actually better translated as "God-breathed".

Will Kinney

So if someone actually knows Greek and demonstrates something about the language, his/her expertise doesn't matter if you disagree with the conclusion?
(But it's already been demonstrated that they both mean exactly the same thing, so it really doesn't matter anyway)

Will, what do you make of the posts that say that "inspiration of God" and "God-breathed" mean exactly the same thing? Do you agree or disagree? And why or why not?

Jemand
Jan 19th 2009, 10:41 PM
BALONEY! It is a fact that fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the newer versions are a confused mess. Most people don't even read them much let alone study them. They all have provable errors and show themselves to be false witnesses.

Show me one bible you believe is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, if you can. You won't do that though, will you. Why? Because you don't believe such a thing exists. Each one of you guys becomes your own final authority, and you don't always agree with anybody else about what you think may or may not be the true words of God.

"More accurate translations" - What a hoot!

Happy hunting,

Will Kinney

Anyone can post wild and unsubstantiated claims. Unless you have reliable statistical data that supports your claims, they are as nothing.

Anyone who has an extensive knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages and who has compared the King James translation of the Bible with the Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated knows for an incontrovertible fact that the King James translation of the Bible misses the mark in hundreds of places, and in some of those places it misses the mark to a very significant degree resulting in seriously incorrect interpretations of the Word of God.

Anyone who has an extensive knowledge of English language and the changes that it has undergone in the past 400 years knows for an incontrovertible facts that the wording and phraseology of the King James translation of the Bible is not only antiquated, but virtually impossible to understand correctly unless the reader has a very extensive knowledge of the English language of the late 16th century and the early 17th century.


I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, so I took a look at them to see how they differ. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

What English grammatical form is being rendered here, and precisely what does it mean? Anglican Bishop (1613-1667) Jeremy Taylor gave us this translation, “he was afterwards an hungry.” What is the difference between being “an hungered” (etc.) and being “hungry?” Do you know the answer to that question? In the Greek text, there is a substantial difference and the translators attempted, in Matt. 4:2 but not in Mark 11:12, to make that distinction, but they did such a poor job of it that the very large majority of printers and publishers of the King James Version thought that “an hungered” was poor English so they “corrected” it and we find their “correction” of it in almost every copy of the King James Bible in use today, and they differ as to which “correction” is the correct correction!

The NASB, 1995, is very plain and easy to read, “He then became hungry,” an accurate, very readable translation of the Greek wording here where a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used. The very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used in Mark 11:12 and, of course, the NASB translates this identical verb in an identical manner. In the KJV, however, this identical verb in Mark 11:12 is translated differently than it is in Matt. 4:2, using a much less precise translation than that found in the NASB.

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. (KJV, all editions)

Anyone, anyone at all, who is familiar with New Testament Greek and the translations of it in the KJV and NASB, 1995, knows for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the translation of the Greek New Testament found in the NASB, 1995, is VERY much more accurate than the translation of the Greek New Testament found in any edition of KJV. Who would want to drive an old, broken-down Chevy when for the same price he could drive a Rolls Royce Bentley? A country farmer might reply, “My Chevy gets me where I’m goin’.” But that is not always true! It breaks down in Matt. 4:2, Mark 11:12, and thousands of other places in the New Testament alone!

brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 10:44 PM
No, I do believe in a complete, inspired, and inerrant Bible. I have said so. The translation that I use is probably 99.8% or better accurate.


You, on the other hand, believe in a complete, inspired, and inerrant TRANSLATION of the Bible. Your chosen translation is very accurate as well, but it is neither inspired nor inerrant.

Hi Rabbi. If you do believe in a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible, then would you do us all the huge favor of telling us exactly where we too can get a copy of this bible you say you believe in so that we can compare it to what we are using now to see the similarities and differences?

Will you do that for us?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 10:51 PM
Anyone, anyone at all, who is familiar with New Testament Greek and the translations of it in the KJV and NASB, 1995, knows for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the translation of the Greek New Testament found in the NASB, 1995, is VERY much more accurate than the translation of the Greek New Testament found in any edition of KJV. Who would want to drive an old, broken-down Chevy when for the same price he could drive a Rolls Royce Bentley? A country farmer might reply, “My Chevy gets me where I’m goin’.” But that is not always true! It breaks down in Matt. 4:2, Mark 11:12, and thousands of other places in the New Testament alone!


Hi J. WHICH NASB? Are you aware of the FACT that this multiple-choice version keeps on changing it's text every few years and often rejects the Hebrew readings? Your NASB teaches that God was DECEIVED by men in Psalm 78:36!! Is this the more accurate bible?

Do you mean the NASB that keeps adding whole verses and then taking them away again, only to come back in the next edition and add them back again? Must be nice having a "bible" that brackets some 25 entire verses in the N.T. alone, thus indicating doubt as to their inspiration.

Here are some FACTS about your "new and improved" every changing NASB"

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/whbins.html

Will Kinney

Jemand
Jan 19th 2009, 10:53 PM
Hi Rabbi. If you do believe in a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible, then would you do us all the huge favor of telling us exactly where we too can get a copy of this bible you say you believe in so that we can compare it to what we are using now to see the similarities and differences?

Will you do that for us?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

Will,

Would you do us all the favor of telling us exactly which KJV you use so that we can compare it with our copies of the KJV to see the similarities and differences?

Jemand

Walstib
Jan 19th 2009, 10:56 PM
Hi brandplucked,

You started this thread about 2 Tim 3:16, We can take it back to that focus if you want. If you just want to defend the KJV feel free, there will be those who disagree. Let's at least try for some focus so we are not left throwing personal comments at each other. Lots of good questions have been asked.

Peace,
Joe

brandplucked
Jan 19th 2009, 11:06 PM
So if someone actually knows Greek and demonstrates something about the language, his/her expertise doesn't matter if you disagree with the conclusion?
(But it's already been demonstrated that they both mean exactly the same thing, so it really doesn't matter anyway)

Will, what do you make of the posts that say that "inspiration of God" and "God-breathed" mean exactly the same thing? Do you agree or disagree? And why or why not?

Hi PF. I would not have a serious problem if someone said they both mean the same thing, although I believe the KJB (and many others) translation of "given by inspiration of God" is the better of the two. "God breathed" seems to picture words floating magically down from heaven and landing on a page.

However, there are guys out there that try to tell us the KJB is wrong for translating it the way they did. Besides, the issue is far, far greater than just one or two phrases that happen to differ from one another in minor ways.

The central issue is whether or not there even exists such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language on the face of this earth today. More and more Christians are abandoning this position and no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. It's all part of the predicted falling away from the faith that will occur in the last days. It is happening now.

NOBODY seriously defends any of the modern versions as being the complete and inerrant words of God. Why? Because in spite of their blindness as to where the true words of God are found today (and have been for almost 400 years now), they at least recognize that their own modern versions are not the inerrant words of God. This is what they were taught in seminary and even admit in the NIV introduction.

Will Kinney

Jemand
Jan 19th 2009, 11:21 PM
Hi J. WHICH NASB? Are you aware of the FACT that this multiple-choice version keeps on changing it's text every few years and often rejects the Hebrew readings? Your NASB teaches that God was DECEIVED by men in Psalm 78:36!! Is this the more accurate bible?

Do you mean the NASB that keeps adding whole verses and then taking them away again, only to come back in the next edition and add them back again? Must be nice having a "bible" that brackets some 25 entire verses in the N.T. alone, thus indicating doubt as to their inspiration.

Here are some FACTS about your "new and improved" every changing NASB"

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/whbins.html

Will Kinney

I have very many translations and editions of the Bible in my study, including ALL of the different editions of the NASB except the first edition of the NASB New Testament. Translators are not infallible, and they make mistakes and they change their minds when additional data is brought to their attention. This is not a fault—it is a virtue!

We find this same virtue in the editors of the KJV who have revised it over the years, at first to improve the spelling and the grammar, and later to correct translation errors. The most notable of these revisions of the KJV are the British Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version and the minor revisions of it, and the New Revised Standard Version. A further revision of the KJV is already in preparation. No revision, however, will ever be perfect regardless of the extent to which it improves upon the original, and that is why hundreds of thousands of Christians have learned to read the Bible in the original languages.

Psalms Fan
Jan 19th 2009, 11:23 PM
I frankly don't care how 2Tim 3:16 is rendered. To me this is not an issue at all. I only commented because it was brought up.

I was once in the same camp that you are in, that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God from a particular set of manuscripts that are also perfectly preserved, and that all other versions are corruptions. I know exactly where you're coming from and have used all of the same arguments myself at one point or another.

I am no longer in that camp. In fact, I really don't care much for the KJV. I think that the translators had a lot of theological (especially ecclesiastical). They had a very limited set of texts to work with. They had to rely on the Latin in several cases. It is merely a revision of Tyndale's bible, which was a translation of the Latin (not that revisions are bad). I can read the KJV with ease, since that was all I read for a while. But others can't. Sure, it's "modern english", but it's Early Modern English, and it is not the same Modern English that we speak in the US (or anywhere) for that matter.

The fact is that the KJV has translation errors. It is no better than any other version as far as translation perfection goes. It is not inerrant. It is not perfect. It is one translation with errors, just like all the rest of them.

In order to use the KJV, one must have an understanding of a completely separate dialect of English. Why go through that? Why not have one in the dialect that the person speaks?

Jemand
Jan 19th 2009, 11:38 PM
Hi PF. I would not have a serious problem if someone said they both mean the same thing, although I believe the KJB (and many others) translation of "given by inspiration of God" is the better of the two. "God breathed" seems to picture words floating magically down from heaven and landing on a page.

However, there are guys out there that try to tell us the KJB is wrong for translating it the way they did. Besides, the issue is far, far greater than just one or two phrases that happen to differ from one another in minor ways.

The central issue is whether or not there even exists such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language on the face of this earth today. More and more Christians are abandoning this position and no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. It's all part of the predicted falling away from the faith that will occur in the last days. It is happening now.

NOBODY seriously defends any of the modern versions as being the complete and inerrant words of God. Why? Because in spite of their blindness as to where the true words of God are found today (and have been for almost 400 years now), they at least recognize that their own modern versions are not the inerrant words of God. This is what they were taught in seminary and even admit in the NIV introduction.

Will Kinney

If we are to believe the translators of KJV, and I do believe them, they were fallible men who made mistakes and freely admitted their own fallibility. Of course no translation of the Bible will perfectly express in English or any other modern language the concepts originally expressed in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages because of the huge differences in these languages and modern languages.

Let’s take the Greek New Testament as an example. We do not have in English an exact counterpart of any of the tenses used in Greek, and in Greek there are tenses that do not exist at all in English. The result, of course, is that even the best English translations of the Greek New Testament give us only an approximation of the force and meaning of all the verbs (action words) in the New Testament. And to greatly compound the problem, all of the Greek tenses emphasize the aspect of the action rather than the time of the action, and all of the English tenses emphasize the time of the action rather than the aspect of the action. (To better understand what is meant by the ‘aspect’ of action, see the subject of ‘verbal aspect’ in the most recent advanced Greek grammars). And let’s not overlook the fact that the Greek prepositions are greatly different than our English prepositions making an exact translation impossible and, in many cases, making even a fairly close translation impossible.

brandplucked
Jan 20th 2009, 12:06 AM
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=navy][B]I have very many translations and editions of the Bible in my study, including ALL of the different editions of the NASB except the first edition of the NASB New Testament. Translators are not infallible, and they make mistakes and they change their minds when additional data is brought to their attention. This is not a fault—it is a virtue!

In other words, you do not believe there exists such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language. Hellooooo....Is anybody home there?

By the way, the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the King James Bible have NEVER changed. This is in sharp contrast to the ever changing versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV (TNIV), RSV junk.

Here are some facts for you to consider.

"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.

As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says: "If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the “divine originals.” Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of “inspired originals”, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches."

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

What Christians really believe

A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."

This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:

95% of Episcopalians,

87% of Methodists,

82% of Presbyterians,

77% of American Lutherans, and

67% of American Baptists said "No."

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jan 20th 2009, 12:16 AM
The fact is that the KJV has translation errors. It is no better than any other version as far as translation perfection goes. It is not inerrant. It is not perfect. It is one translation with errors, just like all the rest of them.


So, in other words, you do not believe that ANY bible in ANY language is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. That is what I have been affirming all along. You are a Bible doubter and a bible agnostic. Anybody with 2 fingers of forehead can see through your rhetoric.

By the way, your "KJV translation errors" are all in your own mind. Take any verse or any word in the greatest Book ever published (the King James Holy Bible), and we will see that it is merely your own personal opinion in contrast to what others of far superior learning have agreed on.

You have become your own final authority, and even at that you do not believe in nor do you have an inerrant Bible. This is where your present agnostic mindset has led you.

Happy trails,

Will Kinney

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 12:54 AM
I understand what you are saying. How can we say that this is what I believe when we can't say for sure that the source (KJV, NIV, what have you) is correct?

However, there is no inerrant translation. I've heard the old joke "If the KJV was good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for me!"

You truly think there are no problems with the KJV? Game on.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Doe God will all come to repentance? Hasn't God given all repentance? Don't kid yourself.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Do you hate your family? Do you honor, yet hate your parents? Did Christ lie? Don't kid yourself.

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.

You will not find any version before the 16th century that has "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" NOT ONE! Yet the authors of KJV, to push the true idea of the Trinity ADDED to the Scriptures.

Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

While I love this passage and the way the KJV renders it, the fact is, it is false. Was the law of God good or evil? Does God give anyone statutes or commands that are evil?
Don't kid yourself.

Now, bottom line is this, I will use a KJV with those that only want to use KJV.

I will use an NIV with those that only want to use the NIV.

I become all things for all people so that I may save some.

I can prove what I believe and all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, whether it is in the KJV, NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, and whatever other alphabet soups you want to throw up there.

Is that arrogant? You may think so, I do not. Is it the truth? Most definitely.

brandplucked
Jan 20th 2009, 01:59 AM
Hi Yuker. Your examples show that your problem in not just the KJB but any bible itself. ALL the bibles say the things you object to. It appears you are still in spiritual darkness, sir.

Will K


I understand what you are saying. How can we say that this is what I believe when we can't say for sure that the source (KJV, NIV, what have you) is correct?

However, there is no inerrant translation. I've heard the old joke "If the KJV was good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for me!"

You truly think there are no problems with the KJV? Game on.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Doe God will all come to repentance? Hasn't God given all repentance? Don't kid yourself.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Do you hate your family? Do you honor, yet hate your parents? Did Christ lie? Don't kid yourself.

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.

You will not find any version before the 16th century that has "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" NOT ONE! Yet the authors of KJV, to push the true idea of the Trinity ADDED to the Scriptures.

Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

While I love this passage and the way the KJV renders it, the fact is, it is false. Was the law of God good or evil? Does God give anyone statutes or commands that are evil?
Don't kid yourself.

Now, bottom line is this, I will use a KJV with those that only want to use KJV.

I will use an NIV with those that only want to use the NIV.

I become all things for all people so that I may save some.

I can prove what I believe and all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, whether it is in the KJV, NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, and whatever other alphabet soups you want to throw up there.

Is that arrogant? You may think so, I do not. Is it the truth? Most definitely.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 03:20 AM
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

What is inspiration here?

Jemand
Jan 20th 2009, 03:45 AM
In other words, you do not believe there exists such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language. Hellooooo....Is anybody home there?

I know for an absolute and incontrovertible fact that it is impossible to translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts into English without substantially adding to and taking away from the original because of the differences in the Languages.


By the way, the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the King James Bible have NEVER changed. This is in sharp contrast to the ever changing versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV (TNIV), RSV junk.

This, of course, is irrelevant. The Old Testament Texts primarily used by the translators of the King James Version were the Complutensian Polyglot (1517) and the Antwerp Polyglot (1572). Today we have Masoretic manuscripts dating from the 10th century. For portions of the Old Testament we now have manuscripts from the second century B.C. Approximately 800 Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament have now been studied. The King James Translators had only one text for the Septuagint, we now have many. They had only a corrupted text of the Latin, we now have Codex Amiatinus (A.D. 541) representing Jerome's final edition. Thus the textual foundation of the King James Old Testament is very poor.

The New Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estienne’s text of 1550. It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633. Only one of the five primary uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Bezae, was yet available and apparently it was not used. Of the 5,359 early Greek manuscripts we now have of the New Testament, the King James Version translators had less than 25 available to them and they were of comparatively late origin. Indeed, their primary text was so poor by today's standards that it is commonly called a "corrupt" text by today's scholars. It contains words and phrases that are not found in any known Greek manuscript. For example, the phrase translated, "him that livith for ever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) and the words translated, "and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" (Acts 9:6).

It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include 16 whole verses: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. Also included are the following words and phrases:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (Matt. 6:13)
"I trow not" (Luke 17:9)
"not" (Rom. 4:19: Col. 2:18)
"who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1)
"thou shalt not bear false witness" (Rom. 13:9)
"if" (2 Cor. 5:14)
"of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:14)
"through his blood" (Colossians 1:14)
"and were persuaded of them" (Heb. 11:13)
"him" (1 John 4:19)
Many other examples could be cited here.

In addition, the text of the King James Version omitted a number of words and phrases that are included in the best manuscripts:

"nor the son" (Matt. 24:36)
"and came to him" (John 19:3)
"by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 4:25)
"of Jesus" (Acts 16:7)
"God" (Rom. 8:28)
"just as you actually do walk" (1 Thes. 4:1)
"unto (or "in respect to") salvation" (1 Pet. 2:2)
"according to the will of God" (1 Pet. 5:2)
"and such we are" (1 John 3:1)

Psalms Fan
Jan 20th 2009, 04:00 AM
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

What is inspiration here?

