PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Why Believers Should Prove & Test All Modern Bibles



poorinspirit
Sep 4th 2012, 02:13 PM
Modern Bibles gets their copyright patent when they have changed enough words, with adding or dropping them as well. It has to be changed enough to warrant being considered a unique Bible from other Bibles to get its own copyright.

Now the main claim for the motivation in producing these modern Bibles is to make it easier to read. They pick on the King James Bible as if it is just cause for this motivation to have an easier to read Bible.

Looking at all of these modern Bibles, including the new one called "The Voice" that has removed the name of Christ with "the Anointed One", have we gotten that easier to read Bible yet? Apparently not. They are still at it. So the claim should be circumspect by now, but it hasn't.

So shouldn't the motivation for an easier to read Bible be now circumspect as serving money more than God?

There is no heralded easier to read Bible that can be declared by the vast majority of believers and people. Many have different favoured Bible versions: some look down on others and not just the KJV. Some respect the KJV, but still prefer other versions, and yet still, more newer version of the Bible is being worked on that may be published in the near future.

And yet all those that know better can testify that not all the Bibles are saying the same thing.

Some errant believers are holding to a verse or verses to support false teachings like denying the deity of Christ that those trying to correct them, even out of their preferred Bible version, are having trouble correcting them by. Some in error used the KJV even, until one points to a verse that ultimately proves the deity of Christ, but then they avoid that clear reproof by jumping to another Bible version or even BibleNET on the internet.

The snafu of all of these easier to read Bibles has become: "Did God really say that?"

I cannot help, but see this as the result of having all of these easier to read Bibles.

Amos 8:11 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: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

So then, we are left with a white elephant in the room that people are ignoring, because they believe they cannot determine which Bible is holding to His testimonies and the meat of His words.

Remember this thread "Reasons The Book(s) of Enoch wasn't/shouldn't be accepted as inspired Scripture." by David Taylor? Is it possible to test and prove which Bible version we should lean on by the standard that David used in explaining why certain books were left out of the accepted Bible that we have so as to ascertain just how well these "translation" were done in these modern versions as well as the KJV? I believe we can with the help of the Good Shepherd.

It's high time believers stop ignoring the white elephant in the room and turn to Jesus Christ for help, because we can see plainly that many are falling away from the faith in Jesus Christ in these latter days.

MarleVVLL
Sep 7th 2012, 05:58 PM
This is why possessing a general knowledge of Koine Greek is helpful in Bible interpretation. The translations are generally backed by linguistically strong scholars who have a thorough understanding of the ways the ancients spoke and wrote. If one wants to have their own informed opinion, learn the languages instead of pointing to a preferred translation. The latter is fine - the NT authors liked the Septuagint and based doctrine from it (when the MT text has major differences) since it was the 'lingua franca' of the Bible of their day.

BroRog
Sep 7th 2012, 06:12 PM
So shouldn't the motivation for an easier to read Bible be now circumspect as serving money more than God?Not necessarily. Bear in mind, all languages in use including the English language, change over time. Accordingly, English speaking Christians need a bible written in contemporary English. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Having said that, I have noticed a trend in modern times for publishers to create "translations" that fit particular groups of people, such as a Bible with all the male gender references changed or modified to fit our "politically correct" sensibilities. I think this is misguided, and misleading. The goal of any translation should be to indicate the author's original intended meaning in the common language.

rejoice44
Sep 7th 2012, 08:40 PM
Not necessarily. Bear in mind, all languages in use including the English language, change over time. Accordingly, English speaking Christians need a bible written in contemporary English. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Having said that, I have noticed a trend in modern times for publishers to create "translations" that fit particular groups of people, such as a Bible with all the male gender references changed or modified to fit our "politically correct" sensibilities. I think this is misguided, and misleading. The goal of any translation should be to indicate the author's original intended meaning in the common language.

The problem is they did not merely upgrade the words, they changed meanings, as well as purposely changing words just to have a self identity. Compare the different translations and see how it appears as though they each wanted to modify every sentence with a different form from all other translations. It wasn't for uniformity that they did this, but rather for uniqueness to their own identity.

Boo
Sep 8th 2012, 10:39 AM
I would wish that all believers actually prove and test the KJV as well. If those people had the ability to actually compare their bible - whether KJV or anything else - they would be sure of the accuracy of the translation. Those who carry the KJV might be shocked to note the differences. The KJV is NOT the standard for bibles. The source manuscript is, and then; the older manuscripts would seem to be more reliable that the newer one used for the KJV. We do have the ability to compare even them to some degree to wee where additions have been made.

Since most people will not do that, but instead will dogmatically hold to which ever one they are used to, the whole idea because a waste of words.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 01:54 PM
This is why possessing a general knowledge of Koine Greek is helpful in Bible interpretation. The translations are generally backed by linguistically strong scholars who have a thorough understanding of the ways the ancients spoke and wrote. If one wants to have their own informed opinion, learn the languages instead of pointing to a preferred translation. The latter is fine - the NT authors liked the Septuagint and based doctrine from it (when the MT text has major differences) since it was the 'lingua franca' of the Bible of their day.

"Generally" leaves room for small leavens, doesn't it? That's why we have the Holy Spirit in us to discern.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.....27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

It is not righteousness to change the meaning of His words nor decline from the testimonies of the Son in the scripture.

Just as scripture was used to discern the lost books as not scripture, so scripture should be used to discern what modern Bibles is keeping with the rest of the scripture within that modern Bible since scripture cannot go against scripture.

Also: if educated scholars cannot define uncleanness as nothing but this:

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK1.htm#S167


from akaqartoV - akathartos 169; impurity (the quality), physically or morally:--uncleanness.

When it is listed between fornication and lasciviousness ( sexual excessiveness), then it leaves it wanting, doesn't it. A woman can be unclean physically being in her period. A man can be considered unclean by a wet dream. None of that applies to the sexual sin of uncleanness as listed below inbetween fornication and lasciviousness ( sexual excessiveness).

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Seeing how it can jeopardize the inheritance in the kingdom of God, I would say that our educated scholars are slacking.

Uncleanness as used in the scripture can be none other than masturbation. Scripture describes uncleanness quite well.

Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.....19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

2 Corinthians 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

I have noticed that some modern dictionaries will leave out onanism and self abuse in defining masturbation whereas the some will retain that meaning in keeping with the definition in the dictionaries of the 1800's.

My point is: uncleanness is obvious to the believers for what it meant back then in the early church, but today, they either fail to see or will not agree that uncleanness is masturbation because of society's influence. Educated scholars that are partial to it may withhold that reproof and truth in unrighteousness. The lack of its full definition in some secular dictionaries is proof of it. Even medical science are listing the benefits of masturbation for single individuals.

Even Biblical educated scholars can be unreliable as Bibles in the past, as some may still contain it even today, that in the footnotes, the behemoth in Job 40th chapter was a hippo or an elephant: and yet the scripture describes the behemoth as moving a tail like a cedar which is a tree. That's a description of a dinosaur. That's what happens when Biblical educated scholars are believing in the evolution theory and yet the scripture denounces their educated footnote for the behemoth.

Just saying: there is a reason why God gave us the Holy Spirit to dwell within believers in Jesus Christ: to be able to discern the lies of the world from the truth in the scriptures: to discern why the lost books are not scripture: to discern when marginal notes and footnotes go against scripture: and lastly and more importantly: to discern in the modern Bibles when changed scriptures are not keeping with the rest of the scripture in that Bible as no lie can be of the truth.

God wants us to have His message and the testimonies regarding the Son in seeking His glory. To be His disciples and not a disciple of something else, we need His actual words to continue in them to be His disciples. Since that is the role of the Holy Spirit and our roles to be faithful witnesses of the Son, then any declining from the testimonies regarding the Son as kept in the KJV, should be circumspect in the modern Bibles.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 02:00 PM
Not necessarily. Bear in mind, all languages in use including the English language, change over time. Accordingly, English speaking Christians need a bible written in contemporary English. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I read the KJV just fine with the help of the Good Shepherd through the Holy Spirit within me. I will testify that the modern Bibles have chnaged the messages of His words within and has declined from the glory of the testimony regarding the Son in several places: leaving room for false teachings and apostasy: See my blog: The Singular Office of Mediation" to se ethe full proof of that ministry regarding Romans 8:26-27


Having said that, I have noticed a trend in modern times for publishers to create "translations" that fit particular groups of people, such as a Bible with all the male gender references changed or modified to fit our "politically correct" sensibilities. I think this is misguided, and misleading. The goal of any translation should be to indicate the author's original intended meaning in the common language.

At least by His grace and by His help, you had caught that. May the Lord direct your attention to how a small leaven can leaven into a whole lump in these changed messages in these modern Bibles by reading that blog.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 02:03 PM
The problem is they did not merely upgrade the words, they changed meanings, as well as purposely changing words just to have a self identity. Compare the different translations and see how it appears as though they each wanted to modify every sentence with a different form from all other translations. It wasn't for uniformity that they did this, but rather for uniqueness to their own identity.

