A good ensample

[Rippon]

Don't Grasp At Straws

Then I thought that I should make sure, that “ensample” is indeed identical to our word “example”, so I dug into it some more.
I made a marvelous discovery in 1 Peter 2:21.....
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:”

What do you know? I made the discovery that the NIV carries the same message as the KJV here.
"To this you were called, bcause Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."

I am here to report, that for all the effort that is put into all these other modern translations, it is just a bunch of hooey. We have not been missing ANYTHING, by sticking to our old KJB.

I am here to report that all your energy put toward your agenda is in vain. There is nothing in modern versions such as the NIV here which misses anything. So I will stick to a number of more modern translations in general, such as the New International Version.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Hello

You finished by saying......

This is a contradiction.
If something is “perfect and true”, it has no additions!
------------------------
I am not trusting ANY TRANSLATOR, I am trusting God and His preserved Word, alone.
I suggest you do the same.

Come on in; The waters of faith are great!

The message is perfect and true. No lies. No deception. Eternal Truth in the message of the Word.

I have made no contradiction.

And I will say again, you have trusted man. You have trusted some man from some pulpit somewhere who told you that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible and is the only place where the Word of God is perfectly preserved in English.

You trusted this person because the even the King James Bible does not say that the King James Bible is the only place where the Word of God perfectly preserved in English. So how can you say that you only trust the Word when the Word doesn't say what you are claiming?

 

[McCree79]

I don’t know and I don’t care!

That answer doesn't work. The KJV can't have the title of the only "pure English word" just because KJVOISM says so. With that argument even "The Message" can lay claim to that title.

Of course not!! Only for English speaking people!

Why not the Geneva Bible?

What you fail to understand, is that the Bible tells us to “trust the Bible alone”!

Why do you believe that KJVO alone is the worthy of this trust? You argument is based on opinion and emotion. Not on any evidence.

And there is not one single verse, in the entire 66 books of the Bible, that even hints, that a Christian NEEDS some man to tell them what verses are really in the Bible!

Then why did we assemble the cannon? Why not just leave the books isolated? How did we determine what books are in the Bible? Like it or not, you have a book assembled by man. The 66 books did not fall out of the sky assembled.

No I think the right books were chosen, but men made that decision based on 3 guidelines.

I will also note, the KJV was written under the authority of King James who have the translators specific guidelines on how it was to be written.




Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

The verse that I was talking about in 1Peter 5:, was verse 3.....
“Neither as being lords over God’ s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

What, may I ask, is the important key that is missing in modern versions when translating this verse?

Here is the NIV's take:
"not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."

Have you uncovered some deep, dark, mysterious evil that is subtly influencing us away from the Lord in this passage as rendered in the NIV?

 

[McCree79]

Hello


This is a contradiction.
If something is “perfect and true”, it has no additions!
------------------------
I am not trusting ANY TRANSLATOR, I am trusting God and His preserved Word, alone.
I suggest you do the same.

Since the KJV includes additions....guess that knocks it out.

...and yes you are trusting translators. Unless you you have translated your own Bible, you are trusting other men. God did not drop the KJV from the sky.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning Rippon

You said.......

I am here to report that all your energy put toward your agenda is in vain.

First of all, I do not have an agenda! I am only taking a stand for God’s Word.
------------------------
Then you said.......

There is nothing in modern versions such as the NIV here which misses anything.

The NIV misses the complete text of 1John 5:7
------------------------
Finally you said........

So I will stick to a number of more modern translations in general, such as the New International Version.

That is the problem. Which one, of the “number” of modern translations, is correct:
Because none of them agree 100% with each other!

 

[Scarlett O.]

That is the problem. Which one, of the “number” of modern translations, is correct:

Because none of them agree 100% with each other!

100% agreement on what? Word usage? That not an agreement problem.

Sentence structure? That's not an agreement problem.

Can you give us an example of how the modern versions contradict each other.