Strong's number 5397 says that it comes from the word for "puff" or "blow".

I find that the wording of the KJV and NKJV in this passage is a little choppy and doesn't give a natural flow of meaning from the preceding verses.

The wording in the NIV, ESV and NASB are pretty similar so I'll quote the ESV (it happens to be my favorite):

Starting in verse 6, continuing to verse 9 (for the sake of context):
“I am young in years,
and you are aged;
therefore I was timid and afraid
to declare my opinion to you.
7 I said, ‘Let days speak,
and many years teach wisdom.’
8 But it is the spirit in man,
the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.
9 It is not the old [1] who are wise,
nor the aged who understand what is right."

His point is that it is not age that makes a person wise. He thought that at first, so he let the other three speak. But he realized that it is the spirit in man, the very breath of God, that gives wisdom and understanding.

The KJV's rendition is thus:
I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.
7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.

The KJV's wording doesn't seem to follow a consistent thought. It seems like he's making a random point about the fact that there is a spirit in man. Then another point about how God inspires wisdom. But there's nothing connecting those two points to make them one thought.

Thus, IMHO, the KJV and NKJV are inferior to other translations in this particular passage.

Jemand
Jan 20th 2009, 04:02 AM
By the way, your "KJV translation errors" are all in your own mind. Take any verse or any word in the greatest Book ever published (the King James Holy Bible), and we will see that it is merely your own personal opinion in contrast to what others of far superior learning have agreed on.

Anyone who has completed at least three years of college level Greek knows for an absolute and incontrovertible fact that in the New Testament alone the King James translation of the Bible is in error in numerous places. Most of these errors, however, are not nearly as serious, confusing, or misleading as the vast multitude of inconsistencies in translating the identical Greek word without contextual justification. This weakness is true in all early translations of the Bible made by large committees because one member of the committee preferred one translation and other members preferred another and they did not have editorial committees to eliminate the inconsistencies. As I have already mentioned, we find this when we compare Matt. 4:2 With Mark 11:12. Very numerous examples of this inconsistency in the King James translation of the New Testament could be cited.

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 04:20 AM
Hi Yuker. Your examples show that your problem in not just the KJB but any bible itself. ALL the bibles say the things you object to. It appears you are still in spiritual darkness, sir.

Will K

All the Bibles, eh? Let's just look at one verse for now...2 Peter 3:9. After thins, if you wish to look at the others, we can do so, but for brevity's sake, we'll just look at this one for now.

The KJV says the following:

2 Peter 3:9 (King James Version)


9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Yet every other version listed below states that it is not His will, but his want and desire.

2 Peter 3:9 (New American Standard Bible)


9(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30532A))The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30532B))is patient toward you, (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30532C))not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (New International Version)

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (The Message)


The Day the Sky Will Collapse

8-9Don't overlook the obvious here, friends. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day. God isn't late with his promise as some measure lateness. He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn't want anyone lost. He's giving everyone space and time to change.

2 Peter 3:9 (Amplified Bible)

9The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises, according to some people's conception of slowness, but He is long-suffering (extraordinarily patient) toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (New Living Translation)

9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.

2 Peter 3:9 (English Standard Version)

9(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515A)) The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise(B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515B)) as some count slowness, but(C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515C)) is patient toward you,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#fen-ESV-30515a)](D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515D)) not wishing that any should perish, but(E (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515E)) that all should reach repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (Contemporary English Version)

9The Lord isn't slow about keeping his promises, as some people think he is. In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.

2 Peter 3:9 (New Century Version)

9 The Lord is not slow in doing what he promised—the way some people understand slowness. But God is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to be lost, but he wants all people to change their hearts and lives.

2 Peter 3:9 (American Standard Version)


9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

9 The Lord does not delay His promise, (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705A)) as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705B)) to perish, (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705C)) but all to come to repentance. (D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705D))

2 Peter 3:9 (New International Reader's Version)

9 The Lord is not slow to keep his promise. He is not slow in the way some people understand it. He is patient with you. He doesn't want anyone to be destroyed. Instead, he wants all people to turn away from their sins.

2 Peter 3:9 (Worldwide English (New Testament))


9God will do what he promised. He is not slow though, as some people think he is. But he is waiting a long time for you. He does not want anyone to die, but he wants all people to stop their wrong ways.

2 Peter 3:9 (New International Version - UK)

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (Today's New International Version)

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The hilarious part is the greek word here - boulomai - is translated in the KJV as be willing only one time. Shockingly, just in this verse.

The translators, taking liberties as translators are apt to do, decided that be willing would be better here, yet ignored putting be willing in place of boulomai in the rest of the text.

Shock and awe.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 04:22 AM
Strong's number 5397 says that it comes from the word for "puff" or "blow".

I find that the wording of the KJV and NKJV in this passage is a little choppy and doesn't give a natural flow of meaning from the preceding verses.

The wording in the NIV, ESV and NASB are pretty similar so I'll quote the ESV (it happens to be my favorite):

Starting in verse 6, continuing to verse 9 (for the sake of context):
“I am young in years,
and you are aged;
therefore I was timid and afraid
to declare my opinion to you.
7 I said, ‘Let days speak,
and many years teach wisdom.’
8 But it is the spirit in man,
the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.
9 It is not the old [1] who are wise,
nor the aged who understand what is right."

His point is that it is not age that makes a person wise. He thought that at first, so he let the other three speak. But he realized that it is the spirit in man, the very breath of God, that gives wisdom and understanding.

The KJV's rendition is thus:
I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.
7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.

The KJV's wording doesn't seem to follow a consistent thought. It seems like he's making a random point about the fact that there is a spirit in man. Then another point about how God inspires wisdom. But there's nothing connecting those two points to make them one thought.

Thus, IMHO, the KJV and NKJV are inferior to other translations in this particular passage.Thanks but I wasn't engaging in a version debate. My point or question was....the KJB has inspiration in Job 32:8 which means breath. Does the OP consistently apply his reasoning to this verse in the Hebrew as he does to the other in Greek?

TrustingFollower
Jan 20th 2009, 04:32 AM
Everyone take note here. This is a heated topic so let's all keep our heads about ourselves. Leave to snide comments out of your posts. We are all brothers and sisters in this forum so treat each other as such. Any further snide comments toward other members will resutl in the thread being closed and infractions issued.

Thank you for your cooperation,
TrustingFollower

Psalms Fan
Jan 20th 2009, 04:33 AM
Thanks but I wasn't engaging in a version debate. My point or question was....the KJB has inspiration in Job 32:8 which means breath. Does the OP consistently apply his reasoning to this verse in the Hebrew as he does to the other in Greek?

My bad. I must apologize...this topic is one that I ought to avoid, as it is one of my "buttons", having been a member of the OP's club in times past. I allowed myself to be blinded so as to miss your true intentions.

With that said, I'm done with this thread. I've said my peace, and I think that I've gotten my point across sufficiently.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 04:38 AM
I know the OP from another forum. No need to apologize!

Jemand
Jan 20th 2009, 06:10 AM
Here is a link to a directory of hundreds of online studies of very many different English Bible Versions going all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon Caedmon Manuscript. Links to where the text of many of these versions can be read online are also provided. This directory was updated in August, 2008:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html)

brandplucked
Jan 20th 2009, 10:42 AM
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

What is inspiration here?

Hi Sirus. It looks like God "breathes life" into a dead and darkened understanding. How do you understand it?

Thanks,

Will K

brandplucked
Jan 20th 2009, 11:06 AM
All the Bibles, eh? Let's just look at one verse for now...2 Peter 3:9. After thins, if you wish to look at the others, we can do so, but for brevity's sake, we'll just look at this one for now.

The KJV says the following:

2 Peter 3:9 (King James Version)


9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Yet every other version listed below states that it is not His will, but his want and desire.

2 Peter 3:9 (New American Standard Bible)


9(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30532A))The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30532B))is patient toward you, (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30532C))not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (New International Version)

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (The Message)


The Day the Sky Will Collapse

8-9Don't overlook the obvious here, friends. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day. God isn't late with his promise as some measure lateness. He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn't want anyone lost. He's giving everyone space and time to change.

2 Peter 3:9 (Amplified Bible)

9The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises, according to some people's conception of slowness, but He is long-suffering (extraordinarily patient) toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (New Living Translation)

9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.

2 Peter 3:9 (English Standard Version)

9(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515A)) The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise(B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515B)) as some count slowness, but(C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515C)) is patient toward you,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#fen-ESV-30515a)](D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515D)) not wishing that any should perish, but(E (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=47;#cen-ESV-30515E)) that all should reach repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (Contemporary English Version)

9The Lord isn't slow about keeping his promises, as some people think he is. In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.