True. Which leads more in the direction that they were serving mammon more than God in their translations.

It is ironic that in spite of the many so called easier to read Bibles, they are still at it. Perhaps believers should be exorted to rest in God's promise that the Good Shepherd will give us wisdom through the Holy Spirit in understanding the KJV which seems to be made out as the scapegoat for wanting an easier to read Bible.

MarleVVLL
Sep 8th 2012, 02:05 PM
By "generally", I meant that most translations use committees of scholars to govern how they translate. There are few translations that are not derived from scholars. I was not referring to the quality of the translation (that is relative).

If you wish to critique scholars, that's okay, but unless you have traveled their path, I humbly suggest understanding the world of scholarship before indicating that they are 'slacking'. Translating has never been easy and it will never be 'right'. Each team or person who is translating has preconceived ideas about theology and history that effect how they translate. They can only do their best, and I believe most translations do this. For that, I applaud them. Without them, I would not be reading a Bible.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 02:19 PM
I would wish that all believers actually prove and test the KJV as well. If those people had the ability to actually compare their bible - whether KJV or anything else - they would be sure of the accuracy of the translation. Those who carry the KJV might be shocked to note the differences.

The bottomline of the comparison is: does it decline from the testimony regarding the Son or does it defer the glory of that testimony to another? Since the indwelling Holy Spirit and the faithful believer led by Him will be testifying of the Son in seeking His glory and not of themselves in seeking their won glory, then all modern translators are circumspect when they have changed the glory of the testimony of the Son by giving that glory to another.


The KJV is NOT the standard for bibles. The source manuscript is,

The TR: The Textus Receptus or Received Texts: is the reliable source documents.


and then; the older manuscripts would seem to be more reliable that the newer one used for the KJV. We do have the ability to compare even them to some degree to wee where additions have been made.

Since most people will not do that, but instead will dogmatically hold to which ever one they are used to, the whole idea because a waste of words.

Then do not waste His words when He testified why the new documents would be evidence of His words, because those that loved Him and His words would be using them, reading from them, growing by them, and thus needing to update them from wear and tear. The TR has been said to originated from Antioch. It is debatebale, but considering that the source materials from Alexandria where gnosticism ( they deny the deity of Christ) and poetic licensing has been known, I would rather lean on the TR source as the KJV proves it loved Him to keep His words by keeping the glory of the testimonies regarding the Son whereas the Alexandrian manuscripts and the modern Bibles has not. That is plainly seen and read by His grace with His help.

The oldest manuscript being the best manuscript is not the best argument as a source material sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

Here is a link below addressing the rumor that the Sinaiticus was found in the trash.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/wastebasket.asp

Makes me wonder what all of those monks were doing if not reading His words to be His disciples in serving Him to lose track of that in the way that they did? Apparently, they were jumping hurdles to become a disciple of something else in serving a church.

So do consider that.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 02:24 PM
By "generally", I meant that most translations use committees of scholars to govern how they translate. There are few translations that are not derived from scholars. I was not referring to the quality of the translation (that is relative).

Thanks for clarifying and explaining that.


If you wish to critique scholars, that's okay, but unless you have traveled their path, I humbly suggest understanding the world of scholarship before indicating that they are 'slacking'. Translating has never been easy and it will never be 'right'. Each team or person who is translating has preconceived ideas about theology and history that effect how they translate. They can only do their best, and I believe most translations do this. For that, I applaud them. Without them, I would not be reading a Bible.

Regardless of the shoes anyone have walked in, and that is including the KJV translators, the end result is what is being discerned by the scripture as discerned by the Good Shepherd through the Holy Spirit within us as verified by scripture. Since scripture cannot go against scripture, and no lie can be of the truth: we can discern with His help the end result.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 05:32 PM
I read the KJV just fine with the help of the Good Shepherd through the Holy Spirit within me.I doubt that. No one today can read the KJV and understand it.


I will testify that the modern Bibles have chnaged the messages of His words within and has declined from the glory of the testimony regarding the Son in several places: leaving room for false teachings and apostasy: See my blog: The Singular Office of Mediation" to se ethe full proof of that ministry regarding Romans 8:26-27It's an illusion based on two untested assumptions. The first untested assumption is that KJV was an accurate translation. This is not necessarily true. Your second untested assumption is that you actually understand the KJV translation which is also doubtful.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 06:06 PM
I doubt that. No one today can read the KJV and understand it.

That is not true.


It's an illusion based on two untested assumptions. The first untested assumption is that KJV was an accurate translation. This is not necessarily true. Your second untested assumption is that you actually understand the KJV translation which is also doubtful.

Wrong. The tests are based on what we as faithful witnesses will be doing as led by the Holy Spirit which is to testify of the Son ( John 15:26-27) in seeking His glory ( John 16:14) and not of ourselves ( John 7:18) nor of the Holy Spirit ( John 16:13) and thus the scripture are to do the same thing and not deviate from it by misleading one to go to the Holy Spirit to relate to God as if He is another Mediator ( Romans 8:26-27) or look to themselves in living the christian life by doing the best they can religiously ( 1 Peter 4:19).

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Feel free to post a KJV verse or grouped verses that you are having trouble understanding, and by the grace of God, you will see as I declare that Jesus is my Good Shepherd and is helping me to udnerstand His words even if you do not.

Slug1
Sep 8th 2012, 06:16 PM
Feel free to post a KJV verse or grouped verses that you are having trouble understanding, and by the grace of God, you will see as I declare that Jesus is my Good Shepherd and is helping me to udnerstand His words even if you do not.You do understand that a person who is not in Christ does NOT have what you claim... right?

Get out there in the world where people don't speak old English and read the KJV to them and they will not understand.

A "version" of the Word of God does not draw people to God. The Holy Spirit is who draws people to God and when they "hear" the Word of God, faith can come of this hearing.

The KJV of the Bible does NOT have any advantage over other Bibles. Many other Bibles are even more accurate than the KJV and THEY don't have any advantage over the KJV either when it comes to hearing the Word of God.

However, an advantage is that since many today to NOT speak old English, the advantage in reading from Bible's other than the KJV, is common sense.

If you want to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit to reach out and draw in people as is His ministry? Then it is common sense to speak in the SAME language that the listener understands.

NO ONE today speaks old English... to read from the KJV and think people can do what you can do... is not showing much common sense.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 06:40 PM
You do understand that a person who is not in Christ does NOT have what you claim... right?

Diverting from the points in the post you are replying to, but yes, you are right.


Get out there in the world where people don't speak old English and read the KJV to them and they will not understand.

They will understand most of it, and what they do understand, they may simply just refuse to believe it nor care to.


A "version" of the Word of God does not draw people to God. The Holy Spirit is who draws people to God and when they "hear" the Word of God, faith can come of this hearing.

Actually, you are wrong there. Do give credit where actual credit is dued.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

As you said, sinners do not have the Holy Spirit and thus cannot be drawn by Him as you suggest. That is why the Father does that in keeping to the promise when sinners turned believers receive the Holy Ghost.


The KJV of the Bible does NOT have any advantage over other Bibles. Many other Bibles are even more accurate than the KJV and THEY don't have any advantage over the KJV either when it comes to hearing the Word of God.

Can the gospel be found in modern Bibles? Yes? Can the meat be found in modern Bibles to reprove error? Yes and NO! The KJV has kept all the meats of His words as ALL modern Bibles have changed the testimony regarding the Son and deferred the glory of that testimony to another: See the blog "The Singular Office of Mediation" for full proof of that ministry.


However, an advantage is that since many today to NOT speak old English, the advantage in reading from Bible's other than the KJV, is common sense.

And yet they are still trying to church out more easier to read Bibles than the KJV. That is not common sense. That is proof of not going to God for the wisdom of understanding His words in the KJV.


If you want to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit to reach out and draw in people as is His ministry? Then it is common sense to speak in the SAME language that the listener understands.

Jesus spoke in parables and plainly and still it is blessed are the eyes that see and the ears that hear.


NO ONE today speaks old English... to read from the KJV and think people can do what you can do... is not showing much common sense.

God is not limited and depending on what reading scale you use, the KJV is not that hard to read anyway, but one needs His wisdom in understanding His words. There is no getting around that.

adampjr
Sep 8th 2012, 06:47 PM
The KJV is not particularly difficult to understand. It's not "see spot run," but it's not that difficult either with a basic grasp of language. It doesn't require 'His wisdom' to understand most of Shakespeare either. I believe the whole "the KJV is a whole nother language no one understands" is more an indictment of the education of the reader than of the KJV.

Slug1
Sep 8th 2012, 07:07 PM
Can the meat be found in modern Bibles to reprove error? Yes and NO! The KJV has kept all the meats of His words as ALL modern Bibles have changed the testimony regarding the Son and deferred the glory of that testimony to another:As has been pointed out to you... other versions of the Bible are more accurate than the KJV. So this line of rhetoric from a KJVOist, does get old :P

While I have no problem WITH the KJV and to this day, still pray the Lord's Prayer in the way it is spelled out in the KJV of the Bible (learned as a child)... I will not allow myself to be bound to a single version or translation. Other Bibles offer clearer and more accurate understanding and when evangelizing is to be done out on the streets, the KJV of the Bible is the last version I'd chose to read from.

