Featured Is this guaranteed true claim really true?

You were serious with that Matthew reference?
You were also serious about biting?
Using emoji's is serious?

How about something plain for me, a dummy, like:

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words will not pass away.
Matthew 24:35

But yes I was too glib with His words also about the jots and tiddles,
and I apologize for that.

For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tiddle shall in no wise
pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

Has all been fulfilled?

No.

Therefore, any linguistic or grammatical explanations of this not being true any more are not valid.

Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid:
yea, we establish the law.
Romans 3:31

Direct to direct bible verses help me think through things.

I don't know Greek but I am a Christian by way of hearing the word of God in English.

Did you hear the word of God when you were saved?

Was it in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or English?

 

Thanks for the rhetorical questions.

However, are some things lost in translation? I'm reliably informed the answer is YES. However, enough survives translation for people to understand the Gospel and to grow from that point. So yes, translations are a good thing (if they are good translations).

But then what of the things lost in translation? Those also are The Word of God. Since none of that is meant to pass away, it is our duty to search them in study as well.

Have a great day.

 

Thank you, you also.


I don't count myself as an accomplished searcher as far as the word of God goes.

Think of all the years of study it would take to even hint at, "Colleagues! I found a missing word in P53!"

No, God gave His promises to dummies like me and other folk, to have His words readily available.

Because He loves us and keeps His promises.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16

And the word of our God shall stand forever.
Isaiah 40:8

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35


Like was not Koine Greek a trade language and easier understand and to translate than say, classical Greek?


He gave faithful men the task of writing, putting His word together, and later translating it.

I mean men of faith, would not men of faith be easier for God to work through (?), although I know God can use anyone,
but those devoted to Him would be better.

How many books of the bible were written by unbelievers?

Not only for what God has done for me through renewing my interest in His word via the KJV,

but when I hear secrets were kept or obscured from the public about the faiths of men like Westcott, Hort, Metzger, and Norton
my stomach turns.

Could these "stories" be just KJVO propaganda?

Personally, I do not like the idea of men who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, translating the bible even if they are skilled.

 

None.

I believe that you might be on to something.
I do know that classical "Helenistic" Greek was a bit different than Koine.

 

No.
But I think that that's what some would have us to believe.

Ultimately I think that it goes way deeper than that, my friend...
All the way down to the manuscripts and the methods being used.

I also see that there is both a spiritual aspect of it ( corrupting God's words in order to trouble His children, which is Satan's MO ) and a temporal or earthly aspect of it...
Money.

I say that if much of today's translating of the Bible ( at least into English ) was genuinely about getting the word of God into the hands of people who really wanted a Bible, it would be done for no more than operating costs ( if any )...
And not for the over $400 million a year in Bible sales worldwide:
29 Good Bible Sales Statistics
The Good Book Business

After all, they are God's words,
and they should be free of charge to His people.

There's more to it than simply arriving at a better Bible, SGO.
If that were the only focus, then that would have been completed decades ago.

Neither do I, and that's the real problem though, isn't it?
Many people who profess Christ are listening to unbelieving scholars who really couldn't care less about whose words they are.

Shouldn't they know that those who do not believe on Christ don't really love Him,
and won't treat His words with the utmost care that those words deserve?

 

Well, the thing is, men of faith have all the tools at their fingertips to do their own translations. All seminaries teach the languages. Indeed, our knowledge of the original languages has increased over time. Anyone with enough desire can learn them and study with them. Even if that is not practical, they can find a pastor who studies only from the original and brings the fruit of it to his congregation. And it actually matters that people do this.

If one is not learning from people who study from the Hebrew and Greek (if not learning these languages themselves), then how can it be said of them that they are searching for the Wisdom of God as for hid treasure? Proverbs 2:1-5

For example: I recently observed a post about Psalm 14 that was incredibly uninformed because the only thing the person understood about the Psalm was the English. What did they miss? In English, certain things are invisible to us, such as that a change of gender from masculine singular to feminine plural (in Hebrew) meant that the subject introduced in the masculine singular was now being spoken of as an abstract concept and that the focus had not actually shifted away from the original topic onto something else, which from a literary standpoint makes no sense, but in English seems to be happening. The unliterary nature of this apparent change should have been a clue in English that something else is going on. That switch of genders signals this, but the English-only student cannot see that because the Hebrew gender change is invisible in English. Oops. There is no way to understand this in English. It remains hidden.

So what is the result? The English-only understanding misses the point of the psalm and the English-only student might misguidedly quote it out of its Hebrew context (unknowingly) even though in English it doesn't look like that's what you're doing. But that's exactly what this person was doing, albeit unintentionally.

