Bible Translations

If they knew their stuff as you claimed why did the get so many simple translations wrong? "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each..." NIV James 5:16. The greek word is paraptomata (faults KJV) and not taxamartias. This is the Roman Churches rendering.</font>[/QUOTE] Actually, this is a variant. The NIV is translating the word hamartia. But as to your point about it being an indication that translators didn't "know their stuff" if the got a "simple" translation wrong like paraptomata=&gt;sin.... why did the KJV translators translate the word as "sin" 3 times?

 

Read the account. They were tried by the Anglican church and referred to the king for disposal.

Are you being obtuse or is this an indication that you really don't understand the grammar used by 17th century Anglicans?

What are you talking about here?

This would basically destroy every argument presented by KJVO's here.

Which version are you personally aware of that issues an new revision each year?... or are you asserting something here that isn't quite honest?

Oh, you mean like the numerous revisions of the KJV that still left some flaws? Even the KJVO hero Burgon acknowledged that the KJV needed emending.

 

I never offered "2 or 3 quotes". However, here is the relevant Article of Religion establishing the monarch, in this case the queen, as the earthly head of the church.

Note the title "Defender of the Faith". This was a name forever given to the English monarchs starting with Henry in 1521 for opposing Luther's reforms by Pope Leo X. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/tud_def_faith.shtml

 

You use this label alot. Would you mind giving your definition of "naturalistic"? </font>[/QUOTE]The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book. </font>[/QUOTE]If you are claiming that John R Rice and John MacArthur believe that the Bible is a mere human book then you are completely out of your mind. If you know that this is not what they believe then you have borne false witness against these two giants of the true Christian faith.

 

nonsense? all i see is a v questionable grasp of English, let alone Jacobean English.

if anyone needs info on the Granville Sharp Rule, there's a (really) useful discussion here: http://bible.org/docs/soapbox/sharp.htm

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in Hebrew to know that a sodomite is not a temple prostitute.

And the NIV is well known for its lax stand on sodomy.

We are both wrong. In the IGENT by Berry on p.593 you see the word: paraptomata.

As to kneel and worship, since you are ignorant of English I will provide you with definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

KNEEL, v.i. neel. To bend the knee; to fall on the knees; sometimes with down.

As soon as you are dressed,kneel down and say the Lord's prayer.

WORSHIP, n. [See Worth.]

1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness.
--Elfin born of noble state, and muckle worship in his native land.
In this sense, the word is nearly or quite obsolete; but hence,
2. A title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and other of respectable character.
My father desires your worships company.
3. A term of ironical respect.
4. Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, confession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like.
The worship of God is an eminent part of religion.
Prayer is a chief part of religious worship.
5. The homage paid to idols or false gods by pagans; as the worship or Isis.
6. Honor; respect; civil deference.
Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Luke 14.
7. Idolatry of lovers; obsequious or submissive respect.
WORSHIP, v.t.
1. To adore; to pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration.
Thou shalt worship no other God. Exodus 34.
2. To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence.
Nor worshipd with a waxen epitaph.
3. To honor with extravagant love and extreme submission; as a lover.
With bended knees I daily worship her.
WORSHIP, v.i.
1. To perform acts of adoration.
2. To perform religious service.
Our fathers worshiped in this mountain. John 4.

My point was in Mt 5:22. You have Christ contradicting his own behaviour, therefore he is not sinless. You have failed to deal with the issue at hand in Mt 5:22.

My issue is with Romans 13:9 in which "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is taken out of the verse. Go and read it.

Any translation made from corrupt greek texts, as in all modern translations, from 1881 until today, is not the word of God. To claim that modern translations are the word of God you must prove that the corrupt greek text they come from is the word of God. It is not.

The only truth teaching churches in this town, by the way, are KJV only churches.

Ahh, you see earlier you posted something different. Here is what you said on October 21st, 2003, 11:37PM

Perhaps you should get with the program.

And if your greek text that your version uses is not new, where has it been all these years? The church, save RCC, never used it. And now you expect the body of Christ to use something it hasn't used for 1500 years? Once again I ask where is their fruit? You haven't given any examples.

 

To Scott J,

I asked for quotes from AV translators, 2 or 3 for each of the points and for 2 or 3 verses supporting each one of these doctrines from the AV. Then this would prove satisfactorily that the AV was corrupted by the Anglican church. Otherwise it is fine.