2 Peter 3:9 (New Century Version)

9 The Lord is not slow in doing what he promised—the way some people understand slowness. But God is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to be lost, but he wants all people to change their hearts and lives.

2 Peter 3:9 (American Standard Version)


9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

9 The Lord does not delay His promise, (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705A)) as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705B)) to perish, (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705C)) but all to come to repentance. (D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:9;&version=77;#cen-HCSB-30705D))

2 Peter 3:9 (New International Reader's Version)

9 The Lord is not slow to keep his promise. He is not slow in the way some people understand it. He is patient with you. He doesn't want anyone to be destroyed. Instead, he wants all people to turn away from their sins.

2 Peter 3:9 (Worldwide English (New Testament))


9God will do what he promised. He is not slow though, as some people think he is. But he is waiting a long time for you. He does not want anyone to die, but he wants all people to stop their wrong ways.

2 Peter 3:9 (New International Version - UK)

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (Today's New International Version)

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The hilarious part is the greek word here - boulomai - is translated in the KJV as be willing only one time. Shockingly, just in this verse.

The translators, taking liberties as translators are apt to do, decided that be willing would be better here, yet ignored putting be willing in place of boulomai in the rest of the text.

Shock and awe.

Hi shock. You should get a few facts straight here. The word boulomai is correctly translated as "willing" in 2 Peter 3:9, and it is NOT at all the only time. See Matthew 11:27 "to whomsoever the Son WILL reveal him", James 1:18 "Of his own WILL begat he us with the word of truth", and many others. See Mark 15:15, Luke 10:22; 22:42; Acts 27:43; 1 Cor. 12:11 "distributing to every man severally as he WILL"; Hebrews 6:17 "God willing more abundantly to shew..."; and Jude 5 for just a few examples.

Secondly, there are other bible versions that translate it as "willing", Coverdale, Wycliffe, Webster, John Wesley, Darby, Douay, and the NKJV.

Thirdly, many of your modern versions follow the wrong text. The Majority text and the KJB tell us that God is longsuffering to US ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. The letter was written to God's elect, and repentance is a gift from God. See Acts 5:31; 11:18 and 2 Tim. 2:25.

All of God's elect will come to repentance and will not perish.

The KJB is right, as always.

Will K

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 11:26 AM
Hi shock. You should get a few facts straight here. The word boulomai is correctly translated as "willing" in 2 Peter 3:9, and it is NOT at all the only time. See Matthew 11:27 "to whomsoever the Son WILL reveal him", James 1:18 "Of his own WILL begat he us with the word of truth", and many others. See Mark 15:15, Luke 10:22; 22:42; Acts 27:43; 1 Cor. 12:11 "distributing to every man severally as he WILL"; Hebrews 6:17 "God willing more abundantly to shew..."; and Jude 5 for just a few examples.



Boulomai is translated as "be willing" only one time in the KJV. Every other time, it is translated as will, would, be minded, intend, etc...

However, in every case, "desire" would be the more fitting translation.


Secondly, there are other bible versions that translate it as "willing", Coverdale, Wycliffe, Webster, John Wesley, Darby, Douay, and the NKJV.

I will agree there are translations just as wrong as the KJV.


Thirdly, many of your modern versions follow the wrong text. The Majority text and the KJB tell us that God is longsuffering to US ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. The letter was written to God's elect, and repentance is a gift from God. See Acts 5:31; 11:18 and 2 Tim. 2:25.

Ah, the wrong text. The Greek text used by the KJV was 15th centruy if I remember correctly. :rolleyes:


All of God's elect will come to repentance and will not perish.

Amen!


The KJB is right, as always.

Um, the opposite of amen.....what would that be?

RabbiKnife
Jan 20th 2009, 02:51 PM
Will, it is easy to pick up a translation of the inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God.

1. Go to any bookstore or Walmart.
2. Go to the "Bible" section.
3. Pick up anything on the shelf with the words "Holy Bible" on the cover.
4. There you go.

Emanate
Jan 20th 2009, 03:25 PM
By the way, your "KJV translation errors" are all in your own mind. Take any verse or any word in the greatest Book ever published (the King James Holy Bible), and we will see that it is merely your own personal opinion in contrast to what others of far superior learning have agreed on.


Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James Ἰάκωβος and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

James Ἰάκωβος 1:1 James Ἰάκωβος, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Ἰάκωβος - Iokobus - Jacob - In the NT the name of Jacob (every time it was used) was changed to James for the King James Version which every modern translation has honored.

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter πάσχα to bring him forth to the people.

πάσχα -Pascha - Passover - Changed by the KJV translators to reflect Christian tradition in contradiction to the original language.

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD יהוה God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

יהוה - YHWH - The name is omitted over 6,500 times and replaced with Lord by the KJV translators.


I suppose it is my personal opinion that the KJV translators should have translated the text instead of changing words and meanings.

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:05 AM
This, of course, is irrelevant. The Old Testament Texts primarily used by the translators of the King James Version were the Complutensian Polyglot (1517) and the Antwerp Polyglot (1572). Today we have Masoretic manuscripts dating from the 10th century. For portions of the Old Testament we now have manuscripts from the second century B.C. Approximately 800 Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament have now been studied. The King James Translators had only one text for the Septuagint, we now have many. They had only a corrupted text of the Latin, we now have Codex Amiatinus (A.D. 541) representing Jerome's final edition. Thus the textual foundation of the King James Old Testament is very poor.

The New Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estienne’s text of 1550. It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633. Only one of the five primary uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Bezae, was yet available and apparently it was not used. Of the 5,359 early Greek manuscripts we now have of the New Testament, the King James Version translators had less than 25 available to them and they were of comparatively late origin. Indeed, their primary text was so poor by today's standards that it is commonly called a "corrupt" text by today's scholars. It contains words and phrases that are not found in any known Greek manuscript. For example, the phrase translated, "him that livith for ever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) and the words translated, "and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" (Acts 9:6).

It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include 16 whole verses: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. Also included are the following words and phrases:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (Matt. 6:13)
"I trow not" (Luke 17:9)
"not" (Rom. 4:19: Col. 2:18)
"who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1)
"thou shalt not bear false witness" (Rom. 13:9)
"if" (2 Cor. 5:14)
"of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:14)
"through his blood" (Colossians 1:14)
"and were persuaded of them" (Heb. 11:13)
"him" (1 John 4:19)
Many other examples could be cited here.

In addition, the text of the King James Version omitted a number of words and phrases that are included in the best manuscripts:

"nor the son" (Matt. 24:36)
"and came to him" (John 19:3)
"by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 4:25)
"of Jesus" (Acts 16:7)
"God" (Rom. 8:28)
"just as you actually do walk" (1 Thes. 4:1)
"unto (or "in respect to") salvation" (1 Pet. 2:2)
"according to the will of God" (1 Pet. 5:2)
"and such we are" (1 John 3:1)

Hi J. This is a joke, right? IF you have better Hebrew mss., then why do your NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, Holman etc. all so often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places?

Here are just a few examples, and many more found here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV)

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:12 AM
The New Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estienne’s text of 1550. It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633. Only one of the five primary uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Bezae, was yet available and apparently it was not used. Of the 5,359 early Greek manuscripts we now have of the New Testament, the King James Version translators had less than 25 available to them and they were of comparatively late origin. Indeed, their primary text was so poor by today's standards that it is commonly called a "corrupt" text by today's scholars. It contains words and phrases that are not found in any known Greek manuscript. For example, the phrase translated, "him that livith for ever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) and the words translated, "and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" (Acts 9:6).

It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include 16 whole verses: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. Also included are the following words and phrases:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (Matt. 6:13)
"I trow not" (Luke 17:9)
"not" (Rom. 4:19: Col. 2:18)
"who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1)
"thou shalt not bear false witness" (Rom. 13:9)
"if" (2 Cor. 5:14)
"of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:14)
"through his blood" (Colossians 1:14)
"and were persuaded of them" (Heb. 11:13)
"him" (1 John 4:19)
Many other examples could be cited here.

J, this is silly. Most of the whole verses you claim are not in your so called "oldest and best" yada, yadas, ARE found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts out there. The discoveries since 1611 have for the most part only served to confirm that the KJB readings are correct.

I will take just one of your examples for now.


It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include the following words and phrases:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (Matt. 6:13)

Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?

Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.

The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.

Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.

A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "more than five hundred changes" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition. The same committee of five editors prepared both!!!

W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over five hundred places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are just guessing." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.