It's also helpful to realize that a translator doesn't have an easy way to convey this kind of thing in a succinct manner (assuming the education level of the translator is sufficient to understand what these literary constructs are doing). For any translator, the rule is that if it doesn't make sense to you, simply translate it literally and move on, which is usually the right thing to do. But English gender-casting in this way simply doesn't exist, so it GETS LOST IN TRANSLATION.

This is the danger of English only Bible study. You can sometimes draw faulty conclusions. That is not to say one cannot grow and understand things with English only. They can. But in a lifetime of study, can one fulfill the commands to seek the hid treasure by ignoring the original languages, even if only by proxy of your pastor? If your pastor is ignorant of Greek and Hebrew, you will only be able to understand so much. The rest of the Word of God will be opaque to you. There is hid treasure there. We are commanded to seek it.

I hope that provides something upon which to reflect. Thanks for helping me to understand your views.

Have a great evening.

 

Since NO translation is either inspired or perfect, one can use kjv/Nas/Esv/Nkjv. as its more a preference!

 

And yet you have no problems at all with accepting Eramus and His Greek text, even though he held to all of the heresies of Rome?

 

Hello,

No one has this: "only from the original"

Plus I think God would like His word to be all over the world in many translations which is what almost all Christians hope for.

I left it up to scholars to do the translating and the thinking.

"If God is active in the world, certainly He will guard His word" was my mantra in the bible wars for many many years.

Well, He did guard it in the KJV, but so many now say the KJV is a holy bible full of holes.

I was one of those who said it too.

You want to rely on very trained linguists who are very skilled but do not believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior go ahead.

Almost every one who is of note in Christendom today does.


Hey, you can discount this quote because I cherry picked it from a KJVO site:

"The statement says that W&H departed from genuine translation, by inventing their own, using unbelieving systems. And most...translators do exactly the same. This is proved by the work of Bruce Metzger, the most influential critical analyst today. He admitted:

“The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264)."

Westcott and Hort:- Unbelievers who influence millions


You think Wescott and Hort (you will agree that most new bibles come from using their work, right?) were paragons of humility and Christian virtue?

I would really like to see the proof where they praised Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

The KJV translators were Christians to my knowledge.

And they were also skilled linguists but that in itself does not mean anything, right?


I am going to stick with English, the language I know, and the KJV which has recently brought joy to my inner self.

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

 

Nobody is constrained to Westcott Hort. All the NT source versions are available -- copies extant to within 100 years of the autographs. No Westcott Hort needed. Anyone who wants to can bypass Westcott Hort all day long.

Why do people not bypass Westcott Hort? Because people have made their own comparisons and find nothing amiss with Westcott Hort, or if they do, they can simply select whichever CODEX they want to use.

So the curation of Greek sources are not an issue at all. It's a red herring..

As for unbelievers curating the oldest manuscripts, there is no escaping that. This is especially true of the Hebrew (which you didn't mention). All OT translations are based on Jewish transmission history, ultimately. This includes the KJV translation. They are using Catholic-curated Latin translations of Hebrew as well, which is two-strikes against in terms of text/translation curation. This fact cannot be escaped.

IMHO, that source-text-curation-by-unbelievers argument simply fails because the AKJV is also based upon them. There is no extant English translation that has not dependent upon them. Not one.

If someone wants to imply that a contemporary expositor, trained in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, cannot possibly find anything that a KVJ translator missed, or bring to his flock, things that cannot be translated into English in the first place, then that person is not speaking from a position of knowledge but rather from a lack of knowledge.

I hope you will give that some thought and have a super day.

 

This person who wrote is far more knowledgeable to this area then either of Us!
The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations | Bible.org

 

Great.

Ok.

Bypass W & H if you want depth.

"...find nothing amiss" with Westcott and Hort because they accept what most people accept and don't bother questioning it.

I didn't bother either.

Did God say through Isaiah and later similarly though Peter:

The word of our God shall stand forever.
Isaiah 40:8

,,, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:23

?

Then is it our task to delve into the copies and determine which ones contain the word?

No.

He has appointed fallible men to determine what is and to translate the word of God.

But it's ok for deceivers to translate it as long as they are skillful?

Would a non believer really care if he snipped a couple or three old, old verses or changed a word here and there to make a "better" understanding?

Where are Westcott and Hort's testimonies of their Savior God, Jesus Christ?

Don't need it. They knew Greek and were accepted translators.

We don't care if they believed in Christ or not.

Every one (we care about) says their work is gold.

Some know they came to Christ without the KJV so God's word is in a lot of translations.

But ,

Every word of God is pure...
Proverbs 30:5

Who cares? That doesn't apply to translations, does it?

Man shall not live by bread alone but by
every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

I have a bible that I trust.
I trust every word of it.
Not the introductory letters or the marginal notes.

If someone says, "Ok, SGO we know you are a kook."

So what?

Do they trust every single word of the translation they use?

Oh no,

"...all translations have errors."

"No bible is perfect."

How then can you really trust God?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

On crutches.

 

The parables live and abide forever also. But they are designed to hide treasure from the merely curios or those who think finding the truth is easy -- treasures of wisdom, hidden in plain sight. But they are also hidden in plain sight within the original languages. Who is searching for them there? Some people are and they are finding them.

God's treasures of Wisdom are hidden in many ways from the immature and the scoffer. If the hiding of treasure is also in the original languages, that a translation cannot see, and if copies of those original languages still exist, God expects those who are searching for hid treasure to find them there.

I already provided an example of this. What are your thoughts on that example? I'm interested in what you think about it.

Almost every nation on the globe has a Christian seminary, or seminary-trained pastors, that provide tools to teach from the original languages. If people are searching, God makes available the Word. There is no impediment for any human from any culture or any language. God will send someone or God will make available the tools. That includes study and learning from the original.

So if my pastor looks at all the sources and makes a translation, does that mean he's a deceiver?

If not, then why would one criticize the teaching of the Word out of the original languages instead of an English translation that is "lossy" in terms of not being able to translate all the meaning? Why would that person be doing it wrong?

Does the KJV notice the change in gender between Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 14:2? No, it doesn't. Did something important get lost there? Yes, it did. Is it the translator's fault? Not really. There is no good way to translate "we are now considering the person in verse one as a class of people, etc.". That is left to a commentary. Except most commentaries don't notice it either or simply interpret it without explaining it.

Who then is demanding that nobody find this and teach it? Who is demanding that they don't need to know this?

Who is saying the AKJV is not losing anything in translation?

If such an expositor is not doing wrong by learning and teaching from the original languages, then why would someone decide to eschew that kind of expository teaching altogether? Why would someone not embrace expository teaching like this as a matter of principle? What is that principle?

The Jews don't believe in Christ but you freely accept translations from the Biblia Hebraica. Doesn't this negate your Westcott-Hort argument?

Isn't this is a false dichotomy? For instance, God's word abiding forever can mean that the extant source language materials have been preserved to the extent that any expositor seeking the hid treasure therein will find a super-sufficiency. Yes?

It doesn't work to say that what God really meant, was that an English translation, AKJV, would be a fulsome stand-in for the originals. Then what is a Russian to read? Must he learn English? An Indonesian? A Hindu? What about them? OK, we translate into all these languages. However, what if they didn't use the same sources as the AKJV? Are these tainted? Is that God's Word failing to abide for those people?

Maybe your view is that for English, it's AKJV or nothing. And for the other languages, at least one translation into that language is "the one".

Let me know if I've understood you or not.

 

No amount of back and forth with me is going to change your mind.

KJVOs talked to me before July 2020, and I thought they were fools just like many on this forum think I am.

I was in a desperate state and it was suggested to me to read the KJV.

I read it and was blessed tremendously.

That is my story.

I came to this Baptist forum thinking perhaps someone could tell me what had happened to me and to find out more about the King James Version.

Now I have people actually telling me I don't understand anything about translation and how God has bettered the understanding of His word with the new translations.

Many of these people have not taken the time to look at Westcott and Hort in depth but because our seminaries, Christian organizations, pastors, publishers, keepers of the parchments all say the older is better; like it's fine wine.

Do not call into question the character of the writers of the new Greek text for they were scholars and accepted almost everywhere.

To me, to me, to me, that is just like saying Jesus was not perfect but He died for all so it's ok.


The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy

In the 1870s, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism, but this challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The heart of the Wescott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine's Monastery (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vatican us was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.

The King James New Testament was translated from a different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new translation from texts that they considered to be older and better. They believed that the true work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact.

 

Please back up your statements with something.

 

Yes an expert.

Perhaps you can show me the many quotes by Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort where they praise Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, or do scholars think those types of utterances are beneath them?

They compiled and wrote the first widely accepted modern rendition of the Greek New Testament, after all, and did not have time for frivolous and emotional outbursts of the like.

"The Church of England makers of the KJV held the same basic Church of England doctrinal views as Westcott and Hort."

Is saying that the Church of England did not have such diverse views as say, Baptists?

Oh, I have been misinformed.
Thank you so much for making that statement without proof.

The KJV translators...
"...were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius."
King James Bible Translators