Bible Translations

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Baptidzo in the Greek means "dip, immerse, plunge". Look it up in any lexicon; I'm not making that up.

IT DOESN'T MEAN "BAPTIZE". Those are just French or English letters transliterating the inspired Greek letters.

Meaning doesn't change. Sorry you're so confused on this. BTW, I've never met an "only" that had an issue with this. Most are Baptists and in 100% agreement with reality in this matter.

The disagreement isn't over the greek word, but over the definition of the word immerse in 1611. As I pointed out before the word immerse meant to soak up with water, as in I immersed my sponge. Read the Oxford English Dictionary on this word. Today the meaning is different. This has always been my point. The use of immerse in 1611 would have been foolish.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
God promised to preserve His Word. That is Greek/Hebrew and He has always preserved it.

Once again I ask: Where in the Bible did God promise to preserve his word only in greek and hebrew? All the verses that deal with God's providential preservation of his word never promise it to be preserved in only one language.
So where is this verse?

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

The real question concerning Bible versions is two-fold: Fruit and Final Authority.

Fruit: The underlying text in greek and hebrew for the AV started the reformation, threw off the dominion of papal Rome, brought the light of science (all major fields of science were started by Bible believing creationists who used the AV or its underlying greek and hebrew), produced the writings of great men like John Owen, Richard Baxter, Isaac Watts, Jonathan Edwards, et al. It also gave us the great preaching of George Whitefield. C. H. Spurgeon with only an AV transformed an entire town at the age of 17 and in 1854 he was called to New Park Street Church and took it from 100 to within 3 months having over 1200. Or William Booth who started the great missionary outreach known as the Salvation Army, and then there is D. L. Moody, Charles T. Studd, Dr. W. T. Grenfell. Or even the account of John G. Patton who using the AV converted the Fuegians to Christianity removing crime and evils leaving churches, schools, homes, and every semblance of tranquility. The same people that Charles Darwin, in 1833, said that "The Fuegians are in a more miserable state of barbarism than I ever expected to have seen any human being." And used them to support his heresy of evolution, which Wescott and Hort in their own writings believed thereby bringing question upon their salvation. (Jn 3:37,36;5:45-47) And what of the account at Pitcairn Island who with only one AV transformed from distilling alcohol, debauchery and all sorts of vices, and within 10 years transformed from this into a properous community with no jail, no whiskey, no crime, and no laziness. What of Charles Finney, R.A. Torrey,and many others who used the AV or its underlying hebrew and greek texts?

And what of the fruit of the new versions from 1881 until the present? An increase in liberal theology, divorce, unwed pregnant teenage girls, drug use, the 60's, "christian rock", conformity to the world, materialism, the rise of the heresy known as dispensationalism and other such heresies, acceptance of abortion, lack of spiritual growth and discernment, rise of charasmania, lack of scripture memorization, lack of holy living, increase of antinomian spirit, such a shallow Christian walk that christianity is considered a failure, the rising disbelief that Christ is God that the Holy Ghost, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are one God, the Jehovah Witness Translation being taken directly from the new greek and hebrew text. All of this is behaviour performed by professed christians.

Where are the powerful sermons of Jonathan Edwards and the beautiful Hymns of Isaac Watts from using the modern versions? They don't exist.

Lu 6:43, 44 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

Based on the fruit of both it is obvious only the AV (for english speakers) and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text in Hebrew, and the Textus Receptus in Greek, and all verbal plenary translations from these greek and hebrew texts are the true word of God.

