Is vigor same as sin?

[KJB1611reader]

Not sure which other thread you mean, so I'll justsay here that I see from your link that the "Baptist version" has these words at the end of Romans 16:

"Written to the Romans from Corinth by Phebe servant of the church of Cenchrea."

However, of course there is nothing to say where those words come from. Adam Clarke in his commentary on Romans 16:27, says: "[Written to the Romans from Corinthus,] was written from Corinth is almost universally believed. That Phoebe was a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea, we have seen in the first verse of this chapter; and that the epistle might have been sent by her to Rome is possible; but that she should have been the writer of the epistle, as this subscription states, is false, for [{Ro 16:22 }] shows that Tertius was the writer, though by inserting the words and sent, we represent her rather as the carrier than the writer. This subscription, however, stands on very questionable grounds. It is wanting in almost all the ancient MSS.; and even of those which are more modern, few have it entirely, as in our common editions. It has already been noted that the subscriptions to the sacred books are of little or no authority, all having been added in latter times, and frequently by injudicious hands. The most ancient have simply To the Romans, or the Epistle to the Romans is finished."

Well, Luther had the colophons, Tyndale and others. It came from the Greek manuscripts.

Tyndale corrected the Ltin and added them.

Shawn

 

[KJB1611reader]

Thanks Rick for telling me of the 1842 Bpst Bible; and some findings.

Dear community, Rick hath told me of a 'Bible' that was revised by Baptists in 1842. Some notes: Corrects kjb in Gen 49:6 from wall to ox. Left out words in Romans' colophon which make Phebe the writer. Changed LORD to Jehovah many times...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[David Lamb]

Well, Luther had the colophons, Tyndale and others. It came from the Greek manuscripts.

Tyndale corrected the Ltin and added them.

Shawn

As it seems from sources I have looked at that very few of the manuscripts have the part about Phoebe/Phebe writing the letter, I don't believe she did. An even better reason for believing that she didn't write it is that we are actually told in the letter who did:

“I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Ro 16:22 NKJV)

 

[KJB1611reader]

As it seems from sources I have looked at that very few of the manuscripts have the part about Phoebe/Phebe writing the letter, I don't believe she did. An even better reason for believing that she didn't write it is that we are actually told in the letter who did:

“I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Ro 16:22 NKJV)

Yes, I believe Tertius wrote it.

I believe Phebe sent it. I was just saying that baptist version left out those 'sent by' words.

Shawn

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, I believe Tertius wrote it.

I believe Phebe sent it. I was just saying that baptist version left out those 'sent by' words.

Shawn

I agree. I don't know why.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I agree. I don't know why.

They also changed Genesis 49:6.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I agree. I don't know why.

Maybe they thought 'sent by' wasn't in the Greek as its in italics.

 

[David Lamb]

They also changed Genesis 49:6.

I cannot imagine it was because they were Baptists. I can't see anything that goes against Baptist teaching in the other translations of the Genesis verse:

“Let not my soul enter their council; Let not my honor be united to their assembly; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they hamstrung an ox.” (Ge 49:6 NKJV)

 

[KJB1611reader]

I cannot imagine it was because they were Baptists. I can't see anything that goes against Baptist teaching in the other translations of the Genesis verse:

“Let not my soul enter their council; Let not my honor be united to their assembly; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they hamstrung an ox.” (Ge 49:6 NKJV)

Do see that anglican bias in the kj as Rick did?

 

[David Lamb]

Do see that anglican bias in the kj as Rick did?

Perhaps in a very few places, such as the use of the word "bishops" rather than "overseers," but I think if we didn't already know who the translators were, it would be difficult to work out that the KJV had been translated by Anglicans.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Makes no sense whatsoever, bro

Makes no sense whatsoever, bro

As a side note, I love that a man of mature advanced age uses ‘bro’ to address the bretheren. I will have to adopt that as well.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I see, I will look into this.

Well, I as a Baptist use the KJB Only.

Why?

 

[KJB1611reader]

Why?

Since its perfect.

 

[JonC]

So, if the KJB IS ANGLICAN.. what Bible should Baptists use?

The HCSB

There actually isn't an "if" in there. The translators and editors were given instruction to use language that would support the English crown (for obvious reasons, given the time it was written).

Did this change the meaning? I don't think so. But it did affect word choices.

To answer your question, Christians should use a translation in their vernacular that they can understand and that will not present an obstacle to their study of God's Word.

I prefer using several translations. I'd never teach or preach out of the KJV because with many passages I'd have to first explain the antiquated language, the source words, and the readon specific words were chosen.

I like the NASB, but not to read aloud. I'd probably go with the NIV or the NKJV in preaching or teaching (in reading aloud).

 

[JonC]

Since its perfect.

Good response. That is why I use the NASB, NIV, and NKJB.

Like you I understand that God's Word transcends translation, and with any translation study is required.

 

[Layman]

Since its perfect.

Shawn, nobody here is going to take you seriously when all you do is say, “it’s perfect, I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion.”

Many here find that to be a bit silly and I would rather see you start to engage in a higher level of debate instead of seeing you getting laughed off with every post you make.

 

[JonC]

Hi,

I wish to know if 'sin' and 'vigor' are same? Is it okay to replace sin to vigor in a verse?

Shawn

They are not substitute words. "sin" is not in the passage at all, but the KJV added it seeking clarity. The word "vigor" is in the verse as "youthful", signifying strength.

But just leaving it at "youthful" would not make sence in the English as the verse is specifically talking about the vigor of the young.

Your question should be if it was OK for the KJV translators to add "sin" to the passage as "youthful vigor" is legitimately there.

My answer is it's ok. One could read "sin" to mean "youthful vigor" in the sence of youthful lists as this may be the case in the context. But I would prefer a closer translation (youthful vigor) as I do not see the KJV addition necessary. I think about anybody could grasp what is being said either by the closer "word for word" translation or the KJV translation.

 

[JonC]

Shawn, nobody here is going to take you seriously when all you do is say, “it’s perfect, I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion.”

Many here find that to be a bit silly and I would rather see you start to engage in a higher level of debate instead of seeing you getting laughed off with every post you make.

The funny thing with @KJB1611reader 's post is it is the KJV that added to Scripture (for clarity) as "youthful vigor" is legitimately in the source.

Both translations get the point across.

I prefer the NASB for study. But one thing I like about the KJV is they do add words and rearrange words - not to change meaning but to maintain a higher literary style. I can't think of a place this is not more obvious than with the Psalms. I've yet to read a translation of the Psalms that approaches the beauty of the KJV.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Shawn, nobody here is going to take you seriously when all you do is say, “it’s perfect, I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion.”

Many here find that to be a bit silly and I would rather see you start to engage in a higher level of debate instead of seeing you getting laughed off with every post you make.

They are pitied. Seriously. A sect of bibliolaters that are not even worshiping the Bible, but man's translation. They claim perfection and then redefine "perfect" so that all the errors, added words, messed up doctrine is now "perfect" and the standard (which perfect should be - the standard).

And they can't even say the AV1611 (it says "version") or KJV (again, admitting it is NOT the perfect, but simply a "version"). Lying to themselves every time they say KJB. Very sad.

 

[JonC]

They are pitied. Seriously. A sect of bibliolaters that are not even worshiping the Bible, but man's translation. They claim perfection and then redefine "perfect" so that all the errors, added words, messed up doctrine is now "perfect" and the standard (which perfect should be - the standard).

And they can't even say the AV1611 (it says "version") or KJV (again, admitting it is NOT the perfect, but simply a "version"). Lying to themselves every time they say KJB. Very sad.

Every time we get one of these on the board I think of a documentary I watched years ago about illiteraterate Muslims caring for and worshipping a Quaran they were unable to read.

It is idolatry. And you are right. They are to be pitied.

When I pick up my Bible (my KJV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, or NIV) I know I hold a translation of God's Word. His Word transcends translation differences.