NO person, even a Christian... can enjoy the meat of ANY version of the Bible UNTIL after they have first digested and grown from the milk.

Please don't loose sight of when or what it was like to be a lamb... this is a problem in the Body of Christ.

Lambs first (feed the lambs), then they are sheep (tend them), then continue (feed the sheep)... and they will FOLLOW Christ.

Many leaders force meat down the throats of lambs and then they wonder why lambs stop following after Christ.

The Parable of the Sower helps this all make more sense.

adampjr
Sep 8th 2012, 07:12 PM
Even if the KJV were the best translation (it's not) - it's still a translation that is readable in English which necessarily means something is lost.

All translations are going to be imperfect. If you're trying to base major doctrine of the difference between a few English translations, then you're basing you thoughts on a level of precision that is simply impossible in translation from one language to another.

No one who has ever known more than one language cannot seriously deny this.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 07:32 PM
The KJV is not particularly difficult to understand. It's not "see spot run," but it's not that difficult either with a basic grasp of language. It doesn't require 'His wisdom' to understand most of Shakespeare either. I believe the whole "the KJV is a whole nother language no one understands" is more an indictment of the education of the reader than of the KJV.

Sometimes it does require wisdom from the Lord. The disciples needed it to not only understand the parables but when He spoke plainly to them. Sometimes they are able to receive it and other times it was hidden like His future crucifixion even though He had spoken clearly about it. Only one time was it understood as Peter rebuked it, (sort of), so that Jesus rebuked Satan in him to get behind Him.

So there is a need for the average reader to lean on Jesus Christ as their Good Shepherd for wisdom in understanding His words.

Matthew 5:33-37 is just an example. More readers would take that to mean He was speaking against swearing, but Jesus began that saying by speaking of how people of old times had performed their oaths unto the Lord, then He went into the examples of the kind of swearings they wqould do to emphasized not swearing at all. Then He gave the reason why: because you can't make one hair white or black: meaning you can't do it which is the requirement of the law in making an oath or a vow ( Numbers 30:2) as you must do all that proceeds out of your mouth: meaning God cannot help you finish your oath or vow: Ecclesiates 5:1-7 warns against not paying vows les God destroys the works of your hands which is what a vow or promise means: your vow: your work: your glory in willpower. Since believers are to live by faith in the Son of God, testifying of our faith in Him in doing His work in us to live the christian life as well as following Him is to His glory, not ours. As no flesh shall glory in His presence, this is the reason why Paul consider all identification by the works of the law or any confidence in the flesh in boasting thereof as dung so that he may get to know Him and the power of His resurrection when Paul took Jesus at His word and to rest in His promises to us in living the christian life as well as having received eternal life.

Anyway: there is a necessity to have wisdom from the Lord in reading His words.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 07:50 PM
As has been pointed out to you... other versions of the Bible are more accurate than the KJV. So this line of rhetoric from a KJVOist, does get old :P

No. It was not pointed out to me and these patented rhetoric without substance as not showing by the scriptures tactics of the anti-KJVOist is getting older still.


While I have no problem WITH the KJV and to this day, still pray the Lord's Prayer in the way it is spelled out in the KJV of the Bible (learned as a child)... I will not allow myself to be bound to a single version or translation. Other Bibles offer clearer and more accurate understanding and when evangelizing is to be done out on the streets, the KJV of the Bible is the last version I'd chose to read from.

No argument there about being able to use other modern Bibles for street evangelism, but it still falls short as a poor excuse as taken from antiKJVist's rhetorics.

Show the Bible verses you would use for street evangelism and compare that side by side with the KJV to show how much easier it is to understand it.

It is the meat for discerning good and evil for believers to grow as His disciples in keeping the faith is what I have shown why the KJV is the one to rely on: Again: full proof of that ministry is in the blog" The Singular Office of Mediation".


NO person, even a Christian... can enjoy the meat of ANY version of the Bible UNTIL after they have first digested and grown from the milk.


That would be like saying there is no milk in the KJV.


Please don't loose sight of when or what it was like to be a lamb... this is a problem in the Body of Christ.

Lambs first (feed the lambs), then they are sheep (tend them), then continue (feed the sheep)... and they will FOLLOW Christ.

Many leaders force meat down the throats of lambs and then they wonder why lambs stop following after Christ.


Using the KJV is not forcing it down any believer's throat but using modern Bibles like the CEV that voids the intent of the message in Matthew 5:33-37 like it did in the CEV Bible is more apt to mislead a babe in Christ to finish by the flesh by making promises that only God can keep from what He has begun with the Spirit. And what did the Bible say? Better to tie a millstone around your neck and cast yourself into the sea rather than cause one of the little ones to go astray.

Course, one can still repent, and get the reproof out, and pray for others that Jesus will set them free:

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

....but more often times than not, pride keeps them from repenting or acknowledging their error, thus allowing those that need correction to continue therein, laboruing in unbelief and trying to keep the doctrines of the commandments of men thus worshipping Him in vain while bearing false witnesses of themselves by their promises which they cannot keep.


The Parable of the Sower helps this all make more sense.

Seems there are more takes on how one apply that parable thus discerning each "take" by the whole of scripture to disern which one is the actual message and the truth He wants us to have.

poorinspirit
Sep 8th 2012, 07:53 PM
Even if the KJV were the best translation (it's not) - it's still a translation that is readable in English which necessarily means something is lost.

All translations are going to be imperfect. If you're trying to base major doctrine of the difference between a few English translations, then you're basing you thoughts on a level of precision that is simply impossible in translation from one language to another.

No one who has ever known more than one language cannot seriously deny this.

Feel free to read my blog: "The Singular Office of Mediation" to see how KJV stanhds above the rest in reproving the works of darkness in these latter days.

http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3317-The-Singular-Office-of-Mediation

adampjr
Sep 8th 2012, 08:09 PM
Sometimes it does require wisdom from the Lord. The disciples needed it to not only understand the parables but when He spoke plainly to them. Sometimes they are able to receive it and other times it was hidden like His future crucifixion even though He had spoken clearly about it. Only one time was it understood as Peter rebuked it, (sort of), so that Jesus rebuked Satan in him to get behind Him.

So there is a need for the average reader to lean on Jesus Christ as their Good Shepherd for wisdom in understanding His words.

Matthew 5:33-37 is just an example. More readers would take that to mean He was speaking against swearing, but Jesus began that saying by speaking of how people of old times had performed their oaths unto the Lord, then He went into the examples of the kind of swearings they wqould do to emphasized not swearing at all. Then He gave the reason why: because you can't make one hair white or black: meaning you can't do it which is the requirement of the law in making an oath or a vow ( Numbers 30:2) as you must do all that proceeds out of your mouth: meaning God cannot help you finish your oath or vow: Ecclesiates 5:1-7 warns against not paying vows les God destroys the works of your hands which is what a vow or promise means: your vow: your work: your glory in willpower. Since believers are to live by faith in the Son of God, testifying of our faith in Him in doing His work in us to live the christian life as well as following Him is to His glory, not ours. As no flesh shall glory in His presence, this is the reason why Paul consider all identification by the works of the law or any confidence in the flesh in boasting thereof as dung so that he may get to know Him and the power of His resurrection when Paul took Jesus at His word and to rest in His promises to us in living the christian life as well as having received eternal life.

Anyway: there is a necessity to have wisdom from the Lord in reading His words.

The examples you provided are examples where basic language and critical reading skills will lead you to the correct understanding. No mystical wisdom necessary.

Slug1
Sep 8th 2012, 08:10 PM
That would be like saying there is no milk in the KJV.

The problem here is not what you just stated. The problem is YOU saying that ONLY the KJV has proper milk and meat. Your message throughout ALL your preaching is that to use ANY other Bible... is to be using spoiled milk and meat.

That is the underlining false teaching you are pushing in ALL of your threads.

adampjr
Sep 8th 2012, 08:11 PM
Feel free to explain how you can be dogmatic about a translation, given the limitations inherent in the translation process.

MarleVVLL
Sep 9th 2012, 04:01 AM
Since scripture cannot go against scripture, and no lie can be of the truth: we can discern with His help the end result.

Scripture does go against Scripture - that is why there is so much debate regarding its contents. That isn't a bad thing; it is simply how it is. For instance, in the Torah, God said not to forsake the Sabbath. However, He also mentions to rescue your animal if it falls into a pit.

Which one should you obey? You have a goat that trips into a mire on the Sabbath; if you do not save its life, you broke the latter law; if you save it, you broke the Sabbath. Either way, you will break the Torah. The rabbis developed a 'heavier vs lighter' approach to the Scripture to deal (somewhat) with these issues.

Therefore, when dealing with translations, it is important to understand these aspects not from a circular form of reasoning but from objective and fair assessment of the material.

My $.02.

Boo
Sep 9th 2012, 10:01 AM
I see some problematic assumptions so far that are worthy of consideration.