And now let us look at the real reason for new versions. Man, by his sinful nature, wants to be in place of God. Man wants to be his own Final Authority in this life. And so, for sinful man to become God he removes from God's word what he doesn't like to hear. He changes it to suit his own needs just as Satan in the garden changed the word of God when he asked Eve "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Does a man not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, we have the RSV and the NWT. Does he not believe in miracles, we have the RV, NASV, RSV, NIV, et al. Men do not like the AV or the TR and BCMT because it is authoritative and final. There are no loop-holes. If you want to have pre-marital sex go buy the NIV where fornication is removed and only sexual immorality is left, which has no definition given in the NIV and so for one person may mean sex before marriage and for another having sex with someone you don't love whether married or not. I have met scores of Christians at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who use these fake version, and all of them have this problem and more. But when I throw away their "modern" bible and hand them the Authorized Version in the English language, their behaviour changes almost instantly concerning sex and other topics like drug use, piercings and tattoos, proper attire for women, obedience to scripture and its necessity. But everyone that stays with one of these "modern" versions continues this downward spiral. In the end they are just playing at being christians and are completely indistinguishable from non-christians.

I think I'll stick with my AV considering that it has the testimony of good fruit and all the other english versions since 1881 have the testimony of corrupt fruit.

[ October 26, 2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: Sola_Scriptura ]

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The same reason why the TR was edited 5 times and the KJV was edited more than that ... to correct errors in them. You have already been shown that the KJV was not perfect. BTW, these corrections in teh NA and the UBS texts were only corrections of printer's errors and punctuation. They weren't real errors. I just mention that so your faith won't be destroyed. Actually I mention it to point out how absurd that claim is when KJVO use it to try to defend the errors that made their way into the KJV.

First of all it was not printing errors and punctuations in the NA and USB it was addition and removal of greek words. I have two editions of NA and access to two other editions along with access to quite a few editions of the USB. It was in fact the KJV corrections that consisted of printing errors, punctuation, and mispellings.

Which is accurate?

Like the KJV, the latest edition is most accurate.

If this is true then the heretical RSV is more accurate than the RV, and then the NKJV is more accurate than the NIV, and the politcally correct versions are more accurate than all of them.

YOu are both demonstrably wrong. Get out your NA or your UBS text and look at the textual apparatus. There is undeniable proof that you have both believed a lie and been decieved. It is the TR that was originally based on less than 1% of the evidence. Erasmus, by his own account, used seven manuscripts. That's right ... you read it correctly ... seven. The editors of the NA and UBS used all the available manuscripts. You have bought a lie and then repeated it.

How odd considering that Dean Burgon proved that the majority of MSS (over 90%) support the TR and not the W/H or their current descendants like the NAs and USBs. Concerning the NA and USB, as mentioned above I have access to many copies of each and they are not based on the majority of manuscripts until after 1979. And in the NA 26th ed there are changes away from the majority texts towards the W/H minority text totaling 9,970.

Why are you interested in older MSS than manuscript evidences?

Because the older a manuscript it, the more likely it is to be correct. The closer to the source, the purer it is. You have been taught this before. You should not be having to ask these questions. We have been through it so many times. For some reason, you are just not getting it.

This is the same faulty error of Wescott and Hort. It has been proven wrong again and again and even Kurt Aland admits this thinking is wrong concernig P46. It has been demonstrated by Burgon and other reputable scholars that the number of copies of a text type determines its closeness to the originals. Aleph, A, B, C, D are older because they were consigned to the trash heap where they belonged. The majority of MSS (90%+) belong to the Byzantine text type which underlies the TR and the AV. This has been demonstrated by reputable scholars time and again. Perhaps you should read Scrivener and Burgon among others. As the "older is better" school comes directly from Wescott and Hort. Who, by the way, denied in their own writings the miracles and deity of Christ. That is enough to show anyone that they were not christians.

 

[aefting]

Does he not believe in miracles, we have the RV, NASV, RSV, NIV, et al. Men do not like the AV or the TR and BCMT because it is authoritative and final. There are no loop-holes. If you want to have pre-marital sex go buy the NIV where fornication is removed and only sexual immorality is left

I'm not going to defend the RSV but no miracles in the NAS or NIV? Give me a break! Name one miracle that occurs in the KJV and not in the NAS or NIV. And since when is pre-marital sex not sexual immorality? These statements make you look ridiculous at best and like a false-witness at worst.