 

[Rippon]

First of all, I do not have an agenda! I am only taking a stand for God’s Word.

Of course you have an agenda. It is to further your KJVOnlyism.

You made no mention of how the NIV translated 1 Peter 5:3 and 2:21. I guess they are acceptable to you.

The NIV misses the complete text of 1John 5:7

It's found in the footnotes.

That is the problem. Which one, of the “number” of modern translations, is correct:
Because none of them agree 100% with each other!

All Bible translations are imperfect because...listen closely...they are translations. They aren't the original autographs. Yes, even the mighty KJV is a mere version --not the autographa.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi

You said.....

Have you uncovered some deep, dark, mysterious evil that is subtly influencing us away from the Lord in this passage as rendered in the NIV?

The truth about how the modern versions “influence us away from the Lord”, is by convincing us that we can not hold God’s perfectly preserved Word in our hands and read it.
--------------------------------------------------


Got to go now, see you later....

 

[Rippon]

Got to go now, see you later....

Come on. You've been sticking around for 35 more minutes.

 

[rsr]

I can understand that some people may not like the TBS, but to refuse to read their stuff is silly. Rsr can hardly complain that Stilllearning doesn't read Metzger if he doesn't read stuff that disagrees with his position.

I have read it in the past and found nothing edifying. I have read many KJVO and KJV-preferred authors and sites; the TBS is not one I put any stock in. Besides, I didn't complain that Stilllearning didn't read Metzger; his name was brought up by someone else and I made a clarification about his comments on the Comma.

 

[McCree79]

KJV:
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light,and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

This contradiction is due to KJV rendering. Not the Greek, but the KJV. The NASB and ESV(plus others) get it right.

Acts 22:9 "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me." ESV

Modern translations see the different Greek terms used and translate correctly. While the KJV is left with a man made contradiction.

Another good one is, how could have Luke, mentioned Easter in Acts 12, when the Pagan title of Easter did not exist yet? Why did the KJV the other 27 times translate the same word as "passover"???



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

I have read it in the past and found nothing edifying. I have read many KJVO and KJV-preferred authors and sites; the TBS is not one I put any stock in.

Here are some things that were said about the ESV. I disagree with it very much.

"One of the noticeable features of the ESV is the numerous changes in gender."

Then four references are given from Matthew. All such terminology are generic, as they should be.

"These are but a few examples of how the ESV treats gender language. Thus the ESV attempts to make generic changes which, it is speculated, meet a need (real or perceived) in modern Bible readers. This gender-segregation is more than that seen even in the 1995 NASB Revised edition which 'makes about 85 changes that introduce gender-inclusive language' "

"People who are concerned with the truth of the Bible will not be fooled by this new version..."

"People who like the AV for its accuracy, excellence and sound textual basis will not want this new revision."

"...it cannot be considered a trustworthy translation of the Bible."
________________________________________________________________
Again, I completely disagree with the characterizations that were made against the ESV. These are samples of their incredibly biased angle.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

KJV:
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light,and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

This contradiction is due to KJV rendering. Not the Greek, but the KJV. The NASB and ESV(plus others) get it right.

Acts 22:9 "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me." ESV

Modern translations see the different Greek terms used and translate correctly. While the KJV is left with a man made contradiction.

Which different Greek term are you referring to?
The Greek word which the KJV (and NKJV) translates as 'hear' and the ESV as 'understand' is akouo, from which we get the word 'acoustics.' It's natural meaning is 'to hear.' The men with Paul heard a voice but could not distinguish it as the one who was speaking to Paul. I don't have a problem with any of the versions.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the words kai emphoboi egenonto, 'and they were afraid,' appear in over 500 Greek manuscripts and are missing, by my count, in eleven.

 

[McCree79]

Which different Greek term are you referring to?
The Greek word which the KJV (and NKJV) translates as 'hear' and the ESV as 'understand' is akouo, from which we get the word 'acoustics.' It's natural meaning is 'to hear.' The men with Paul heard a voice but could not distinguish it as the one who was speaking to Paul. I don't have a problem with any of the versions.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the words kai emphoboi egenonto, 'and they were afraid,' appear in over 500 Greek manuscripts and are missing, by my count, in eleven.