In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Hort's magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

In this study we will be looking at some of the places where the readings found in most modern versions are based on only one, two or a small handful of manuscripts as opposed to the overwhelming majority of all other Greek copies. You will also find many examples of where the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical Greek texts continue to change from one edition to the next. The Modern Multiple-Choice, X Files (the truth is out there somewhere) Bible of the Month Club's contradictory versions have no settled and final text. The main versions referred to in this study are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV. Of these 5 versions, the NASB, NIV and ESV are primarily based on the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian Greek text, while the KJB and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text of the Greek speaking churches.

Gospel of Matthew

Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."

One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k,f, g, and q), which predates anything we have in Greek. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Pe****ta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions. In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading.

The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.

However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them in brackets, indicating doubt as to their inspiration.

Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.

The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."

The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.

Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence.

The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts" include the verse. SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"? As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand.

The ancient Syriac Pe****ta reads: " And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.?

These words are also found in the following English Bible versions: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.

The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: the Albanian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, Luther's German, Modern Greek, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish Reina Valera, Swahili, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese Bibles.

But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the New Living Translation.

Some Bible critics I have run into try to tell us that the Doxology found in Matthew 6:13 should be omitted because it is not found in a similar prayer recorded in Luke 11:1-4. These critics fail to notice the obvious. The context of Luke chapter 11is very different from the context of Matthew chapter 6. In Matthew the Lord is giving the sermon on the mount to a great multitude. In Luke it is the disciples who come to our Lord at a different time and request that He teach them how to pray.

There are also some very serious textual changes found in the prayer pattern found in Luke 11:2-4. In the King James Holy Bible we read: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."

All the capital lettered words have been omitted in such versions as the NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV. Every one of these omitted words are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts. The NIV, NASB and ESV omit them primarily on the basis of 4 manuscripts, yet among these four "oldest and best", out of the 45 Greek words found within just three verses, no two of them agree with each other in 32 out of the 45 words found here! And the new version editors call this a "science"!

The Lord Jesus Christ either said all these words and they are inspired Scripture, or they are not. Not all bible versions say or teach the same things.

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:21 AM
Boulomai is translated as "be willing" only one time in the KJV. Every other time, it is translated as will, would, be minded, intend, etc...

However, in every case, "desire" would be the more fitting translation.

Hi Yuker. You are wrong on both points. Will you admit your error in wrongly affirming in no uncertain terms that boulomai is translated as "willing" ONLY in 2 Peter 3:9? Doubtful. But in case you opt for a little honesty, boulomai is translated as "willing" not only in 2 Peter 3:9 but also in Mark 15:15, Acts 27:43 and in Hebrews 6:17 "God, willing more abundantly..."

Secondly, since God is in sovereign control of saving His elect people, then Willing is the far better translation than just "desiring". What God "wills" He accomplishes. What He might "desire" all depends of the fickle and changeable "will" of the flesh of man.

"Of HIS OWN WILL begat He us with the word of truth" - James 1:17

By the way, you still end up just like J and the Rabbi. You have no complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. To refer to "any ol' version" out there in Bible Babble land as being the inerrant Bible is to stick your head in the sand, ignore the obvious and undeniable facts and commit intellectual suicide.

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:26 AM
Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James Ἰάκωβος and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

James Ἰάκωβος 1:1 James Ἰάκωβος, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Ἰάκωβος - Iokobus - Jacob - In the NT the name of Jacob (every time it was used) was changed to James for the King James Version which every modern translation has honored.



This is perhaps one of the silliest points I have ever heard by a bible agnostic. It was translated as "James" by Wycliffe in 1395, Tyndale in 1525, Coverdale in 1535, Bishops' bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible in 1587. All done BEFORE king James came on the scene. Pretty clever, huh?
And then all your modern versions translate it as James too.

Do you see the extent the "no bible is inspired and inerrant" crowd will go to to try to overthrow the authority of The Book? We do live in interesting times.

Will Kinney

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 01:27 AM
Hi Sirus. It looks like God "breathes life" into a dead and darkened understanding. How do you understand it?

Thanks,

Will KCorrect. Just like He does man to give scripture for understanding.

Now the word is "theopneustos".
So, what is theo? and what is pneō?

pneō
blew=Mat 7:25, Mat 7:27, Joh 6:18
blow=Luk 12:55, Rev 7:1
bloweth=Joh 3:8
wind=Act 27:40

God what?

Jemand
Jan 21st 2009, 04:28 AM
J, this is silly. Most of the whole verses you claim are not in your so called "oldest and best" yada, yadas, ARE found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts out there. The discoveries since 1611 have for the most part only served to confirm that the KJB readings are correct.


I will take just one of your examples for now.

Quote:
It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include the following words and phrases:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (Matt. 6:13)



Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?

Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.

Will Kinney

No, none of the popular modern versions like the NASB, NIV, or the ESV are based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text. They are based upon much more recent and more accurate eclectic texts.


Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.

Back to the example that you yourself picked, Bruce Metzger was NOT referring to passages like the one in Matt. 6:33 which are not in doubt; he was referring to other passages for which the manuscript evidence in not conclusive.

Yukerboy
Jan 21st 2009, 07:11 AM
Hi Yuker. You are wrong on both points. Will you admit your error in wrongly affirming in no uncertain terms that boulomai is translated as "willing" ONLY in 2 Peter 3:9? Doubtful. But in case you opt for a little honesty, boulomai is translated as "willing" not only in 2 Peter 3:9 but also in Mark 15:15, Acts 27:43 and in Hebrews 6:17 "God, willing more abundantly..."

Secondly, since God is in sovereign control of saving His elect people, then Willing is the far better translation than just "desiring". What God "wills" He accomplishes. What He might "desire" all depends of the fickle and changeable "will" of the flesh of man.

"Of HIS OWN WILL begat He us with the word of truth" - James 1:17

By the way, you still end up just like J and the Rabbi. You have no complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. To refer to "any ol' version" out there in Bible Babble land as being the inerrant Bible is to stick your head in the sand, ignore the obvious and undeniable facts and commit intellectual suicide.

Will Kinney


If you are correct and I am wrong, then 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God wills all to repentance.

That, my friend, is universalism. All are saved for all repent and all are elect.

No, not all will come to repentance, for while God desires all to repent, not all are granted repentance by God. Thus, the difference between God's desires and God's will.

I have nothing against the KJV per se. I believe that I can use the KJV to fit my convoluted doctrine as much as any version. :B

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:46 PM
No, none of the popular modern versions like the NASB, NIV, or the ESV are based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text. They are based upon much more recent and more accurate eclectic texts.

Hi Jemand. ALL your new versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV are still based essentially on the Westcott-Hort texts. Just compare the same omissions and additions and anyone can see that your "no bible is inspired and inerrant" side is still basing your omissions on the WH text. The simple fact is this: You do not believe in nor do you have any bible in any language that you believe to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. You feel free to change the text at any point at any time, and have no sure words of God. Not one of your ever-changing modern versions even agrees with any of the others.

The seminaries are teaching that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible and more and more Christians are buying into this lie. Your own ESV says in the Preface - "We know that no Bible translation is perfect or final."

The NIV says in its intro - "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals."

They got two lies here and one truth. If God cannot use imperfect man to give us His words, then there never would have been the originals in the first place. Duh. The one they got right is admitting that their NIV undoubtedly falls short.


Back to the example that you yourself picked, Bruce Metzger was NOT referring to passages like the one in Matt. 6:33 which are not in doubt; he was referring to other passages for which the manuscript evidence in not conclusive.[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now you tell us Matthew 6:33 is not in doubt, yet you previously listed it as not found in your alleged "best manuscripts". See how you bible agnostics dodge and weave.

By the way, exactly what are these "best manuscripts" you keep telling us about? Have they ended up giving you a perfect and inerrant Bible? Not a chance, huh.

Happy trails,
Will K

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:47 PM
Correct. Just like He does man to give scripture for understanding.

Now the word is "theopneustos".
So, what is theo? and what is pneō?

pneō
blew=Mat 7:25, Mat 7:27, Joh 6:18
blow=Luk 12:55, Rev 7:1
bloweth=Joh 3:8
wind=Act 27:40

God what?

Are you sure you even read my original post? I explained all that already.

Will K

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 12:55 PM
If you are correct and I am wrong, then 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God wills all to repentance.

That, my friend, is universalism. All are saved for all repent and all are elect.

No, not all will come to repentance, for while God desires all to repent, not all are granted repentance by God. Thus, the difference between God's desires and God's will.

I have nothing against the KJV per se. I believe that I can use the KJV to fit my convoluted doctrine as much as any version. :B


Hi Yuker. You missed it again. I am by no means a universalist and the passage is not teaching that at all. Both 1st and 2nd Peter were written to God's elect people. Peter says "the Lord...is longsuffering to US-ward, not willing that any should perish (any of whom? - Any of US, the elect), but that all should come to repentance." (All of whom? - All of US, all of the elect).

No man can come to Christ unless it has been given unto him to come. See John 6:65. Both faith and repentance are gifts from God to His people. "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth" - James 1:18.