Andy

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by aefting:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Does he not believe in miracles, we have the RV, NASV, RSV, NIV, et al. Men do not like the AV or the TR and BCMT because it is authoritative and final. There are no loop-holes. If you want to have pre-marital sex go buy the NIV where fornication is removed and only sexual immorality is left

I'm not going to defend the RSV but no miracles in the NAS or NIV? Give me a break! Name one miracle that occurs in the KJV and not in the NAS or NIV. And since when is pre-marital sex not sexual immorality? These statements make you look ridiculous at best and like a false-witness at worst.
</font>[/QUOTE]They are not called miracles in the NAS and NIV, and as pointed out in my post the NIV does not define sexual immorality as pre-marital sex. That is your definition, and not necessarily another christian's. A person's definition of morality may be different than yours. However with the clear rendering in the AV of fornication and its subsequent definition within the Bible it is clear for all to see what fornication is. And it is because of this lack of clear definition in the NIV et.al. that many christians using these versions have problems in this area. They do not know it is wrong because their "bible" does not tell them so.

As to foolishness and false witness, instead of reacting emotionally and not thinking about what I have written, go back through when you are in control of your emotions and read it and actually think about it this time.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

The real question concerning Bible versions is two-fold: Fruit and Final Authority.

The real question concerning Bible versions is: "Which ones are the most accurate translations of the most accurate texts?" The "fruit and authority" arguments are red herrings, and can easily turned on their heads to "condemn" the KJV in similar fashion. (For instance, fruit: the KJV has been the version choice of every cult from the JW's to the Mormons; and final authority: how dare the KJV "Bible correctors" tamper with God's perfect word in the Geneva Bible.)

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

It was in fact the KJV corrections that consisted of printing errors, punctuation, and mispellings.

How do you know this for certain? Do you have the "originals" (the copy of the KJV translators' proof that was sent to the printer)?

Aleph, A, B, C, D are older because they were consigned to the trash heap where they belonged.

How do you know this? How do you know that the oldest unicals weren't preserved because they were considered valuable archival copies to be used as exemplars for other copies?

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
The real question concerning Bible versions is: "Which ones are the most accurate translations of the most accurate texts?" The "fruit and authority" arguments are red herrings, and can easily turned on their heads to "condemn" the KJV in similar fashion. (For instance, fruit: the KJV has been the version choice of every cult from the JW's to the Mormons; and final authority: how dare the KJV "Bible correctors" tamper with God's perfect word in the Geneva Bible.)

You demonstrate your ignorance of both the JWs and Mormons. JWs use their own translation taken from the W/H text. It is inside their editions front cover. As to the Mormons, anyone who has ever dealt with them knows full well that they do not consider the KJV to be an accurately translated word of God. They only give it away because it is the most popular english version and it gets them in the door. As to other cults using it, how odd that they know it is considered the Word of God by the vast majority of english speakers and therefore use it to convince the naive that they are biblically based.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:
First of all it was not printing errors and punctuations in the NA and USB it was addition and removal of greek words. I have two editions of NA and access to two other editions along with access to quite a few editions of the USB. It was in fact the KJV corrections that consisted of printing errors, punctuation, and mispellings.

I was speaking tongue in cheek. However, you are wrong. If you get out your 1611 and your current KJV, you will see the addition and deletion of whole words. To say it is only punctuation and printing and mispelling is to show that you don't know what you are talking about. There are differences in words; they were added and deleted. FHA Scrivener, of TR renown, documented this well over 100 years ago.

If this is true then the heretical RSV is more accurate than the RV, and then the NKJV is more accurate than the NIV, and the politcally correct versions are more accurate than all of them.

No, it's not. You didn't think before you wrote this down. The RSV is not exactly heretical, as anyone who has actually studied it knows. It is not the best translation by any means. But this is comparing apples and oranges. It is irrelevant.