The word from Acts 22 in question is ekousan(understand in ESV). Earlier in the narrative Luke uses ekousa(heard)

Ekousan is "to understand"
Ekousa is "to hear"

The KJV fails to distinguish ekousan correctly.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the words kai emphoboi egenonto, 'and they were afraid,' appear in over 500 Greek manuscripts and are missing, by my count, in eleven.

It also worth noting that earliest one(independent from the RCC oversight of production) mentioning it is 6th century ...and there is only one. Two from the 10th, all the rest are after the 10th century.

The bulk of text(Byzantine) with the phrase were produced under the oversight of the Holy Roman emperor.

Manuscripts must be weighted for their value, not just counted.

I will add that Erasmus himself championed updating the Greek in search for the most accurate version possible. He continued to update his work until he died. He made over 400 changes by his second edition alone.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

I will add that Erasmus himself championed updating the Greek in search for the most accurate version possible. He continued to update his work until he died. He made over 400 changes by his second edition alone.

Well, his first edition was a self-confessed mess. He was in a rush because the Complutensian Polyglot Bible by the hand of Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros was going to be soon released.

He had to make many corrections because of the error-filled first edition.

 

[McCree79]

I pointed out some flaws earlier in the KJV, not because I think it is bad, but to prove it is a translation by man. Man is flawed and makes mistakes. Not one substantial difference can be provided by KJVOism that proves doctrinal change. The same doctrines that are established in the KJV, are also established on the NIV, NASB, and ESV (many other as well). No sinister plot. No evil cults at work. The KJV will have just as many errors as another major English translation, if not more. The infallibility and inerrancy of God's message is preserved in English versions such as KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and HCSB(list not exhaustive).Even though man may have made a mistake, or used a less accurate word in translation.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[stilllearning]

Good afternoon McCree79

You said......

“I pointed out some flaws earlier in the KJV, not because I think it is bad, but to prove it is a translation by man.”

Translation errors will happen(this is why a Strong’s concordance is good to have), but the subject of this thread isn’t “errors”, but the removal words, from the extant copies of the Greek New Testament.

Just like taking a razor blade and cutting words out of a Bible, could never be considered “an error”.
------------------------
You also said........

“Man is flawed and makes mistakes. Not one substantial difference can be provided by KJVOism that proves doctrinal change.”

The issue has NEVER been doctrine! (This is a trap; by saying.... “We can remove this verse or that verse and that doctrine is still established by other parts of Scripture”...
Like, not needing 1John 5:7 to establish the Trinity!)
But the issue(the true intent), has always been, to get us to stop seeing the importance of the “words” found in Scripture and replace them with the “ideas” that those words convey.
“Verbal inspiration!”
-It was the “Word that became flesh”, not the “idea that became flesh”!-
------------------------
Oh, by the way, the question about Acts 12:4....
No one can know for sure, why the word “Easter” was used, but I suspect that it was because the Bible being translated into ENGLISH meant that it’s readers(for the most part), were not going to understand a lot about the “passover”, so the word Easter put in it’s place. No “sinister plot” here.

 

[McCree79]

but the removal words, from the extant copies of the Greek New Testament.

Just like taking a razor blade and cutting words out of a Bible, could never be considered “an error”

When something is not in the oldest manuscripts, and then shows up later....we call that an addition. The KJV has additions. The KJV doesn't get to be the standard by which all is judged. The documents closest to the originals carry the most weight. Less time, allows for less human errors, which you have acknowledged happens. The KJV must be judged against the ancient manuscripts, not the other way around. The KJV adds to these manuscripts. Nothing has been removed.

Newer manuscripts have had plenty of time to absorb tradtion, accumulate errors(and very few the errors are) and to harmonize.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk