Featured Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10

You say the context should be considered. Okay, I will do so.
1. The letter is written to a specific local church.
2. The next three verses make the context clear: " 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
3. So the verse referenced, verse 10, is about a specific conflict which is centered around personalities, namely Paul, Peter, and Apollos, not to mention Jesus Himself.
4. Can the passage be applied to the modern Bible version dispute, No, because the passage is (a) to a local church about a local church problem, not Christianity in general. (b) The passage itself is about splits on the basis of personalities (Billy Graham, etc.), not translations.

 

I don’t believe the passage means what you think it means.
It does not mean we all must think, talk and walk the same.

Christians are gifted differently and each of us complements the body of Christ.

A variety of versions aids believers of different backgrounds to understand God’s word.

Rob

 

Yet another effort to claim prior views are superior to subsequent views, the hallmark of provincialism.

Let us consider the New Testament. We have several versions, such as the TR, the MT and the CT. And of course a myriad of translations which are eclectic, going with this variant here, and that variant there.

We are to study God's word, and do our best to understand it, apply it to our lives, and present it to those in need. Jesus found the prevailing understanding of God's word to be well wide of the mark, so for anyone to say we should compel everyone to adhere to one view, right or wrong, rather than what seems best after careful study is nonsense.

 

The pre-1611 word of God in English disagreed with your opinion. Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost." To refer to the inspiring of men or to "inspired men" is consistent with early English Bible terminology from the very good Bibles in the line of good Bibles promoted by KJV-only advocates.

Is this understanding or interpretation of the early English Bible translators an accurate description of the process of God in giving His Word to men? At John 20:19, the Geneva Bible and an edition of the KJV printed in 1672 have the following marginal note: “Christ in that he presented himself before his disciples suddenly through his divine power, when the gates were shut, doth fully assure them both of his resurrection, and also of their Apostleship, inspiring them with the holy Ghost, who is the director of the ministry of the Gospel.” The Geneva Bible and a KJV edition printed in 1672 have the following note at 1 Corinthians 14:32: “The doctrine which the prophets bring, which are inspired with God’s Spirit.” At 1 Corinthians 14:2, the same two Bibles have a note that begins as follows: “By that inspiration which he has received of the Spirit.”

The word inspiration came into the English Bible from the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate as found in Coverdale’s 1538 Latin-English New Testament began 2 Timothy 3:16 as follows: “Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata,“ and the Latin Vulgate also has “inspirati” in its rendering at 2 Peter 1:21.

John Wycliffe is cited and translated as writing that “the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit” (Levy, John Wyclif, p. 211). Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament has the following rendering of 2 Peter 1:21: “for prophecy was not brought at any time by man’s will, but the holy men of God, inspired with the Holy Ghost, spoke it.“ Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 English New Testament at 2 Peter 1:21 is the following: “For the prophecy was never brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the holy Ghost.”

In the preface of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, Matthew Parker maintained that the apostle Paul was “inspired from God above” and that “he did inspire Moses” (Richmond, Fathers, VIII, pp. 146, 151). Lancelot Andrewes, KJV translator, used this early Bible terminology when he preached that Christ "inspireth them [the apostles] with the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six, III, p. 317). Concerning 2 Peter 1:19, Lancelot Andrewes commented: “The apostle teacheth us that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth” (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 46). KJV translator John Overall wrote: “For we hold it resolutely, that whatsoever the Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote, taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost” (Convocation Book, p. 120). Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, wrote: “The prophets were inspired from above” (Perpetual Government, p. 136).

 

Your modern KJV-only reasoning is erroneous.

 

You do not see clearly and objectively because of your subjective KJV-only bias.

Unsound and false KJV-only teaching has divided Christians and churches.

 

There's no proof that any one English translation is the best one.

 

You do not get my sound points. You ignore or dismiss sound documented evidence.

 

One only has to read the numerous passages of OT Scripture that have been quoted in the NT to see the varied ways the authors translated from one language to another.

A person has to turn a blind eye when reading the Bible if they don’t see that OT quotes don’t always match up exactly in the NT.

These differences are not the “same” noted in 1 Corinthians.

Rob

 

How is the last sentence wrong?