 

If they knew their stuff as you claimed why did the get so many simple translations wrong? "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each..." NIV James 5:16. The greek word is paraptomata (faults KJV) and not taxamartias. This is the Roman Churches rendering.</font>[/QUOTE] Actually, this is a variant. The NIV is translating the word hamartia. But as to your point about it being an indication that translators didn't "know their stuff" if the got a "simple" translation wrong like paraptomata=&gt;sin.... why did the KJV translators translate the word as "sin" 3 times? </font>[/QUOTE]Please quote the 3 locations.

 

Askjo said:

Please remember the difference between the naturalistic believers and Consistently Christian believers.

Naturalistic believers: Anyone Askjo says is one.

 

God promised to preserve His Word. That is Greek/Hebrew and He has always preserved it. Nowhere ever did God promise to preserve it in English, in 1611 or ever. Such is ludicrous and extra biblical.

Thankfully, English translations of God's Word abound. Some are better than others. Some use slightly different Greek texts, so are more or less faithful. Every translation is part "interpretation".

I grew up with and love the KJV1769 revision. I personally translate all verses I'm going to preach from the original.

BTW, what was "God's Word" BEFORE 1611? How did God "preserve" it? Why was it no longer "preserved" the day the AV was finished?

Thanks </font>[/QUOTE]My apologies, I have asked the following question to the wrong person.

Where in the Bible does it say God will preserve his word only in Greek and Hebrew?

 

As to the 3 instances the Bible translators translated the word in James 5:16 as sin, it should be pointed out that do have done so in James 5:16 would contradict Ps51:1-4 "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest."

We are only to confess our sins to God and not to someone else.

Best reason on the web to leave out 1 John 5:7 because it "contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine." http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html

 

A new NIV

http://www.tniv.info/pdf/TNIV_NewTestament.pdf

 

"As we have seen Vaticanus is the primary pillar of our modern versions. This is the manuscript that is supposed to be so much better and ancient that those used by Erasmus. However, according to Wilkinson, Erasmus, through a certain Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, had access to, and received from his "such variant readings as he wished." And in 1533 a correspondent of Erasmus sent him "a number of selected readings from Codex B as proof of its superiority to the Received Greek Text." Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Received Text was correct. Therefore, modern Bibles are built upon a foundation that Erasmus rejected. And we can see the guiding hand of God in this rejection." "

The good news is that Paulus Bombasius actually existed and did send selected readings from a number of Greek New testaments to Erasmus.
The bad news is that he only send several versions of the first letter of John to Erasmus who was trying to find a Greek version of the Comma Johanneum (I am not certain if the Vaticanus version of 1 John was one of the letters send).

 

o, n what again were the principles to justify using multiple revisions?

care to help us out?

u know, the usual ones applied to the 1611, 1769, 1853 KJBs?

 

o, n what again were the principles to justify using multiple revisions?

care to help us out?

u know, the usual ones applied to the 1611, 1769, 1853 KJBs? </font>[/QUOTE]The real "revisions" of the Holy Bible consisted of printing error corrections, spelling standardization, and phrase changes. It should also be mentioned that the last "changed" AV was from 1769. The 1853 version is not considered a true AV. These are the consistency of the total "changes". Not very significant when compared to the omissions, removal of half of a verse, and changing a positive to a negative(Jer13:15vs2Cor1:14 NIV).

Or you can read here about the alleged changes to the Holy Bible. http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp?FROM=biblecenter

It provides a list of some of the "changes" in the HB. However unlike modern pretenders, they do not change Bible doctrine. You don't have Christ saying being angry is bad in one gospel and then getting angry in another, thus contradicting himself.

 

As to the 3 verses of the HB that use the word for faults from James and translate it as sins they are: Eph 1:7, 2:5;Col 2:13. The reason is simple. We confess our sins to God, but we confess our faults to one another. For we only sin against God.

If you want to test your NIV or JWNT go to this sight: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/niv_quiz.htm

The rules:

You may only use your NIV or JWNT.
You may only use what is in the body of the text.

Rate your score.

 

C. S. Lewis sagely remarked, Odd the way the less the Bible is read, the more it is translated.

 

Please quote the 3 locations. </font>[/QUOTE]One of these verses is most instructive:

KJV Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins (παραπτωμασι) and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses (παραπτωματα)

Apparently the KJV translators thought the word "sin" and "trespass" were synonymous.

 

If you want to test your KJV go to this link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001019;p=2#000017

The rules:

You may only use your KJV.
You may only use what is in the body of the text.

Rate your score.