By the way, I notice you did not admit you were wrong about how the KJB correctly translates boulomai as "willing".

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jan 21st 2009, 01:10 PM
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD יהוה God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

יהוה - YHWH - The name is omitted over 6,500 times and replaced with Lord by the KJV translators.


I suppose it is my personal opinion that the KJV translators should have translated the text instead of changing words and meanings.

Hi E. This is another silly argument put forth by a man who does not believe that any Bible in any language (including your "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek) is the pure and inerrant words of God.

Not only does the King James Bible translate (it IS a translation) the word as LORD but so do many Jewish translations themselves, including the Jewish Publication Society 1917 O.T., the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the more recent Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible. Then too we have the same thing in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RV, RSV, NRSV and ESV.

Apparently there are a whole bunch of bible scholars who differ from your humble opinion. I'm not at all surprised. Not one of you bible agnostics agree with anybody else all the way through. Each of you has placed his own mind and opinion as his final authority, and not one of you has nor believes in such a thing as a providentially given inerrant Bible in any language.

By the way, your other "example" of alleged error in Acts 12:4 and the Easter vs. Passover thingy is also wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

By His sovereign grace, believing The Book.

Will K

Emanate
Jan 21st 2009, 02:45 PM
Hi E. This is another silly argument put forth by a man who does not believe that any Bible in any language (including your "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek) is the pure and inerrant words of God.

Not only does the King James Bible translate (it IS a translation) the word as LORD but so do many Jewish translations themselves, including the Jewish Publication Society 1917 O.T., the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the more recent Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible. Then too we have the same thing in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RV, RSV, NRSV and ESV.

Apparently there are a whole bunch of bible scholars who differ from your humble opinion. I'm not at all surprised. Not one of you bible agnostics agree with anybody else all the way through. Each of you has placed his own mind and opinion as his final authority, and not one of you has nor believes in such a thing as a providentially given inerrant Bible in any language.

By the way, your other "example" of alleged error in Acts 12:4 and the Easter vs. Passover thingy is also wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

By His sovereign grace, believing The Book.

Will K


I am confused, is it the KJV or the JPS you are claiming as inspired? You have failed to address the position I stated. Just because the Wycliffe, Jewish Publication Society or Artscroll Publish deletes the name of the Creator (as Specified by Jewish Law i.e. Talmud) does that make it correct?
I will also add the link you provided was obviously written by someone defending the KJV and not loooking at honest evidence.
Fact - Easter was not a christian celebration until 325 AD.

Interesting that you cannot address the original languages when defending the KJV, however, you turn to previous english translations. I see you have no liking for the original writings, so is it the KJV or the Bishops Bible or the Talmud that is your "inspired word"?

RabbiKnife
Jan 21st 2009, 04:43 PM
BrandPlucked, which version of the KJV do you believe to be perfectly preserved.

You continue to slander a good many brothers and sisters on this site by calling us "Bible agnostics". Such communication is not becoming a brother in the Lord.

Everyone on here, without exception that I have seen, believes that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, perfect Word of God.

Please stop saying we don't.

Yukerboy
Jan 21st 2009, 05:34 PM
Hi Yuker. You missed it again. I am by no means a universalist and the passage is not teaching that at all. Both 1st and 2nd Peter were written to God's elect people. Peter says "the Lord...is longsuffering to US-ward, not willing that any should perish (any of whom? - Any of US, the elect), but that all should come to repentance." (All of whom? - All of US, all of the elect).

No man can come to Christ unless it has been given unto him to come. See John 6:65. Both faith and repentance are gifts from God to His people. "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth" - James 1:18.

By the way, I notice you did not admit you were wrong about how the KJB correctly translates boulomai as "willing".

Will Kinney

You are saying that the correct translation is "be willing" and God wills that all of us (the elect) come to repentance.

I see what you are saying now and I would not disagree with that.

As for the KJV translating boulomai, I still stand by the fact that nowhere else in the KJV is boulomai translated as "be willing".

Kevin926
Jan 21st 2009, 11:39 PM
Hi, Everyone! I am new to this site and began perusing the various topics when I stumbled upon this one. I found the exchange very interesting so far.

What began as a question about whether "inspired" or "God-breathed" is more accurate for a certain piece of scripture turned into a debate about the validity of various translations which turned into accusations that many people here do not believe in an inerrant Bible.

Will, forgive any misunderstandings on my part about your intentions, but it seems to me at this point that you are trying to prove yourself right more than engage in loving, fair-minded debate about what God is really saying in 2 Tim. 3:16. Calling the statements of other "baloney" and accusing them of being "agnostic" does not serve your initial purpose well. Why can't we discuss these ideas and differences as loving Brothers and Sisters in Christ?

I'm certainly no Bible scholar and I've come to learn. Let's enjoy the fellowship of discussing the Word of God together. God Bless!

Walstib
Jan 22nd 2009, 12:26 AM
Hi, Everyone! I am new to this site and began perusing the various topics when I stumbled upon this one. I found the exchange very interesting so far.....

.....I'm certainly no Bible scholar and I've come to learn. Let's enjoy the fellowship of discussing the Word of God together. God Bless!

Hi Kevin926,

Welcome! There are no doubt lots of interesting topics around here and most people have this same attitude you have displayed. It is greatly encouraged ;) There is lots of what you are looking for around here.

Have fun
Joe

TEITZY
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:03 AM
2 Timothy 3:16 "given by inspiration of God" or "God-breathed"?



IMO, "God breathed" is a better translation as it leaves the reader in no doubt about the origin of Scripture. Whereas "given by inspiration of God" is quite ambiguous (in the English) and could be misconstrued by some as saying the Bible writers themselves were 'inspired by God' which is an incorrect view of Biblical inspiration. So what we end up with is a view that the Bible is somehow a hybrid of human and Divine inspiration (a very common view amongst Christians today).

The Bible writers were not inspired (ie. they were not the origin of inspiration), but the words they wrote were. The source of inspiration was the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21) and the writers were simply the vessels through which that inspiration was conveyed.

So while the KJV is not a bad translation, I think "God breathed" is a stronger and clearer statement of Divine inspiration.

Cheers
Leigh

Sirus
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:38 AM
Are you sure you even read my original post? I explained all that already.

Will KI re-read it again and I don't see anything about the two making one. Care you quote yourself?

BadDog
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:08 AM
"All scripture IS inspired by God."

Following is a link to an article on this by Dr. Daniel Wallace - the head of the NT Greek department at DTS:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1480

The article gets quite technical. Here's the summary:

Conclusion

In this paper I have sought to demonstrate that the structural phenomenon of 2 Tim 3:16 does not create a grammatical impasse. That is to say, we do not need to rely solely on intuition nor quickly move on to contextual factors to understand the relation of qeovpneusto" ("God-breathed"-"inspired")) to grafhv ("scripture"). There is a wealth of information provided by syntactical parallels which bring into sharp relief what appears to be the truly idiomatic nature of the construction.

A pioneer in giving priority to the syntax in 2 Tim 3:16 was J. W. Roberts. Yet, as significant as his study was, it involved certain weaknesses in method which resulted in a rather distorted view of the nuance of qeovpneusto".

By restricting our study to equative clauses—of which there was a fairly ample supply—we believe that we have taken a more valid approach. The results, therefore, are more sure-footed. And, it bears repeating, the semantic force of our construction was so one-sided that we could suggest a principle based on it: In pa'"-noun-adjective constructions in equative clauses, the pa'", being by nature as definite as the article, implies the article, thus making the adjective(s) following the noun outside the implied article-noun group and, therefore, predicate.36

As applied to 2 Tim 3:16, this principle indicates that a predicate qeovpneusto" is certainly a valid—and perhaps the only—option. Hence, we translate the passage, “All/every scripture is inspired and profitable. . .”37 In the least, our study suggests that the REB’s rendering “Every inspired scripture has its use” should probably be relegated (in our present state of knowledge) to the margin.

Take care,

BD

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:12 AM
From what I have seen, noone has pointed out the fact that when these words were written, there was no NT

*and most assuredly, no KJV

brandplucked
Jan 22nd 2009, 12:59 PM
I am confused, is it the KJV or the JPS you are claiming as inspired? You have failed to address the position I stated. Just because the Wycliffe, Jewish Publication Society or Artscroll Publish deletes the name of the Creator (as Specified by Jewish Law i.e. Talmud) does that make it correct?
I will also add the link you provided was obviously written by someone defending the KJV and not loooking at honest evidence.
Fact - Easter was not a christian celebration until 325 AD.

Interesting that you cannot address the original languages when defending the KJV, however, you turn to previous english translations. I see you have no liking for the original writings, so is it the KJV or the Bishops Bible or the Talmud that is your "inspired word"?

Hi E. Yes, I agree with you - you are confused. What you presented as alleged errors in the King James Bible only go to show that you yourself do not have nor believe in any Bible as being the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. What you have done is to place your own understanding and personal opinions above that of any authority.

Since you have no inerrant Bible and no inerrant text for the whole Bible, then what you do instead is pick bits and pieces of sections you think might be a small part of the bible and then translate them as you like according to your own very limited understanding - and yet many other translators disagree with you.

Any alleged error you bible agnostics bring up is nothing more than your own peculiar understanding. Many other bible translators will have disagreed with your "findings". You have become your own little authority and have no perfect Bible to give to anyone.

Will K

brandplucked
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:08 PM
BrandPlucked, which version of the KJV do you believe to be perfectly preserved.

You continue to slander a good many brothers and sisters on this site by calling us "Bible agnostics". Such communication is not becoming a brother in the Lord.

Everyone on here, without exception that I have seen, believes that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, perfect Word of God.

Please stop saying we don't.

Hi Rabbi. I asked you where we can get a copy of this alleged Bible you SAY you believe in, and you came back with the really inane idea that I can go to the store and pick up any number of conflicting, contradictory versions that differ from each other by literally thousands of textual words either added or omitted, hundreds of verses with changed meanings, scores of instances when different texts than the Hebrew O.T. are used, and that any of these is the inspired and inerrant Bible.

That's sort of like saying that God's words are found in Webster's Unabridged dictionary - There in there somewhere, all mixed up with thousands that are not God's words, and all out of order, but Hey, there in there.

To try to get us to believe that all those radically different "bibles" are equally and at the same time the inspired and inerrant words of the living God is the height of absurdity. Try taking those silly arguments before a court of law and see how far you get before the judge tosses you out for contempt.

Now, if you really have an inerrant Bible and are in fact a Bible believer rather than a bible agnostic who just flat out doesn't know what or where to find one, then tell us what it is so we can compare it to whatever we are now reading to see the differences and similarities.

Will you do that for us? Not a chance.

Will Kinney

Trailblazer
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:10 PM
I suppose it is my personal opinion that the KJV translators should have translated the text instead of changing words and meanings.

I suppose that it is MHO that if you think you could have corrected the Scholars or if you actually believe you're MORE intelligent than they were...think again.

You couldn't even hold a candle in the same room as the Scholars of the AV...and that goes for ALL of us.

I love how these KJV haters try to pick out mistakes in the KJV but when they look at Origen and Clement or Wescott and Hort...they turn a Blind eye.

LOL, Too Funny!

:spin:

brandplucked
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:14 PM
You are saying that the correct translation is "be willing" and God wills that all of us (the elect) come to repentance.

I see what you are saying now and I would not disagree with that.

As for the KJV translating boulomai, I still stand by the fact that nowhere else in the KJV is boulomai translated as "be willing".

Hi Yuker. Thank you for agreeing that the way I understand the KJB in 2 Peter 3:9 is possible. I believe it is not only possible but right, but I do appreciate your willingness to see the possibility.

As for the other point, not even the KJB translates boulomai as ""be willing". 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't say that either. You apparently have misread the text.

All the other verses I previously mentioned translate the exact same word in the same form as "willing", just like I said.

Thanks,

Will K

brandplucked
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:00 PM
I re-read it again and I don't see anything about the two making one. Care you quote yourself?

Hi Sirus.I thought you originally asked about the word pveo or breathe or inspired.

In English we have the words inspire and expire. God INspired His words into the minds and hearts of men either before or as they were writing Scripture.

Here are the previous quotes.

What picture comes to mind when a version like the NIV or ESV says that all Scripture is "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God"? The words "breathed out" seem to exclude the human instrument and make it sound as though the words came floating down through the air and somehow landed on pieces of parchment or paper. Is this what the Bible says about it's own inspiration? I think not.

What I believe the Scriptures teach is that God, either directly or through His Son or His Spirit, actually INspired BOTH the writers AND the Scriptures.

The word "inspire" does literally mean to breathe into, and this seems to be the method God has always used. In the very beginning when God formed man from the dust of the earth, we see intimations of this same process of INspiration taking place when God communicates His life to man. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED INTO his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

Will K

brandplucked
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:03 PM
"All scripture IS inspired by God."

Following is a link to an article on this by Dr. Daniel Wallace - the head of the NT Greek department at DTS:


Take care,

BD

Hi BD. Daniel Wallace is another man who does not have nor believe in the existence of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. He will change his texts and translations of those texts anytime he takes a flying fancy to do so.

But again, birds of a feather do flock together, don't they.

Happy hunting for that inerrant bible,

Will K

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:09 PM
Hi E. Yes, I agree with you - you are confused. What you presented as alleged errors in the King James Bible only go to show that you yourself do not have nor believe in any Bible as being the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. What you have done is to place your own understanding and personal opinions above that of any authority.

Since you have no inerrant Bible and no inerrant text for the whole Bible, then what you do instead is pick bits and pieces of sections you think might be a small part of the bible and then translate them as you like according to your own very limited understanding - and yet many other translators disagree with you.

Any alleged error you bible agnostics bring up is nothing more than your own peculiar understanding. Many other bible translators will have disagreed with your "findings". You have become your own little authority and have no perfect Bible to give to anyone.

Will K

That is certainly easier than addressing the issue.

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:10 PM
I suppose that it is MHO that if you think you could have corrected the Scholars or if you actually believe you're MORE intelligent than they were...think again.

You couldn't even hold a candle in the same room as the Scholars of the AV...and that goes for ALL of us.

I love how these KJV haters try to pick out mistakes in the KJV but when they look at Origen and Clement or Wescott and Hort...they turn a Blind eye.

LOL, Too Funny!

:spin:

When all else fails, make up an argument. beautiful. I will call a spade a spade, but the issue here is the KJV, not the niv.

brandplucked
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin926
Hi, Everyone! I am new to this site and began perusing the various topics when I stumbled upon this one. I found the exchange very interesting so far.....

.....I'm certainly no Bible scholar and I've come to learn. Let's enjoy the fellowship of discussing the Word of God together. God Bless!
Hi Kevin926,




Hi Kevin926,

Welcome! There are no doubt lots of interesting topics around here and most people have this same attitude you have displayed. It is greatly encouraged ;) There is lots of what you are looking for around here.

Have fun
Joe

Hi Kevin. Glad you are finding the discussion to be of interest. It does get a bit heated at times, but some people take great offense at being pushed into a corner where they have to take an honest look at what it is they believe about the inspiration and preservation of the pure and inerrant words of God.

It is a simple fact that most Christians will give a knew jerk reaction when asked about what they believe concerning "The Bible". Oh Yeah, it's the inspired and inerrant word of God. However, when actually faced with the facts and many clear examples of the Bible Babble out there now and how the seminaries and most 'pastors' are teaching that there is no such thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language, then they do the pratfall position that "only" the originals WERE inspired and thus we no longer have an inerrant Bible.

Most Christians today do not REALLY believe in the existence of The Bible as being the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, in any language. They don't know where it might be or what it might be. They might have some vague hints or probabilities of where parts and portions of it could be, but they are not sure. And when we call this attitude of doubt and unbelief what it is - bible agnosticism - they get a tad offended for being labeled as what they in fact really are.

I am a Bible believer. I believe God has sovereignly and providentially given us His inspired, preserved and perfect words in a single Book. It is the greatest Book ever published and is known all over the world. It is the ONLY one that is seriously defended and believed to be the true and inerrant Bible by thousands.

Nobody seriously defends any modern version as being the inerrant words of God.

May God be pleased to help you see where His pure words are found today and have been for almost 400 years now - the English language of the King James Holy Bible.

All of God's grace, believing the Book,

Will Kinney

RabbiKnife
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:19 PM
Hi Rabbi. I asked you where we can get a copy of this alleged Bible you SAY you believe in, and you came back with the really inane idea that I can go to the store and pick up any number of conflicting, contradictory versions that differ from each other by literally thousands of textual words either added or omitted, hundreds of verses with changed meanings, scores of instances when different texts than the Hebrew O.T. are used, and that any of these is the inspired and inerrant Bible.

That's sort of like saying that God's words are found in Webster's Unabridged dictionary - There in there somewhere, all mixed up with thousands that are not God's words, and all out of order, but Hey, there in there.

To try to get us to believe that all those radically different "bibles" are equally and at the same time the inspired and inerrant words of the living God is the height of absurdity. Try taking those silly arguments before a court of law and see how far you get before the judge tosses you out for contempt.

Now, if you really have an inerrant Bible and are in fact a Bible believer rather than a bible agnostic who just flat out doesn't know what or where to find one, then tell us what it is so we can compare it to whatever we are now reading to see the differences and similarities.

Will you do that for us? Not a chance.

Will Kinney

Dear BrandPlucked.

I am an attorney. I would gladly take my arguments before any judge in any court over yours.

You still haven't told me which version of the KJV you believe to be the perfect, inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God.

Further, you continue to use your perjorative term "Bible agnostic" for anyone that disagrees with your KJO stance. It is demeaning. It is an ad hominem attack that lessens your credibility.

I'll say it again. Everyone on here believes in the inspiration of the original autographs. The translations available today are incredibly reliable. However, we do not apparently agree that any translation is perfect.

Sirus
Jan 23rd 2009, 05:28 AM
Hi Sirus.I thought you originally asked about the word pveo or breathe or inspired.

In English we have the words inspire and expire. God INspired His words into the minds and hearts of men either before or as they were writing Scripture.

Here are the previous quotes.

What picture comes to mind when a version like the NIV or ESV says that all Scripture is "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God"? The words "breathed out" seem to exclude the human instrument and make it sound as though the words came floating down through the air and somehow landed on pieces of parchment or paper. Is this what the Bible says about it's own inspiration? I think not.

What I believe the Scriptures teach is that God, either directly or through His Son or His Spirit, actually INspired BOTH the writers AND the Scriptures.

The word "inspire" does literally mean to breathe into, and this seems to be the method God has always used. In the very beginning when God formed man from the dust of the earth, we see intimations of this same process of INspiration taking place when God communicates His life to man. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED INTO his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

Will KI said
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1952390&postcount=49
I didn't say anything about the english word inspire and speak of any pictures in mind. I simply addressed the Greek, which you have not done.

brandplucked
Jan 23rd 2009, 12:46 PM
Dear BrandPlucked.

I am an attorney. I would gladly take my arguments before any judge in any court over yours.

You still haven't told me which version of the KJV you believe to be the perfect, inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God.

Further, you continue to use your perjorative term "Bible agnostic" for anyone that disagrees with your KJO stance. It is demeaning. It is an ad hominem attack that lessens your credibility.

I'll say it again. Everyone on here believes in the inspiration of the original autographs. The translations available today are incredibly reliable. However, we do not apparently agree that any translation is perfect.


Hi Rabbi. I too believe in the inspiration of the originals because the Bible I DO have now tells me that God's true words ARE inspired now - not WERE inspired. You are well aware of the fact that there are no originals now, right? So all you have to give us NOW are a variety of textually conflicting and numerous very different translations that disagree with each other in literally thousands of places, but not one of them is (even by your own admission) the inerrant, inspired and complete words of God.

I posted this short list before, but you all ignored it. Try taking this short list before a court of law and argue that they are all "incredibly reliable" and are the inerrant words of God. If you can reasonably make a case that any sane judge would not toss right out of his court, then you really must be a very remarkable lawyer indeed.

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).


Will Kinney

RabbiKnife
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:04 PM
Will, the translation that you allege is the only extant "inspired" Word of God has itself gone through dozens of changes since its original translation. Even in the first two editions printed in 1611, verses in Ruth were contradicted.

I have asked before and I will ask again.

Which KJV, which has had more than 100,000 changes since the initial printing, is the "preserved Word of God."

Please demonstrate for me, from your Bible, where God says that the text you currently have is the right one.

You are aware, aren't you, that of ALL of the extant copies in the original languages, more than 90% of the text is in complete agreement, and the variations outside of that 90% are generally nothing more than obvious copying/spelling errors or obvious insertions by copyists?

brandplucked
Jan 24th 2009, 03:28 AM
Will, the translation that you allege is the only extant "inspired" Word of God has itself gone through dozens of changes since its original translation. Even in the first two editions printed in 1611, verses in Ruth were contradicted.

I have asked before and I will ask again.

Which KJV, which has had more than 100,000 changes since the initial printing, is the "preserved Word of God."

Hi Rabbi. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB have never changed. This is in contrast to the modern versions out there like the NASB, NIV, RSV and NKJV. (I'll be glad to give you proof of this if you wish)

Here are the facts about the supposed "revisions" of the King James Bible. It has never been revised. What you are really talking about are minor printing errors and I have addressed this issue in my article here.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html



Please demonstrate for me, from your Bible, where God says that the text you currently have is the right one.

I have also addressed this issue here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/KJBonly.html



You are aware, aren't you, that of ALL of the extant copies in the original languages, more than 90% of the text is in complete agreement, and the variations outside of that 90% are generally nothing more than obvious copying/spelling errors or obvious insertions by copyists?

So, according to your own argument, instead of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language, what we now have is a 90% probably pure bible. Very nice. :rolleyes:

You are also highly exaggerating (prevaricating) about the remaining 10% being no more than "obvious copying/spelling errors or obvious insertions by copyists"

If they are so obvious, then why hasn't your side come up with a perfect bible yet? If people are laboring under the delusion that all bibles are pretty much the same, here is a site that does a pretty good job of showing just the N.T. differences between translations like the NIV and the NKJV. These are both modern versions, yet they are quite different and the differences are NOT "obvious spelling errors".

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link:

http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx

Then on top of all this, we have literally hundreds of examples of where your hodge-podge, multiple choice "God only knows" versions will take the same simple text and change it to come up with numerous contradictory meanings. This is just one example of the hundreds I can give you.

You, my friend, do not have nor do you believe in the existence of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language on this earth. Those are the facts, whether you find it offensive or not.

Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will Kinney

RabbiKnife
Jan 26th 2009, 03:34 PM
I was raised KJO and my believing heart was lead away from such a position by the Holy Spirit. Especially after I learned even a modicum of Greek.

brandplucked
Jan 27th 2009, 01:56 AM
I was raised KJO and my believing heart was lead away from such a position by the Holy Spirit. Especially after I learned even a modicum of Greek.

Well, Rabbi, I'm very sorry to hear that you have now been led away from believing in the existence of a complete, inspired and inerrant Book called the Holy Bible. However I seriously doubt it was the Holy Spirit who was involved in creating your present unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

God Himself says there will be a falling away from the faith before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nobody is going to stop it.

Will K

Sirus
Jan 27th 2009, 04:55 AM
God Himself says there will be a falling away from the faith before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nobody is going to stop it.

Will KWas no one saved before the kjb? I am kjo in that I believe it is the Word as God intended for his purpose. He also intended natural flesh for His purpose. Is natural human flesh absolutely perfect or is in good? It is good, not perfect. I also believe the kjv is by far the most accurate translation from cover to cover. It is good.

The church (era) of Philadelphia kept his word and had a little strength and an open door from the Lord that no man could shut. Just as Jesus spoke in parables many things in the Bible (kjb) are written in a way to conceal the truth to those that do not dig holistically and search the original language. The truth is there. It's just not so obvious sometimes. 'Was' the earth without form and void from creation? Or had the earth 'become' void and desolate?

All you do is drive people away from the kjb with your dogma.

brandplucked
Jan 27th 2009, 01:38 PM
Was no one saved before the kjb? I am kjo in that I believe it is the Word as God intended for his purpose. He also intended natural flesh for His purpose. Is natural human flesh absolutely perfect or is in good? It is good, not perfect. I also believe the kjv is by far the most accurate translation from cover to cover. It is good.

The church (era) of Philadelphia kept his word and had a little strength and an open door from the Lord that no man could shut. Just as Jesus spoke in parables many things in the Bible (kjb) are written in a way to conceal the truth to those that do not dig holistically and search the original language. The truth is there. It's just not so obvious sometimes. 'Was' the earth without form and void from creation? Or had the earth 'become' void and desolate?

All you do is drive people away from the kjb with your dogma.

Hi Sirius. Of course there were people saved before the King James Bible came into existence. I have often said that people who read the new versions with all their weaknesses and wrong texts can also get saved. The gospel is still found in them. In fact, you don't need a complete Bible at all to get saved. So stop trying to make it the Bible believers argument that unless you are KJB only you cannot get saved. This is ridiculous.

However, what we see now with the use of all the conflicting modern versions is that fewer and fewer people believe in the inerrancy of The Bible and fewer and fewer people actually read these new versions. These are facts.

Here are some published statistics about the growing unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Just look at this forum. Do any of the whaterists (bible agnostics) here uphold or defend ANY Book as being the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God? Of course not. Nor do you.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html

And to answer your question- "The truth is there. It's just not so obvious sometimes. 'Was' the earth without form and void from creation? Or had the earth 'become' void and desolate?"

It was without form and void from the creation just as Genesis 1:2 reads in the true Bible - the King James Bible. It did not "become" void. But since you too do not believe in the absolute authority and inerrancy of the King James Bible, nor of any bible in any language, then you question, doubt, and are willing to change the reading of any Bible out there anytime you feel like it.

It is double minded, fence sitters like you who PRETEND to believe The Bible that give Bible believers and inerrantists a bad name. The only Christians out there in Babblelonia today who actually believe The Book are we King James Holy Bible believers, which belief you disparagingly refer to as "your dogma".


Will Kinney

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 27th 2009, 03:46 PM
This thread has run its course.