Featured A good ensample

Don't Grasp At Straws

What do you know? I made the discovery that the NIV carries the same message as the KJV here.
"To this you were called, bcause Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."

I am here to report that all your energy put toward your agenda is in vain. There is nothing in modern versions such as the NIV here which misses anything. So I will stick to a number of more modern translations in general, such as the New International Version.

 

That answer doesn't work. The KJV can't have the title of the only "pure English word" just because KJVOISM says so. With that argument even "The Message" can lay claim to that title.

Why not the Geneva Bible?

Why do you believe that KJVO alone is the worthy of this trust? You argument is based on opinion and emotion. Not on any evidence.

Then why did we assemble the cannon? Why not just leave the books isolated? How did we determine what books are in the Bible? Like it or not, you have a book assembled by man. The 66 books did not fall out of the sky assembled.

No I think the right books were chosen, but men made that decision based on 3 guidelines.

I will also note, the KJV was written under the authority of King James who have the translators specific guidelines on how it was to be written.




Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

What, may I ask, is the important key that is missing in modern versions when translating this verse?

Here is the NIV's take:
"not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."

Have you uncovered some deep, dark, mysterious evil that is subtly influencing us away from the Lord in this passage as rendered in the NIV?

 

Since the KJV includes additions....guess that knocks it out.

...and yes you are trusting translators. Unless you you have translated your own Bible, you are trusting other men. God did not drop the KJV from the sky.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Of course you have an agenda. It is to further your KJVOnlyism.

You made no mention of how the NIV translated 1 Peter 5:3 and 2:21. I guess they are acceptable to you.

It's found in the footnotes.

All Bible translations are imperfect because...listen closely...they are translations. They aren't the original autographs. Yes, even the mighty KJV is a mere version --not the autographa.

 

Come on. You've been sticking around for 35 more minutes.

 

KJV:
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light,and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

This contradiction is due to KJV rendering. Not the Greek, but the KJV. The NASB and ESV(plus others) get it right.

Acts 22:9 "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me." ESV

Modern translations see the different Greek terms used and translate correctly. While the KJV is left with a man made contradiction.

Another good one is, how could have Luke, mentioned Easter in Acts 12, when the Pagan title of Easter did not exist yet? Why did the KJV the other 27 times translate the same word as "passover"???



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Here are some things that were said about the ESV. I disagree with it very much.

"One of the noticeable features of the ESV is the numerous changes in gender."

Then four references are given from Matthew. All such terminology are generic, as they should be.

"These are but a few examples of how the ESV treats gender language. Thus the ESV attempts to make generic changes which, it is speculated, meet a need (real or perceived) in modern Bible readers. This gender-segregation is more than that seen even in the 1995 NASB Revised edition which 'makes about 85 changes that introduce gender-inclusive language' "

"People who are concerned with the truth of the Bible will not be fooled by this new version..."

"People who like the AV for its accuracy, excellence and sound textual basis will not want this new revision."

"...it cannot be considered a trustworthy translation of the Bible."
________________________________________________________________
Again, I completely disagree with the characterizations that were made against the ESV. These are samples of their incredibly biased angle.

 

Which different Greek term are you referring to?
The Greek word which the KJV (and NKJV) translates as 'hear' and the ESV as 'understand' is akouo, from which we get the word 'acoustics.' It's natural meaning is 'to hear.' The men with Paul heard a voice but could not distinguish it as the one who was speaking to Paul. I don't have a problem with any of the versions.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the words kai emphoboi egenonto, 'and they were afraid,' appear in over 500 Greek manuscripts and are missing, by my count, in eleven.

 

The word from Acts 22 in question is ekousan(understand in ESV). Earlier in the narrative Luke uses ekousa(heard)

Ekousan is "to understand"
Ekousa is "to hear"

The KJV fails to distinguish ekousan correctly.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

It also worth noting that earliest one(independent from the RCC oversight of production) mentioning it is 6th century ...and there is only one. Two from the 10th, all the rest are after the 10th century.

The bulk of text(Byzantine) with the phrase were produced under the oversight of the Holy Roman emperor.

Manuscripts must be weighted for their value, not just counted.

I will add that Erasmus himself championed updating the Greek in search for the most accurate version possible. He continued to update his work until he died. He made over 400 changes by his second edition alone.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Well, his first edition was a self-confessed mess. He was in a rush because the Complutensian Polyglot Bible by the hand of Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros was going to be soon released.

He had to make many corrections because of the error-filled first edition.

 

I pointed out some flaws earlier in the KJV, not because I think it is bad, but to prove it is a translation by man. Man is flawed and makes mistakes. Not one substantial difference can be provided by KJVOism that proves doctrinal change. The same doctrines that are established in the KJV, are also established on the NIV, NASB, and ESV (many other as well). No sinister plot. No evil cults at work. The KJV will have just as many errors as another major English translation, if not more. The infallibility and inerrancy of God's message is preserved in English versions such as KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and HCSB(list not exhaustive).Even though man may have made a mistake, or used a less accurate word in translation.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

When something is not in the oldest manuscripts, and then shows up later....we call that an addition. The KJV has additions. The KJV doesn't get to be the standard by which all is judged. The documents closest to the originals carry the most weight. Less time, allows for less human errors, which you have acknowledged happens. The KJV must be judged against the ancient manuscripts, not the other way around. The KJV adds to these manuscripts. Nothing has been removed.

Newer manuscripts have had plenty of time to absorb tradtion, accumulate errors(and very few the errors are) and to harmonize.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk