Which version!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawn raider:
“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.” Matthew 5:18.
I believe that it is commonly conceded by all here that this means, if not implies, that we will or should have the Word of God (the Bible) preserved perfectly and entirely until the end of time. My question is “Which version meets this criterion?” All versions disagree with one other at some point. Some differ as to wording, which verse does or does not belong, even whole sections are in question! There is some question as to which Greek text is to be followed. The Nestle’s/Aland text is constantly being updated. How can we possibly know which version best reflects Matt. 5:18? Dare we say we know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read a good portion of the scripture for context:

Matt. 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.
21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
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.

Jesus is talking to the "righteous -- in their own minds" scribes and Pharisees who were questioning his Diety and trying to capture or trick him. They were accusing him of attempting to CHANGE THE LAW. He was simply stating that the law was NOT changing and that the Messiah was to come all along as predicted by the prophets.
He did not come to CHANGE the law but to FULFILL it. (Matt 5:17)
This should not be taken out of context to mean a Word for Word Bible, because the New Testament does not cover the "law" anyway, it covers "GRACE". Jesus is explaining that we are ALL sinners including the Jews who claimed to KEEP the law and they too were sinners and required his salvation as the narrow door to heaven. He then went on to explain how they were all sinners because of the thoughts in their hearts were no diffrent than outward sin.
Please, read the entire chapter with a very open mind and try to understand what is being said and don't pull the single verse out of context to be used like the KJVO camp does. It is simply out of context in that meaning.

In answer to your question, it is the belief that only the original documents written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit's influence contain the exact wording of the Word of God. However, most theologians believe that the current new translations contain the scripture accurately and adequately to pass along the Word of God and the Message of Grace for salvation by the Son of God. It is my personal belief that if we had original manuscripts today, we would start worshipping them as idols the way the Orthodox Jews worship their scroll and kiss it before reading from it in a very formal ceremony. Remember, the Holy Spirit will also help us understand the Bible, especially if we are a Christian or looking to become a Christian. Therefore, the translation is immaterial as long as it is of a modern mainstream conservative based version. I certainly hope this helps answer your question. It may not be the answer you are looking for, and many KJVO groups may argue with me, but I have no reason to believe the KJV of the 1700's is any more inspired than the NASB or the NIV of today. You can get saved reading either AND they are NOT watered down as many would like to believe--that is simply a KJVO myth.

God Bless!

 

Check out this site, www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm

 

Good morning Phillip! I am one of those crazy KJVOnlies. LOL !!! I would like to explain my position. I believe the KJV to be the truest translation of the original manuscripts. (There aren't many like me on this board .... that's ok...) (smiling). Every time the Bible is updated to make it easier to read the subject .... verbs ... verb direction can change ... ever so slightly ... changing the meaning of the verse. I know you are going to want examples .... good for you! ... you should never take a persons word but only through the scripture. (As usual I need to go to work but will post later) .... The original languages were very exact ... to translate a word that is misused into the original meaning changes the meaning of the scripture.

My friends children received Bibles for Christmas ... very cute ... Precious Moments Bibles. While reading to them we discovered a change in the wording. We were reading Genesis. At first we discounted the issue ... we said, "they are only 3,4 and 5 years old ... what difference does it make?" The important thing is ... they are listening to the Bible. The next day we did some research and you know what? This verse could not be interpeted the same way as it was in the KJV. It was impossible. The meaning was changed.

We know longer read to them from their "cute" Bibles.

I realize I am being very vague ... I am trying to explain my position. I have read other Bibles .... ones that claimed to be "easy to undersand" .... they were right ... they were easy to understand but the meaning was not accurate. I will stick to my Companion KJV and Strong's con. .... Thank you for your post ... you are making me "think". LOL !!!!

.... his will be done.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by For His Name:
Every time the Bible is updated to make it easier to read the subject .... verbs ... verb direction can change ... ever so slightly ... changing the meaning of the verse. I know you are going to want examples .... good for you! ... you should never take a persons word but only through the scripture. (As usual I need to go to work but will post later) .... The original languages were very exact ... to translate a word that is misused into the original meaning changes the meaning of the scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem here at the outset is that you hvae supposed the KJV to be the most accurate in meaning without stopping to consider that it was simply someone's understanding of the original language, just as the MVs are. While the Greek and Hebrew are very exact in some cases, they are very plastic in others. The Hebrew perfect and the Greek aorist are very plastic forms. The participial uses likewise are very plastic and depend heavily on the context around for their meaning. Much of what we know of aorist and participial uses was not available to the KJV translators and thus they were not able to give the best translation. They gave a good one but 400 years of language study has helped and we should avail ourselves of it.

This issue is not quite as simple as you have made it out to be.

 

&gt;&gt;I believe that it is commonly conceded by all here that this means, if not implies, that we will or should have the Word of God (the Bible) preserved perfectly and entirely until the end of time.&gt;&gt;

Let's cut to the chase.

If it is/was the KJV1611, where was the perfectly preserved Word of God before 1611?

HankD

[ October 06, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawn raider:
I believe that it is commonly conceded by all here that this means, if not implies, that we will or should have the Word of God (the Bible) preserved perfectly and entirely until the end of time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You believe wrong. It is by no means commonly conceded. In fact, most believe that it says nothing about the topic you are assigning it to.

Versions are to be judged by their fidelity to the orginal language texts, not by their similarity to any English version. The major translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, perhaps a couple of others) differ in their translation and textual variants followed. They do not differ in their message. Which one is right? All of them are right if they accurately convey the message of the original text. All of them are wrong where they do not.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dad_350:
Check out this site, www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And after that, check out
A Response to a Brother in Christ by James White.

 

RE: 400 years of post KJV research...

&gt;&gt;They gave a good one but 400 years of language study has helped and we should avail ourselves of it.&gt;&gt;

And along with that, the advent of the computer. A word or verse search/study which formerly took months or even years now takes moments. Topical searches of several bible versions, lexicons, dictionaries, grammars, commentaries, sermons, etc, can be searched in a matter of seconds (although the information compiled may take days to read).

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawn raider:
I didn’t expect this misdirection tact but I should have. And as per usual as in all threads this subject has degenerated to bitter controversy and nothing more than an attack on these so-called “KJO groups.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is the misdirection?

Where is the bitter controversy?

Where are the attacks?

Are you reading the same thread I am???

 

Matthew 5:18 has absolutely nothing to do with pointing to a perfect English translation to come 1600 years later. This is simply another KJVO failed coup down the drain!

 

The Law? Let's see what Jesus said:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Matthew 22:37-40

So, first of all, the Law is easy in that sense, and has nothing to do with the Bible per se. I mean, if we are going to argue about versions, I guess the Japanese, the Swahili, the Croatian is lost, eh? They can't read which version the English speakers are fighting about which is 'correct.'

Secondly, for those in Christ, the law is completely fulfilled in Him and because of Him. We cannot do it. Thus, as Paul said, in Him we are free. Free to follow and free to serve -- and free to love our neighbor. Sometimes this involves eating what they eat, wearing what they wear....

The Law is a matter of the heart, not of the body actions. The law is Love. Self-sacrificing, giving, caring, commited love.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawn raider:
“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.” Matthew 5:18.
I believe that it is commonly conceded by all here that this means, if not implies, that we will or should have the Word of God (the Bible) preserved perfectly and entirely until the end of time. My question is “Which version meets this criterion?” All versions disagree with one other at some point. Some differ as to wording, which verse does or does not belong, even whole sections are in question! There is some question as to which Greek text is to be followed. The Nestle’s/Aland text is constantly being updated. How can we possibly know which version best reflects Matt. 5:18? Dare we say we know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I believe that this is talking about Jesus teaching about the law, not the perfect preservation of the Word.

This verse is found among a number of teachings in the beginning of Matthew. It seems here the Bible is teaching us that Jesus is talking about how he did not come to abolish the law but instead fulfill it.

Does it make sense that Jesus here is saying that the Law fully applies to each and everyone of us fully until he fulfill the law ("till all be fulfilled")?

I could be wrong though.

Until Next Post, Adam

[ October 06, 2001: Message edited by: flyfree432 ]

 

"Heaven and earth shall pass away", and "Until heaven and earth shall pass away" are figures of speech common in Aramaic among the Jews. They are literally used to mean "until the appropriate time" or "at some point in the future".

Matthew 5:17, which preceeds one of the previous figures of speech, is Jesus telling us that he is the fulfillment of both the law and the prophets. The time of their completion is at hand. For one thing, this means that there is no unfulfilled prophecy left in the OT. For another, "until everything is accomplished" is something on the horizon. Everything will be accomplished when Jesus rises from the dead. The passage in Matthew 24 also directly relates to the same incident, which is in the context of the entire passage. Jesus is predicting the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple which is the final symbol of the change from old covenant to new. Thus, the figures of speech and language in the two passages match.

It has nothing to do with the preservation of the Word. Absolutely nothing. It certainly does not have anything to do with the New Testament, since the NT is not "the law" from which jots and tittles can't be removed. The fact is, the law was fulfulled in Jesus, all of its righteous requirements, and we are the beneficiaries of that through his sovereign grace.

If this passage meant that the literal word for word interpretation meant that there would be a preserved Word of God in the age of grace, it couldn't be the King James Version, or any English translation, since they were still more than a thousand years into the future. It would have been either the Septuagint (which is the Old Testament that Jesus and his disciples used) or the Hebrew Bible.

[ October 07, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

Thank you for the thoughtful posts. While I am sticking with my KJV I appreciate the information on this thread.

Thank God we can have this discussion. We are free to decide what Bibles we prefer to study. The most important issue is not what Bible do you read ... but are you reading the Bible.

For His Name ........

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawn raider:
Pastor Larry,

Here’s your misdirection: I asked which version is better and what I received in reply is what a verse doesn’t mean! Does that not sound like misdirection to you! As for the other points you need to read the postings more carefully!

As for those responding to my post, instead of answering the question you are more comfortable with putting on the gloves and going a few rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to save me the trouble and time to think this evening, I will simply repost from a post on page one of this thread where I did answer your question. Perhaps it is you who needs to read more carefully. Here is the quote presented without editing:
____________________

Versions are to be judged by their fidelity to the orginal language texts, not by their similarity to any English version. The major translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, perhaps a couple of others) differ in their translation and textual variants followed. They do not differ in their message. Which one is right? All of them are right if they accurately convey the message of the original text. All of them are wrong where they do not.
____________________

The reason why we addressed what the verse doesn't mean is because you were using to make a point that the verse doesn't make. In other words, you were using Scripture illegitimately. You simply cannot do that to prove any point, even if it is a correct point.

[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

pawn raider,

It's a better existance than being a cultic KJVonlyer!

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

Let's see now . . . you're saying that this points to the KJV 1611 edition to come nearly 1600 years later, the eighth English translation and none other, before or after. So I guess "my words" didn't exist in the original manuscripts or the thousands of copies, nor any of the Greek, Latin, German, or earlier English translations. That is the worst KJVO argument of all time!