1. It is assumed that everyone has the necessary reading skills to read and understand Old English.
2. It is assumed that people will listen to you while you spout Old English to them while expecting them to know all the colloquialisms and older-still meanings of certain words.
3. It is assumed that some catch phrase that Literary Experts feel is beautiful poetry will motivate the average Joe on the street to accept Jesus as his savior.
4. It is assumed the only the Textus Receptus is a reliable manuscript of the message God left for mankind.
5. It is assumed that there was no reason for the Apostles to be given the gift of tongues in order to communicate the Gospel message to foreign speakers since God can teach them despite the words used.
6. It is assumed that the millions of Christians around the world were taught using the King James version of the bible. After all, how can one be a good Christian if their bible was wrong?

No, I think I'll go with common sense.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 01:12 PM
The examples you provided are examples where basic language and critical reading skills will lead you to the correct understanding. No mystical wisdom necessary.

Then there would be no need to instruct those to ask for it, but there is.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Believers have a Helper too.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth....26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So there is a necessity to ask God for wisdom when people may be attempting to deceive us by way of the scripture.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

So if we are to do that with the accepted Bible, how much more with all of the modern Bibles when it is obvious that they are not all saying the same thing and can be seen standing apart entirely from the KJV since the KJV is not declining from the glory of the testimonies regarding the Son while the modern Bibles are deferring the glory of that testimony to another.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 01:17 PM
The problem here is not what you just stated. The problem is YOU saying that ONLY the KJV has proper milk and meat. Your message throughout ALL your preaching is that to use ANY other Bible... is to be using spoiled milk and meat.

That is the underlining false teaching you are pushing in ALL of your threads.

Read "my" blog on the "The Singular Office of Mediation" that the Lord led me to share. Proof.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 01:20 PM
Feel free to explain how you can be dogmatic about a translation, given the limitations inherent in the translation process.

Have you read the blog yet regarding "The Singular Office of Mediation"? It leads to the errant translation of Romans 8:26-27 found in ALL the modern Bibles in how it goes against the rest of the scripture in regards to the truth in Jesus Christ.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 01:29 PM
Scripture does go against Scripture - that is why there is so much debate regarding its contents. That isn't a bad thing; it is simply how it is. For instance, in the Torah, God said not to forsake the Sabbath. However, He also mentions to rescue your animal if it falls into a pit.

Which one should you obey? You have a goat that trips into a mire on the Sabbath; if you do not save its life, you broke the latter law; if you save it, you broke the Sabbath. Either way, you will break the Torah. The rabbis developed a 'heavier vs lighter' approach to the Scripture to deal (somewhat) with these issues.

Therefore, when dealing with translations, it is important to understand these aspects not from a circular form of reasoning but from objective and fair assessment of the material.

My $.02.

Thanks for sharing your 2 cents, but it is misapplied, since the OT with anything pertaining to the Old Covenant waxes away whereas the New Covenant as testified in the NT and Hebrews 8th chapter pretty much puts your examples in a different category.

Jesus words along with Paul explained why believers are no longer under the commandment to keep the sabbath day, because the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath as Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath: wherein the disciples can pluck the ears of corn and eat freely on the sabbath day while Paul explains in Romans 14:4-8 that Jesus is able to make any believer stand whethor or not they regard the day unto the Lord, and that would include the sabbath day.

So by using the whole of scripture with the Lord's help: NT with the OT to keep the OT in context with the NT and not the other way around, we can find the truth to that which seems contradictory, but in light of the truth in Jesus Christ, it is not.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 01:35 PM
Read "my" blog on the "The Singular Office of Mediation" that the Lord led me to share. Proof.No it's not proof... it just proves that you believe ONLY the KJV is actual milk and meat and any other Bible is spoiled milk and meat.

How many revisions did the KJV go through? Was it four?

How many revisions did the ESV go through? Is it two now?

The original ESV is more accurate than the present KJV, even after having gone through the four revisions that the KJV has gone through over the years.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 01:50 PM
I see some problematic assumptions so far that are worthy of consideration.

1. It is assumed that everyone has the necessary reading skills to read and understand Old English.

You are assuming that Old English requires necessary reading skills to understand it. (Don't forget the Good Shepherd leading us through the Holy Spirit in believers).


2. It is assumed that people will listen to you while you spout Old English to them while expecting them to know all the colloquialisms and older-still meanings of certain words.

I did not assume any such thing as God gives the seed to the sower and water to the waterer, it is God that gives the increase. God the Father is not limited by the Old English.


3. It is assumed that some catch phrase that Literary Experts feel is beautiful poetry will motivate the average Joe on the street to accept Jesus as his savior.

You are assuming that. I made no such assumptions.


4. It is assumed the only the Textus Receptus is a reliable manuscript of the message God left for mankind.

Considering the area of Alexandria where gnosticism ( deny the deity of Christ) and poetic licensing has been known to exist, which source documents would you lean more towards: that place or Antioch where the disciples had met and studied in the word for a year as given an account of in Acts?

Acts 11:26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

If that was the first time "disciples" were called christians, then those disciples would be abiding in His words for them to be called His disciples and thus keeping His words because they loved Him as Jesus has testified of those that are His disciples is proof. Jesus testified that His Father said those not keeping His words are those that did not love Him and are not His disciples for they did not know Him as evidenced in the source documents that originated from Alexandria.

Is there knowledge of the deity of Christ in them? Yes; but there is enough evidence of the removal of the deity of Christ in comparison to the KJV that it shows the influence of the area. Along with that are small chnages in the meaning of His words as not kept the way it is in the KJV is more proof as to why I would rely on the TR from which the King James was translated from then any from Alexandria.


5. It is assumed that there was no reason for the Apostles to be given the gift of tongues in order to communicate the Gospel message to foreign speakers since God can teach them despite the words used.

Not relevant to the discussion, and I made no such assumptions. You are veering off topic.


6. It is assumed that the millions of Christians around the world were taught using the King James version of the bible. After all, how can one be a good Christian if their bible was wrong?

How can one be His disciple by abiding in His words if their modern Bible is wrong?


No, I think I'll go with common sense.

We take guard against people bringing another gospel. We stand guard against those that bring new translations with it. We do not like cults messing around with His words as we can see the differences that they do, as well as add to His words to change the message and turn from the truth in His words.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

But yet, those same kind of differences we see in the modern Bibles, we are giving a free pass? Come on.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 01:55 PM
You are assuming that Old English requires necessary reading skills to understand it. (Don't forget the Good Shepherd leading us through the Holy Spirit in believers).
As has been raised... when you go out into the world and listeners who do NOT have the Holy Spirit, when you read old English to them, do you assume they have the necessary reading or listening skills to understand you?

Seeding and sowing is done in the language people speak. The language 100's of years ago WAS what people spoke back then so the KJV was adequate. Despite the faults of the original KJV and thus reason for all the revisions... it at least "spoke" the same language when read as what all the listeners spoke and thus, could listen to without wondering what was being read. At least for the "English" speakers, that is.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 02:04 PM
No it's not proof... it just proves that you believe ONLY the KJV is actual milk and meat and any other Bible is spoiled milk and meat.

How many revisions did the KJV go through? Was it four?

It hasn't changed the truth in His words.


How many revisions did the ESV go through? Is it two now?

The original ESV is more accurate than the present KJV, even after having gone through the four revisions that the KJV has gone through over the years.

Oh really? Then let the readers decide.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. King James Bible

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. ESV

Not the same message. Indeed, this error is also found in the NASB which I had read from growing up in high school and I was led to believe it was a sin to be angry and that I will be judged for it. That is the message as plainly read in ESV & NASB.

It did not matter that my Sunday school teacher tried to correct me by pointing me in the same NASB that it was okay to be angry but do not sin.

Ephesians 4:26Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, ESV

That little voice "Did God really say that?" was in the back of my head and so I played it safe to err on the side of caution by believing it was a sin to be angry for fear of that judgment as stated plainly in the ESV. I mean, really: who are you going to believe more? The words of Jesus or the words of Paul?

But the Good Shepherd came to the rescue by leading me to His actual words that He had said in the KJV as lining up with Paul's words.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. KJV

Ephesians 4:26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: KJV

As scripture cannot go against scripture and the words of Paul cannot go against the words of Jesus: the King James Bible wins over all modern Bibles as keeping to His words and not declining from the glory of the testionies regarding the Son.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 02:09 PM
As has been raised... when you go out into the world and listeners who do NOT have the Holy Spirit, when you read old English to them, do you assume they have the necessary reading or listening skills to understand you?

God the Father is not limited as He is the One that draws all men unto the Son: John 6:44


Seeding and sowing is done in the language people speak.

But even then, His words has to come from the source documents of the TR.


The language 100's of years ago WAS what people spoke back then so the KJV was adequate. Despite the faults of the original KJV and thus reason for all the revisions... it at least "spoke" the same language when read as what all the listeners spoke and thus, could listen to without wondering what was being read. At least for the "English" speakers, that is.

Language was never an issue. Having His actual words is. Jesus would rather have His actual words translated from the KJV to their language than the modern Bibles translated into their language.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 02:13 PM
God the Father is not limited as He is the One that draws all men unto the Son: John 6:44Amen




But even then, His words has to come from the source documents of the TR. OK



Jesus would rather have His actual words translated from the KJV to their language than the modern Bibles translated into their language.Does He? Is there a scripture to support this?

Based on accuracy to the original texts, the ESV is more accurate than the KJV (even after the many revisions)... so why wouldn't we all rather have His actual words translated from the ESV to other languages?

You see, you JUST used the LORD'S NAME in a way that the Matthew 5:33-37 scriptures TEACH us NOT to do. Just because you said... "Jesus would rather" does NOT mean that Jesus would rather have this as you just "communicated/promised" and think that because you stated, "Jesus would rather"... and it is the truth. IT IS NOT any truth.

To say such a statement and using the Lord's name as if it makes the statement truth... IS false teaching and is in error.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 02:51 PM
Does He? Is there a scripture to support this?

Based on accuracy to the original texts, the ESV is more accurate than the KJV (even after the many revisions)... so why wouldn't we all rather have His actual words translated from the ESV to other languages?

It is not accurate as proven in post #34.


You see, you JUST used the LORD'S NAME in a way that the Matthew 5:33-37 scriptures TEACH us NOT to do. Just because you said... "Jesus would rather" does NOT mean that Jesus would rather have this as you just "communicated/promised" and think that because you stated, "Jesus would rather"... and it is the truth. IT IS NOT any truth.

To say such a statement and using the Lord's name as if it makes the statement truth... IS false teaching and is in error.

That would be only if we go by your ESV Bible standard of confusing our communicating as the same as promising.

MarleVVLL
Sep 9th 2012, 02:51 PM
Thanks for sharing your 2 cents, but it is misapplied, since the OT with anything pertaining to the Old Covenant waxes away whereas the New Covenant as testified in the NT and Hebrews 8th chapter pretty much puts your examples in a different category.

This will begin a digression. Nonetheless, consider two things. The first is explicit while the other is implicit. The New Covenant's goal is to write the Torah (Mosaic/"Old" Covenant) on the heart, so it does not make sense to 'wax away' the OC when the NT enables us to abide by it. Secondly, Heb 8:6 (if you are referring to this verse) has an arguable different translation. Instead of 'enacted upon better promises', it can say in effect, "God gave the New Covenant as Torah"; there is a relationship between the two covenants that transcends argues that try to 'abolish' the OC by having them being 'fulfilled' in Jesus. For the alternate translation, see Dr. David Stern in Jewish New Testament Commentary.


Jesus words along with Paul explained why believers are no longer under the commandment to keep the sabbath day, because the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath as Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath: wherein the disciples can pluck the ears of corn and eat freely on the sabbath day while Paul explains in Romans 14:4-8 that Jesus is able to make any believer stand whethor or not they regard the day unto the Lord, and that would include the sabbath day.

Jesus said emphatically that he did not come to abolish the OC but instead, focused on the people's obedience. Your observation proves my point above - Scripture goes against Scripture. Jesus says, "Obey the Torah" and Paul says, "Do not obey it!". Now, I understand the discussion is much larger than those two generalizations (Paul is speaking in light of salvation to Gentiles and Jesus is speaking to Jews who by lineage must obey the Torah). It is a cultural, historical, and ideological discussion. Histo-critical scholars like to pin this observation against confessionalists so it goes to show that there are apparent 'disagreements'.

My $.04 ;)

PS: Even through the lens of a theological apologetic, your reply does not change the fact that there is one example of a contradiction in the Torah. It is still there and will remain there.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 02:57 PM
That would be only if we go by your ESV Bible standard of confusing our communicating as the same as promising.Let me point out... it is the "KJV" that utilizes the translation as "communicating".

You just communicated that "Jesus would rather"... you are COMMUNICATING in a way that the verses Matthew 5:33-37 teaches, NOT TO.

Thus, you are speaking falsely and your opinion (that Jesus would rather)... is AN ERROR.

Anyone who listens to you, because you communicated that "Jesus would rather" and they believe the same as you believe (that Jesus would rather have the KJV used instead of other Bibles because you utilized the Lord's name in the way you did)... would be following you INTO that error and misled falseness.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 04:56 PM
Let me point out... it is the "KJV" that utilizes the translation as "communicating".

You just communicated that "Jesus would rather"... you are COMMUNICATING in a way that the verses Matthew 5:33-37 teaches, NOT TO.

Thus, you are speaking falsely and your opinion (that Jesus would rather)... is AN ERROR.

Anyone who listens to you, because you communicated that "Jesus would rather" and they believe the same as you believe (that Jesus would rather have the KJV used instead of other Bibles because you utilized the Lord's name in the way you did)... would be following you INTO that error and misled falseness.

There is nothing false about it. Read what Jesus said here.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

You mess with the meaning of His words, the Father says that those translators did not love the Son.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Jesus said that if they persecute Him, they will persecute His disciples: how? by not keeping His sayings and thus not keeping the sayings of His disciples either.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 05:18 PM
This will begin a digression. Nonetheless, consider two things. The first is explicit while the other is implicit. The New Covenant's goal is to write the Torah (Mosaic/"Old" Covenant) on the heart, so it does not make sense to 'wax away' the OC when the NT enables us to abide by it.

God will do it. God will write it on our hearts. Not man.


Secondly, Heb 8:6 (if you are referring to this verse) has an arguable different translation. Instead of 'enacted upon better promises', it can say in effect, "God gave the New Covenant as Torah"; there is a relationship between the two covenants that transcends argues that try to 'abolish' the OC by having them being 'fulfilled' in Jesus. For the alternate translation, see Dr. David Stern in Jewish New Testament Commentary.

That fulfillment is only referring for that payment for the wages of sin as it is believing In Him that has saved us and thus His righteousness that brings us Home.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Jesus said emphatically that he did not come to abolish the OC but instead, focused on the people's obedience.

John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Matthew 26:41Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Luke 18:27And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The only "obedience" I see is to believe in Him that He will be our Good Shepherd in living the christian life and not just our Saviour in having received eternal life when we first believed in Him.


Your observation proves my point above - Scripture goes against Scripture. Jesus says, "Obey the Torah" and Paul says, "Do not obey it!".

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

You have to answer verse 19 for the way it was written in the middle of that saying for which you are implying that the people's obedience is key in how the law was to be fulfilled.


Now, I understand the discussion is much larger than those two generalizations (Paul is speaking in light of salvation to Gentiles and Jesus is speaking to Jews who by lineage must obey the Torah). It is a cultural, historical, and ideological discussion. Histo-critical scholars like to pin this observation against confessionalists so it goes to show that there are apparent 'disagreements'.

I do not see them as disagreements. I can only hope that God will help you to see that too.


PS: Even through the lens of a theological apologetic, your reply does not change the fact that there is one example of a contradiction in the Torah. It is still there and will remain there.

This post should revert back to proving the previous reply, but again, only God can cause the increase.

BroRog
Sep 9th 2012, 06:24 PM
I see some problematic assumptions so far that are worthy of consideration.

1. It is assumed that everyone has the necessary reading skills to read and understand Old English.
2. It is assumed that people will listen to you while you spout Old English to them while expecting them to know all the colloquialisms and older-still meanings of certain words.
3. It is assumed that some catch phrase that Literary Experts feel is beautiful poetry will motivate the average Joe on the street to accept Jesus as his savior.
4. It is assumed the only the Textus Receptus is a reliable manuscript of the message God left for mankind.
5. It is assumed that there was no reason for the Apostles to be given the gift of tongues in order to communicate the Gospel message to foreign speakers since God can teach them despite the words used.
6. It is assumed that the millions of Christians around the world were taught using the King James version of the bible. After all, how can one be a good Christian if their bible was wrong?

No, I think I'll go with common sense.Excellent point. Thanks.

BroRog
Sep 9th 2012, 06:31 PM
That is not true.



Wrong. The tests are based on what we as faithful witnesses will be doing as led by the Holy Spirit which is to testify of the Son ( John 15:26-27) in seeking His glory ( John 16:14) and not of ourselves ( John 7:18) nor of the Holy Spirit ( John 16:13) and thus the scripture are to do the same thing and not deviate from it by misleading one to go to the Holy Spirit to relate to God as if He is another Mediator ( Romans 8:26-27) or look to themselves in living the christian life by doing the best they can religiously ( 1 Peter 4:19).

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Feel free to post a KJV verse or grouped verses that you are having trouble understanding, and by the grace of God, you will see as I declare that Jesus is my Good Shepherd and is helping me to udnerstand His words even if you do not.I guess no one explained the rules of evidence to you. If you claim that modern translations are suspect, and that Christians should "prove and test" all modern translations, then you need to demonstrate your case with evidence, not with a suggestion that I should listen to the Holy Spirit like you do. If you want to say that you trust the KJV Bible because the Holy Spirit told you to trust it, then my only advice is to trust the Holy Spirit. But if you are trying to convince others to abandon the modern translations in favor of the KJV based on "proof", then you need to offer some facts and evidence, which is the customary way to prove something.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 08:44 PM
It hasn't changed the truth in His words.



Oh really? Then let the readers decide.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. King James Bible

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. ESV

Let's tackle this one scripture then... all you just did was compare the KJV translation to the ESV translation.

To figure out which is more accurate in any translation, you can't compare the KJV to the ESV and you can't compare the ESV to the KJV.

Elsewhere in the Bible it is a sin to go to bed while angry at another... as we learned as kids while attending church.

Well... based on the KJV of translation, it IS ok as long as the reason for the anger is justified... RIGHT?

So, to anyone who would read the KJV of that verse would justly say... I'm angry and I have a right to be angry. Do they?

We know it's OK to be angry, that is clear in many scriptures but as with the ESV translation it's clear that if a person IS angry, they are liable. Does the KJV say the opposite and that as long as they justify the anger, they will NOT be liable?

MANY would say yes and justify their anger for years and years... MANY who are KJVO's will actually do this because the scripture SAYS that only anger without a cause, is judged.

The verse in the KJV as translated in the way it is... sets up a person for failure IF... IF, they justify their anger in a wrong manner.

So, with ALL this said... WHAT DOES the original text say for Matthew 5:22?

THEN once we know the original text we can accurately assess if either the KJV or the ESV is more accurate.

As your thread suggests, lets test this with another scripture.

Let me ask a question since you believe the KJV is more accurate... is the period of justifying ANGER only UNTIL night?

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: (KJV)

Eph 4: 6 (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%204:26&version=KJV;ESV#cen-ESV-29282A))Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, (ESV)

However... that verse in Matthew 5:22 in the KJV says it's OK to be angry as long as it's justified. So... does nightfall make anger UNjustified?

Do you see HOW the translation from the KJV raises more questions than the ESV? The ESV supports the Eph 4:26 verse. The KJV instills conflict because if anger is justified... can it only be justified till night?

What if a person gets angry at night? What then? Are they not allowed to be angry at all or for only an hour?

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by poorinspirit

The tests are based on what we as faithful witnesses will be doing as led by the Holy Spirit which is to testify of the Son ( John 15:26-27) in seeking His glory ( John 16:14) and not of ourselves ( John 7:18) nor of the Holy Spirit ( John 16:13) and thus the scripture are to do the same thing and not deviate from it by misleading one to go to the Holy Spirit to relate to God as if He is another Mediator ( Romans 8:26-27) or look to themselves in living the christian life by doing the best they can religiously ( 1 Peter 4:19).

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.


I guess no one explained the rules of evidence to you. If you claim that modern translations are suspect, and that Christians should "prove and test" all modern translations, then you need to demonstrate your case with evidence, not with a suggestion that I should listen to the Holy Spirit like you do. If you want to say that you trust the KJV Bible because the Holy Spirit told you to trust it, then my only advice is to trust the Holy Spirit. But if you are trying to convince others to abandon the modern translations in favor of the KJV based on "proof", then you need to offer some facts and evidence, which is the customary way to prove something.

Scriptures testifies that we reprove by the scripture. Jesus testified to His disciples about proof of those loving Him would keep His words and He tesified that the Father says those that do not love Him would not keep His words. Jesus testified that just as He will be persecuted, so will His disciples by how? By not keeping His sayings and neither will they keep the sayings of His disciples.

If you want to go beyond that what is written to prove or disprove, then where is the validation to debunk the KJV? None. As much as people keep bashing it with vague generalities to give just cause as needing an easier to read Bible...this is all antiKJVO rhetoric that goes beyond what everybody is missing: we can only reprove by the scripture.

So what does scripture testifies of how one is a witness? Regardless of any Bible version: what do they all say about how to be a witness?

You cannot testify of yourself or that testimony is not true: hence a false witness: John 5:31

To testify of yourself in seeking your own glory is unrighteousness, but to testify of another in seeking his glory is not. John 7:18

The Holy Spirit will not speak of Himself and thus also seeks to glorify the Son ( John 16:13-14)

So those led by the Holy Spirit will be doing the same thing: testifying of the Son: John 15:26-27

Even John the Baptist knew he had to decrease when Jesus came on the scene for Him to increase: John 3:28-30

What did Jesus testified of what scripture will do? Scripture will testify of Jesus Christ so that they will come to Him: John 5:39-40

Now... consider that is what ALL the Bibles are saying as what scripture are to do as the disciples and the upkeepers that loved Him to keep His words as led by the Holy Spirit in them that will lead them to do for the Bible He wants us to have today.

When you consider all the "reproofs" given by the scripture as to which Bible He wants us to go by, then when modern Bibles decline from that testimony in seeking His glory as it is given of the Son in the KJV to give that glory to another whethor it be the Holy Spirit as if He is another Mediator in Romans 8:26-27 or the suffering believer in doing good and not about how faithful our Creator is in well doing in keeping our souls while we suffer in 1 Peter 4:19, then that is proof the KJV is the one.

If you wish to deflect from scripture for the reproofs we need, but rather go to the evidence of documents, everybody will get lost. How can this be true of God to expect us to go to the original manuscripts when not every believer is going to be able to go there where they are kept, look at them to confirm what it is that they are looking at, get the degree in deciphering and translating the texts to confirm the translation, and get back to this thread to respond? You can't even do that.

That is why we have the Holy Spirit within us and the scripture that testifies what scripture is supposed to do so we can discern with the help of the Good Shepherd when scripture in modern Bibles actually deviates from His words and when it declines from the testimonies regarding the Son as it has been found kept in the KJV. That is all the "proofs" I need.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 10:08 PM
Let's tackle this one scripture then... all you just did was compare the KJV translation to the ESV translation.

To figure out which is more accurate in any translation, you can't compare the KJV to the ESV and you can't compare the ESV to the KJV.

And yet you went on to do just that, errantly, I might add.


Elsewhere in the Bible it is a sin to go to bed while angry at another... as we learned as kids while attending church.

Well... based on the KJV of translation, it IS ok as long as the reason for the anger is justified... RIGHT?

ESV uses the term anger on what the sun sets on. KJV uses the term wrath on what the sun sets on. Wrath is a work of the flesh by which is why it is written be angry, but sin not. The wrath is the sin. It is not being angry that is a sin.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


So, to anyone who would read the KJV of that verse would justly say... I'm angry and I have a right to be angry. Do they?

If ESV says it is okay to be angry some of the time but not at night, or else it is a sin, how can it not be a sin during the day time? Sin is sin. If you do any other works of the flesh during the day, it is still sin. So being angry is not a sin: but being wrathful is. That's having malice in thought.


We know it's OK to be angry, that is clear in many scriptures but as with the ESV translation it's clear that if a person IS angry, they are liable. Does the KJV say the opposite and that as long as they justify the anger, they will NOT be liable?

There is anger as not having just cause to be angry like a covetous person out of jealousy towards another, and then there are anger in having just cause to be angry when you have been personally offended like having your new car trashed by a jealous neighbor, and he got away with it, dropping hints that he had done it too. Now you can be angry, but you are called not to sin but not having wrath towards your neighbor, means casting donw all thoughts and imagination of having wrath and malice towards your neighbor lest you open the door to the devil to entice you to carry away into sin.


MANY would say yes and justify their anger for years and years... MANY who are KJVO's will actually do this because the scripture SAYS that only anger without a cause, is judged.

It would be unfair to categorize the saying as a KJVO even if you quoted one KJVOist as saying it, because they would be wrong.

The call to forgive is the only way to not let the sun go down on your wrath. So when one gets angry, there is a necessity to address that anger by forgiving as God forgives us...otherwise..they are doing this.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


The verse in the KJV as translated in the way it is... sets up a person for failure IF... IF, they justify their anger in a wrong manner.

So, with ALL this said... WHAT DOES the original text say for Matthew 5:22?

THEN once we know the original text we can accurately assess if either the KJV or the ESV is more accurate.Jesus was angry and He whipped the money chnagers out of the Temple. God will be angry and take His wrath out on the children of disobedience. So anger and wrath is not a sin when God judges in according to His holiness, but when we become angry and sin, we do the sinning by judging the trespasser as deserving our wrath and malice. We are not anyone's God to be doing that. That is why God said this.

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.


As your thread suggests, lets test this with another scripture.

Let me ask a question since you believe the KJV is more accurate... is the period of justifying ANGER only UNTIL night?

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: (KJV)

Eph 4: 6 (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%204:26&version=KJV;ESV#cen-ESV-29282A))Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, (ESV)

However... that verse in Matthew 5:22 in the KJV says it's OK to be angry as long as it's justified. So... does nightfall make anger UNjustified?

Do you see HOW the translation from the KJV raises more questions than the ESV? The ESV supports the Eph 4:26 verse. The KJV instills conflict because if anger is justified... can it only be justified till night?

What if a person gets angry at night? What then? Are they not allowed to be angry at all or for only an hour?

See this qualification for the bishop?

Titus 1:7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

I take that to mean not quick temper: not that he would never get angry.

Proverbs 15:18A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife.

Proverbs 16:32He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.

I can see that as bearing the fruit of long suffering and patience and love.

What father does not get angry enough that he would have to discipline his child?

Proverbs 13:24He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

What kind of a rebuke can be received unless anger is shown in declaring the seriousness of the offense?

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

So you decide if this angry rebuke to an errant believer is being given to bigotry or for verse 14 or both.

Hate the sin but not the sinner is a fine line that believers need His help in not crossing by loving the sinner.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 10:14 PM
And yet you went on to do just that, errantly, I might add.Funny, I put scripture side by side as you do. Why is it an error when I do, but not an error when you do it? :P :lol:


It is not being angry that is a sin.According to the KJV, it CAN be.

So lets begin here:




Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. King James Bible


So when will there be danger in being angry?

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 11:08 PM
Funny, I put scripture side by side as you do. Why is it an error when I do, but not an error when you do it? :P :lol:

You had set the standard that you said I should not use and then turned around and did it, and when you had done it, you had spun the KJV errantly in misrepresenting the KJV to do it.


According to the KJV, it CAN be.

Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: KJV

Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, ESV

Both versions states be angry. So you lost your case. It is thrown out.


So lets begin here:

So when will there be danger in being angry?

This is what I mean about errantly spinning the KJV in misrepresenting the KJV to make your point. You ignored the fact that ESV also shares that it is okay to be angry, but you wanted to zoom in on the latter part of that verse in the ESV, expound on it as if the ESV never said to be angry in attacking the KJV below for being angry at all.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. KJV

Yeah, I know you had said that you acknowledged that they both said it was okay to be angry, but in hypocisey in making this case against the KJV, you ignored it in doing so as if it is a sin to be angry at all.

Slug1
Sep 9th 2012, 11:16 PM
but in hypocisey in making this case against the KJV, you ignored it in doing so as if it is a sin to be angry at all.Maybe I'm not being clear... BOTH translations say it's OK to be angry. Both say it's WRONG to let the sun set if angry.

So... why is one right and the other, wrong?

You make a case AGAINST ALL other Bibles and all that is in such Bibles except the KJV. I made a case against only ONE Bible and only "a" scripture at that.

Who is exercising more hypocrisy? :lol:

The point of all that I'm saying is this... and the reason I posted all I did in relation to the KJV of that scripture is that the KJV can cause problems in understanding. WHY, because it continues to EXPRESS scripture in a method that is NOT used anymore. Translations such as the ESV are clear(er) for two reasons.

1) They are closer in meaning to the original text.

2) They are not written in an "era" of language that isn't used anymore.

poorinspirit
Sep 9th 2012, 11:38 PM
Maybe I'm not being clear... BOTH translations say it's OK to be angry. Both say it's WRONG to let the sun set if angry.

So... why is one right and the other, wrong?

In a singular reading of Matthew 5:22 in the ESV and in keeping within the context of His message, ESV says plainly that it was wrong to be angry at all, and that I will be judged for it, which is not true. Even if someone had shown me Ephesians 4:26 to tell me that it was okay to be angry but do not sin, that reading in Matthew 5:22 would make me doubt Paul's words in the ESV, and so I would have had to err on the side of caution that it must be a sin to be angry as the words of Jesus's should be the right one over whatever Paul had said.

The KJV removes all doubts I had about the meaning of that saying in Matthew 5:22 as His words did confirm that Paul had it right. That means Matthew 5:22 in the ESV is wrong. Period.


You make a case AGAINST ALL other Bibles and all that is in such Bibles except the KJV. I made a case against only ONE Bible and only "a" scripture at that.

Who is exercising more hypocrisy? :lol:

I'll let the readers decide. May God help them to see the truth.

MarleVVLL
Sep 10th 2012, 12:22 AM
I am done with this discussion.

Slug1
Sep 10th 2012, 01:13 AM
The KJV removes all doubts I had about the meaning of that saying in Matthew 5:22 as His words did confirm that Paul had it right. That means Matthew 5:22 in the ESV is wrong. Period.No... I'm afraid that the ESV isn't wrong.

Now... there is no period either because there is an issue concerning the way that the KJV translates the original texts. In the KJV, you keep pointing out that it's ok to be angry AS LONG AS, they are NOT angry "without" a cause.

So... what "justifies" a cause?

I ask because if you get angry at a person for wanting your cloak, you are to hand them the one you are wearing. Yes/No? If someone slaps you, you can't justify being angry at them... CAN YOU???

See... this is where the KJV lacks in an accurate translation.

The ESV says that ALL anger "can" land a person in trouble. The word that the ESV utilizes is "liable" to represent that ALL anger CAN land a person into trouble before God. Here is the deal and lesson I'll exhort for you ONCE. You have steadfastly REFUSED to allow any exhortation to help you and you keep forcing the KJV of translation down people's throat.

Here we go and it will be great if you allow discussion... the KJV's translation is this:

//That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment://

The ESV's translation is this:

//that (AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%205&version=KJV;ESV#cen-ESV-23257AP))everyone who is angry with his brother[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%205&version=KJV;ESV#fen-ESV-23257c)] will be liable (AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%205&version=KJV;ESV#cen-ESV-23257AQ))to judgment;//

The word liable does not mean what you are saying. You say that ANY anger will be held to judgment. That is NOT what it means. The term "liable" means that a person CAN not IS. Just like in the KJV translates that as long as the anger is "justified" then they are NOT in danger. Just like in the ESV translation, anger CAN (not WILL) lead to judgment.

Liable also means, "likely". Just as the KJV translates that if the anger is NOT justified, then they are likely to be in danger of judgement. Just as in the ESV translation, anger can likely lead to judgment.

Liable also means... "At risk of". Do I need to run through it all again??

I will, because 3 times is a charm, right? :P

Just as the KJV translates that if the anger is NOT justified, then they WILL be "AT RISK" of judgement. Just as in the ESV translation, anger makes a person "AT RISK" of judgment.

Now... those two words in the ESV of "WILL BE liable". This is the same as the KJV which says "shall be". Don't let it throw you off as if the ESV means that anger IS ALWAYS resulting in judgment. It's the same in the KJV because should the anger be UNjustified, then the person "SHALL BE/WILL BE" judged. Shall be/Will be is to EMPHASIS the seriousness of the verse. It's not COULD be judged... it means they WILL BE should ANY anger be OF the type that is sinful.

So... whether you can step down and allow yourself to see all this... or you can remain UP where you are with your KJV Bible and tell everyone they are wrong and you are right.


I'll let the readers decide. May God help them to see the truth.The truth is down here... with the rest of us :P

Boo
Sep 10th 2012, 09:57 AM
The part in the KJV about "without cause" actually appears in the Greek as "in vain." It is in the Textus Receptus but not in the other three manuscripts. It was an addition to the manuscript. In this case, it appears that the TR contained a change in this verse - maybe a margin note that the translators kept in the text?

poorinspirit
Sep 10th 2012, 12:11 PM
The part in the KJV about "without cause" actually appears in the Greek as "in vain." It is in the Textus Receptus but not in the other three manuscripts. It was an addition to the manuscript. In this case, it appears that the TR contained a change in this verse - maybe a margin note that the translators kept in the text?

I doubt that very much when it involves having a clear message about being angry without a cause which is keeping in line with other parts of scripture in the NT. Jesus had whipped the moneychangers out of the Temple out of anger so we either hold that the KJV has it right and the Alexandrian manuscripts did not love Him enough to keep His words or He's a hypocrite.

And He is not a hypocrite.

I don't know what your source is, but Strong's Concordance has it in this wise.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK14.htm#S1500

From the Greek text: eike


probably from eikw* - eiko* 1502 (through the idea of failure); idly, i.e. without reason (or effect):--without a cause, (in) vain(-ly).

adampjr
Sep 10th 2012, 12:48 PM
It is not accurate as proven in post #34.



That would be only if we go by your ESV Bible standard of confusing our communicating as the same as promising.

You never addressed the question. You just devolved into the ESV. How do you support the claim that Jesus wants new translations to be from the KJV rather than anything else?

Logically, if he wanted people to have good translations, he would want the translation to be from the original texts to the new language, not a translation of translation - even if teh KJV were the best English translation.

adampjr
Sep 10th 2012, 12:51 PM
It hasn't changed the truth in His words.



Oh really? Then let the readers decide.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. King James Bible

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. ESV

Not the same message. Indeed, this error is also found in the NASB which I had read from growing up in high school and I was led to believe it was a sin to be angry and that I will be judged for it. That is the message as plainly read in ESV & NASB.

It did not matter that my Sunday school teacher tried to correct me by pointing me in the same NASB that it was okay to be angry but do not sin.

Ephesians 4:26Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, ESV

That little voice "Did God really say that?" was in the back of my head and so I played it safe to err on the side of caution by believing it was a sin to be angry for fear of that judgment as stated plainly in the ESV. I mean, really: who are you going to believe more? The words of Jesus or the words of Paul?

But the Good Shepherd came to the rescue by leading me to His actual words that He had said in the KJV as lining up with Paul's words.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. KJV

Ephesians 4:26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: KJV

As scripture cannot go against scripture and the words of Paul cannot go against the words of Jesus: the King James Bible wins over all modern Bibles as keeping to His words and not declining from the glory of the testionies regarding the Son.

Instead of starting with your conclusion, you should show how the KJV "without a cause" better represents the original text than the ESV. Comparing teh KJV to the ESV is meaningless in this way unless you show that the KJV better renders the text into English. Can you do this?

Slug1
Sep 10th 2012, 12:57 PM
I doubt that very much when it involves having a clear message about being angry without a cause which is keeping in line with other parts of scripture in the NT. Jesus had whipped the moneychangers out of the Temple out of anger so we either hold that the KJV has it right and the Alexandrian manuscripts did not love Him enough to keep His words or He's a hypocrite.

And He is not a hypocrite.

Amen... Jesus was not held "liable" for that anger. Nor would any disciple either.

poorinspirit
Sep 10th 2012, 12:59 PM
You never addressed the question. You just devolved into the ESV. How do you support the claim that Jesus wants new translations to be from the KJV rather than anything else?

Logically, if he wanted people to have good translations, he would want the translation to be from the original texts to the new language, not a translation of translation - even if teh KJV were the best English translation.

Because Jesus said that those that loved Him would keep His words: that would mean using them and updating from them as the process which cannot be verified by any other means other than by what Jesus said how His words would be kept because those that loved Him would be using them.

Man's knowledge from today has to be circumspect in translating from the original texts when they are out of sort from that time period and the progression of linguistics and its proper cultural usage through time, and yet by the words of Jesus: as time progresses, the meaning is not lost as they are consistently using His words and keeping to the actual meaning and message of His words.

Slug1
Sep 10th 2012, 01:01 PM
Instead of starting with your conclusion, you should show how the KJV "without a cause" better represents the original text than the ESV. Comparing teh KJV to the ESV is meaningless in this way unless you show that the KJV better renders the text into English. Can you do this?I already raised this in #44 and asked basically the same question(s). So far, this has fallen on deaf ears.

poorinspirit
Sep 10th 2012, 01:25 PM
Instead of starting with your conclusion, you should show how the KJV "without a cause" better represents the original text than the ESV. Comparing teh KJV to the ESV is meaningless in this way unless you show that the KJV better renders the text into English. Can you do this?

Can you? So why do you ask me to do that which you know full well you cannot do either when it involves handling the original manuscripts to even verify that you are looking at the original text on the internet?

Believers have the Holy Spirit in us: as no lie can be of the truth....and scripture cannot be broken and thus maintaining truth within, then we go from there.

What is the plain reading of Matthew 5:22 means to you in the ESV? To me, ESV has Jesus saying that it is not only a sin to be angry but I will be judged for it, and quite severely too. Should we fear? Yes.

And yet Paul's words in Ephesians 4:26 in the ESV that it was okay to be angry, but do not sin.

Now who is lying? It can't be Jesus. So maybe Paul spoke on his own as evidence of that can be seen in 1 Corinthians 7:12 but maybe he forgot to clarify that which still would put him in the hot seat as going against His words.

So then one can be led to doubt some of the rest of Paul's words and be subjected to the false teachings that Paul was a false apostle and that we should only listen to Jesus.

That's the end result of how these small leaven can leaven into a whole lump. Did God really say that? How can anyone know for sure what the truth is?

And yet Jesus gave us guidelines as to not only know who is speaking for Him but which Bible is too, when they keep His words and the sayings of His disciples. That means they have to line up with each other in speaking the same truth.

By comparing that standard with the KJV, you can see that Jesus words line up with Paul's words, and thus ESV should not be relied upon for having His words since we need His words for the disciples to continue therein to be His disciples.

You cannot find the truth by examining the ancient manuscripts. We do not have access to them to handle and see, let alone have the knowledge of translation and the cultural linguistics of the times as it progresses through time in ascertaining the correct definition that can come from the varierty of definitions of that one text that it can can have, in how it is used in that verse that we can find the truth in His words in understanding it in acording to our time and use of terms today.

Since that whole process would need the guidance of the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit: then the help can easily be applicable by just examining the fruits of the labours of what is before us as we read and compare the Bibles today with what scripture testifies as to what the scripture should be testifying of: Jesus Christ in seeking His glory in according to His words.

Since we need His words to abide in them to be His disciples, then God is not slacking to provide them to those that seek. That also means He will help us discern which Bible is keeping to His words so we can continue as His disciples in serving Him and not become a disciple of something else in serving something else and not the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

adampjr
Sep 10th 2012, 01:26 PM
Because Jesus said that those that loved Him would keep His words: that would mean using them and updating from them as the process which cannot be verified by any other means other than by what Jesus said how His words would be kept because those that loved Him would be using them.

Man's knowledge from today has to be circumspect in translating from the original texts when they are out of sort from that time period and the progression of linguistics and its proper cultural usage through time, and yet by the words of Jesus: as time progresses, the meaning is not lost as they are consistently using His words and keeping to the actual meaning and message of His words.

this post does not explain why the KJV is the best English translation or why a translation of a translation is better than a translation of teh original.

Care to answer the other issue - if two translations contradict (for example, the ESV and the KJV) then the arbiter of that dispute must be the original text they both claim to represent. Do you care to show how, in the Matthew verse you used, the KJV better represents that original text?
do you also wish to show how teh KJV better represents Jesus' words than the original text (which is your implicit, albeit absurd, claim)

poorinspirit
Sep 10th 2012, 01:38 PM
this post does not explain why the KJV is the best English translation or why a translation of a translation is better than a translation of teh original.

Being how you specified the example of comparing the ESV with the KJV to prove the KJV is better, it does explain it, but now you went from that specification to all other translations: and yet the same standard that applies in determining the specification can be still applicable towards all translations.


Care to answer the other issue - if two translations contradict (for example, the ESV and the KJV) then the arbiter of that dispute must be the original text they both claim to represent. Do you care to show how, in the Matthew verse you used, the KJV better represents that original text?
do you also wish to show how teh KJV better represents Jesus' words than the original text (which is your implicit, albeit absurd, claim)

What is absurd is man's ability today to know better what His words meant from the original text. That is why we have the Helper.

So reread this one more time. No lie can be of the truth. Either the words of His disciples lines up with the words of Jesus or something is amiss. If the KJV lines up whereas the modern Bibles do not, then deflecting that point by going to the original text is moot.

And it has been shown that there is a text as translated to mean "without a cause", but if you are going to deflect further by demanding which source document is the right one, then I refer back to what Jesus said that scripture is supposed to do: testify of Jesus Christ as His disciples as led by the Holy Spirit in them will be doing the same thing in the NT.

adampjr
Sep 10th 2012, 02:05 PM
Being how you specified the example of comparing the ESV with the KJV to prove the KJV is better, it does explain it, but now you went from that specification to all other translations: and yet the same standard that applies in determining the specification can be still applicable towards all translations.



What is absurd is man's ability today to know better what His words meant from the original text. That is why we have the Helper.

So reread this one more time. No lie can be of the truth. Either the words of His disciples lines up with the words of Jesus or something is amiss. If the KJV lines up whereas the modern Bibles do not, then deflecting that point by going to the original text is moot.

And it has been shown that there is a text as translated to mean "without a cause", but if you are going to deflect further by demanding which source document is the right one, then I refer back to what Jesus said that scripture is supposed to do: testify of Jesus Christ as His disciples as led by the Holy Spirit in them will be doing the same thing in the NT.

You;re obfuscating.
You say "if the KJV lines up and teh modern Bibles do not" ... but then say the original text is moot. If the KJV lines up with what, if not the original words? And if you mean "with the words of Jesus" then the best test of the words of Jesus is the original text.

You're argument looks like this:
1. The KJV is superior.
2. The KJV is different from all the other modern trasnlations.
3. Therefore, the KJV is superior.

that argument is a circle, and can't be taken seriously.

You're post about Jesus and Paul is also backwards.
The following is invalid:
1. Jesus and Paul cannot contradict.
2. the KJV better allows for compatability between Jesus and Paul.
3. Therefore, the KJV is superior and jesus and Paul do not contradict.

that is also begging teh question. You cannot use doctrinal principle to show which translation is better. you must use good translation, and show how that translation isthe best rendering of teh original text, to then show a doctrinal principle about Jesus and Paul. Text precedes doctrine, not vice versa.

I know that "no lie can be of truth" that's irrelevant.

Boo
Sep 11th 2012, 10:10 AM
I doubt that very much when it involves having a clear message about being angry without a cause which is keeping in line with other parts of scripture in the NT. Jesus had whipped the moneychangers out of the Temple out of anger so we either hold that the KJV has it right and the Alexandrian manuscripts did not love Him enough to keep His words or He's a hypocrite.

And He is not a hypocrite.

I don't know what your source is, but Strong's Concordance has it in this wise.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK14.htm#S1500

From the Greek text: eike

It is not all that simple, brother. We are told not to be angry and sin. Being angry and hating your brother are also two separate issues.