How odd considering that Dean Burgon proved that the majority of MSS (over 90%) support the TR and not the W/H or their current descendants like the NAs and USBs.

It is a UBS, not a USB. Don't confuse computer ports with Greek texts. And Burgon was right; and Burgon rejected your position. However, what you cite Burgon as saying and what you said are two entirely different things. You said that the NA and UBS was taken from only 1% of the manuscripts. That is simply wrong. Burgon did not support you in that. All manuscripts were considered in the NA and UBS texts. They are based on 100%, and all the readings can be found in them, either in the apparatus or the body of the text.

Concerning the NA and USB, as mentioned above I have access to many copies of each and they are not based on the majority of manuscripts until after 1979. And in the NA 26th ed there are changes away from the majority texts towards the W/H minority text totaling 9,970.

They have always used all available texts.

This is the same faulty error of Wescott and Hort. It has been proven wrong again and again and even Kurt Aland admits this thinking is wrong concernig P46. It has been demonstrated by Burgon and other reputable scholars that the number of copies of a text type determines its closeness to the originals. Aleph, A, B, C, D are older because they were consigned to the trash heap where they belonged. The majority of MSS (90%+) belong to the Byzantine text type which underlies the TR and the AV. This has been demonstrated by reputable scholars time and again. Perhaps you should read Scrivener and Burgon among others. As the "older is better" school comes directly from Wescott and Hort. Who, by the way, denied in their own writings the miracles and deity of Christ. That is enough to show anyone that they were not christians.

The older is better school comes from anyone who has ever been gossiped about. You always try to get as close to the source as you can. Obviously there are times when the oldest in unavailable or when for other reasons the oldest is not deemed best. But "older is better" is a widely recognized principle of literature.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

The real question concerning Bible versions is: "Which ones are the most accurate translations of the most accurate texts?" The "fruit and authority" arguments are red herrings, and can easily turned on their heads to "condemn" the KJV in similar fashion. (For instance, fruit: the KJV has been the version choice of every cult from the JW's to the Mormons; and final authority: how dare the KJV "Bible correctors" tamper with God's perfect word in the Geneva Bible.)

You demonstrate your ignorance of both the JWs and Mormons. JWs use their own translation taken from the W/H text. It is inside their editions front cover. As to the Mormons, anyone who has ever dealt with them knows full well that they do not consider the KJV to be an accurately translated word of God. They only give it away because it is the most popular english version and it gets them in the door. As to other cults using it, how odd that they know it is considered the Word of God by the vast majority of english speakers and therefore use it to convince the naive that they are biblically based. </font>[/QUOTE]You have missed my point, which was that many cults have used the KJV as their version as choice, and this undercuts the "fruit" argument. I used the JW's and Mormons as examples (BTW, you *do* know, don't you, that the JW's used the KJV for decades as their sole translation, and that Mormons still use only the KJV as their sole Bible version?) I could have listed many other bizarre cults and movements who use the KJV -- like the snake-handlers and arsenic-drinkers who base their doctrines and practices on the Longer Ending to Mark in the KJV. I also sense a double-standard in your comments: if a cult uses a modern version, it's evidence that the modern version is "not the word of God;" but if a cult uses the KJV, it's evidence that even cults know the word of God when they see it.

 

[aefting]

They are not called miracles in the NAS and NIV . . .

Your statement, quoted earlier, implied that the NAS and NIV do not contain miracles. Now, you are modifying your earlier statement to say that the NAS and NIV do not call them miracles. I would suggest that you look up the following verses:

Ex. 3:20; 34:10
Ps. 78:11; 105:27
Micah 7:15
Matt. 7:22; 11:20-23; 13:58
Mark 6:2, 5
Luke 10:13
2 Cor. 12:12

You may not want to use the KJV anymore when you discover that it doesn’t refer to “miracles” in those verses, although the NAS calls them miracles.

As to foolishness and false witness, instead of reacting emotionally and not thinking about what I have written, go back through when you are in control of your emotions and read it and actually think about it this time.

So what do you call it when you misrepresent a version, saying there are no miracles in it or saying they’re not called miracles in it? You’re either being foolish or down right deceptive.

Andy

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:
Where in the Bible did God promise to preserve his word only in greek and hebrew? All the verses that deal with God's providential preservation of his word never promise it to be preserved in only one language.

Bait and switch. YOU are the one espousing a new, vile and false religious teaching (aka "onlyism"). YOU state verses that God will preserve His Word and this preservation is only in the AV1611whichever-revision-because-it-sure-wasn't-the-first-one.

I stated that it was written in Greek and Hebrew. If His Word is preserved in ANY OTHER LANGUAGE (than the ones GOD used to communicate His Truth), then it had better be clear and incontrovertible evidence.

Which, of course, you have none. I already HAVE the Greek and Hebrew. YOU want to change that to include Jacobean English.

Chapter and verse, friend, chapter and verse.

II Macabbees 6:12 "My Word will be preserved forever and perfectly, but not for 1800 years until modern English evolves, and then in the AV1611 which MUST have the apochrypha. Until 1611 nobody will have My Word. Sorry. Thus said Sola."

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Bait and switch. YOU are the one espousing a new, vile and false religious teaching (aka "onlyism").

YOU ARE THE ONE "BAITING AND SWITCHING."YOU are the one spouting an AGE OLD,disgusting false RELIGIOUS doctrine of Bible agnosticism.

YOU state verses that God will preserve His Word and this preservation is only in the AV1611whichever-revision-because-it-sure-wasn't-the-first-one.

You state that God will preserve His Word and this preservation is only in the 200+ "bibles"whichever-of-the-200+ -CONFLICTING "bibles"-because-it-was-not-the-first-Alexandrian-revision.

I stated that it was written in Greek and Hebrew. If His Word is preserved in ANY OTHER LANGUAGE (than the ones GOD used to communicate His Truth), then it had better be clear and incontrovertible evidence.

The evedence is clear;no Bible is hated more than the KJB;thats the bottom line;deny it if you will,you know it's true;it is you and your ilk that is behind the hatred.And the French have the Olivtan,the Spanish have the Valera(1865),etc..Dont play dumb,you know this Bob....

Chapter and verse, friend, chapter and verse.

1st Corinthians2:9-10.

John 14:26 and 16:13


Plus read Acts 13;the Bible(KJB)says nothing concerning Alexandria being associated with the Word of God;period.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:
Where in the Bible did God promise to preserve his word only in greek and hebrew? All the verses that deal with God's providential preservation of his word never promise it to be preserved in only one language.

Bait and switch. YOU are the one espousing a new, vile and false religious teaching (aka "onlyism"). YOU state verses that God will preserve His Word and this preservation is only in the AV1611whichever-revision-because-it-sure-wasn't-the-first-one.

I stated that it was written in Greek and Hebrew. If His Word is preserved in ANY OTHER LANGUAGE (than the ones GOD used to communicate His Truth), then it had better be clear and incontrovertible evidence.

Which, of course, you have none. I already HAVE the Greek and Hebrew. YOU want to change that to include Jacobean English.

Chapter and verse, friend, chapter and verse.

II Macabbees 6:12 "My Word will be preserved forever and perfectly, but not for 1800 years until modern English evolves, and then in the AV1611 which MUST have the apochrypha. Until 1611 nobody will have My Word. Sorry. Thus said Sola."

</font>[/QUOTE]Once again you failed to answer my question. Where in the Bible does it say that God preserved his word only in Greek and Hebrew? Please provide chapter and verse.

And for the record I have never claimed that the AV is God's only preserved word. I have however claimed that it is God's only preserved word in the English lagnuage, and that the BCMT and TR and the preserved word of God in Hebrew and Greek and that any translation taken from these is God's word in that language.

As to preservation, it obvious you do not believe God has preserved his word, but instead textual criticism which is based on german rationalism preserves God's word. It should also be pointed out that God's word claims perfection, but textual criticism starts with the assumption that God's word is not perfect and needs perfecting through textual critics. Either God is correct and textual critics are liars, or textual critics are correct and God is a liar. You decide.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

As to preservation, it obvious you do not believe God has preserved his word, but instead textual criticism which is based on german rationalism preserves God's word. It should also be pointed out that God's word claims perfection, but textual criticism starts with the assumption that God's word is not perfect and needs perfecting through textual critics. Either God is correct and textual critics are liars, or textual critics are correct and God is a liar. You decide.

Sola,that is what being a MAN FOLLOWER will get you..

 

[Jim1999]

I remember these same foolish arguments going on when the Revised Version and the Revised Standard Version came out. The KJOists seem to think that no one else even cares about the message of God.

I happen to use my 1945 KJV, but manage to correct the errors as I read it. For a perfect copy of the Word, preserved, you say, by God, He left a little out. I guess that was just to keep us guessing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ransom]

Sola_Scriptura said:

As to preservation, it obvious you do not believe God has preserved his word, but instead textual criticism which is based on german rationalism preserves God's word.

I didn't realize Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators had access to a time machine so they could jump into the future and learn about German rationalism.

But if you say so, it must be true.

It should also be pointed out that God's word claims perfection, but textual criticism starts with the assumption that God's word is not perfect and needs perfecting through textual critics.

Believing textual criticism starts with the assumption that God's word is perfect and corrupted by imperfect scribes.

Since you KJVers maintain this is exactly what has happened with all Bibles that are not the KJV, you shouldn't be condemning textual criticism. You should be thanking critics for their efforts to restore the perfect text.

Either God is correct and textual critics are liars, or textual critics are correct and God is a liar. You decide.

Third alternative, which I am not surprised you "forgot" to mention: Someone else is doing the lying.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Ransom:

I didn't realize Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators had access to a time machine so they could jump into the future and learn about German rationalism.

Believing textual criticism starts with the assumption that God's word is perfect and corrupted by imperfect scribes.

Since you KJVers maintain this is exactly what has happened with all Bibles that are not the KJV, you shouldn't be condemning textual criticism. You should be thanking critics for their efforts to restore the perfect text.

The people in the list of names you provide do not disbelieve the Bible is the word of God. Modern Textual Critics do.

Critics restoring a perfect text?!?

I was unaware ungodly, unholy, non-bible believing men could restore anything let alone the Word of God. I was also unaware that the church had lost the Word of God for 1800+ years until the rise of modern textual criticism. According to this reasoning God is a liar.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

Where in the Bible does it say that God preserved his word only in Greek and Hebrew? Please provide chapter and verse.

If I were to engage in the kind of eisegesis seen elsewhere in the "Antioch-Alexandria" discussions, I could "prove" that Hebrew, Greek and Latin were the approved languages for the preservation of God's word with this verse:

"And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Lk. 23:38, KJV).

After all, the Scriptures bear witness to Jesus as the Christ (= the Messiah, Anointed One, King), so obviously God was telling us in what languages this witness would be preserved. (Note: tongue planted firmly in cheek here.

)

And for the record I have never claimed that the AV is God's only preserved word. I have however claimed that it is God's only preserved word in the English lagnuage

Was the Geneva Bible "God's preserved word in the English language?" Was Tyndale's Bible "God's preserved word in the English language?" If not, why not? And if not, does that mean the English-speaking people were without God's preserved word until the KJV appeared? What implications does this have for your doctrine of "preservation" if no English speaking person before 1611 (or whenever it was that the correct version of the KJV appeared) had access to God's preserved word in his or her own language?