Bible Translations

[Ransom]

Sola_Scriptura said:

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

Sweeping generalization assuming facts not in evidence.

I was unaware ungodly, unholy, non-bible believing men

Sweeping generalization assuming facts not in evidence.

I was also unaware that the church had lost the Word of God for 1800+ years until the rise of modern textual criticism.

Yet you have no problem believing that was the case for 1611 years. Double standard.

According to this reasoning God is a liar.

I see no reasoning in your posts, only the usual KJV-only sophistry and falsehood.

 

[HankD]

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.

Dear brother A-A, this is not true, while the KJV might be hated it is not hated here by anyone. What is hated here by some of us is the radical view that the KJV (1611-1769?) English is "reinspired" Scripture and the Only "authorized" English version of the Bible in the English language.

This can be said; that there seems to be a move of focus here of the KJVO towards the mss of the original languages. While we don't all agree as to which are the "best" (TR, Alexandrian or western) it is at least a move in the right direction (IMO).

HankD

 

[HankD]

"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).

Aha, so the Church of Rome was right, the Vulgate is the Only "authorized" version.

VVO forever!

Hankus

 

[joshknighton]

What if some of you guys spent as much time studying God's Word as you do trying to prove that a certain version of it is wrong.

I have heard Baptist preachers stand in the pulpit and call the NIV the "nearly inspired version." Hearing things like that make me sick.

How could anything that tells the story of our Savior Jesus Christ be bad?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
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;

By who? Even non-believers recognize it as a great work.

it is you and your ilk that is behind the hatred.

I think most of us like the KJV quite well. Those here that do not like it certainly don't hate it. You don't have to think something is "perfect" to have affinity for it.

I love my wife more than any other person on the planet but by no means am I delusional enough to believe she is "perfect". I know Christians that are wonderful reflections of Jesus but they are not perfect either.

Our denial of the falsed doctrine of KJVOnlyism does not equate to "hatred" for the KJV. It is no more hateful to point out the relatively few flaws in the KJV than it is to recognize the relatively few imperfections in a godly Christian. In fact, denial of these flaws would be a most disrespectful, dishonoring, and hateful act toward God. Holding a Bible version (work of man) to the same degree of honor as the originals (work of God) is no more valid than holding a Christian (a fallible human being) to the same degree of honor as Christ (the God-man, perfect example for Christians).

 

[Nomad]

There may be persons who hate the KJV, but if so they are the same atheists and skeptics who despise any Bible version that clearly presents the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't know of any Christian who hates the KJV, unless "hate" has been redefined to include any disagreement with or criticism of KJV renderings. If this is how "hate" is now defined, then most expositors of the past "hated" the KJV since, even though they preached from it, they sometimes corrected or updated its language in their sermons and commentaries.

 

[Trotter]

Personally, I worship God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit of God, not a translation of God's word. Grow up, people! I have to agree with joshknighton :

What if some of you guys spent as much time studying God's Word as you do trying to prove that a certain version of it is wrong.

What if some of you guys spent as much time studying God's Word as you do trying to prove that a certain version of it is wrong.

This blind dogmatic fanaticism over a translation of the Bible is ridiculous. I love the KJV, and I use it frequently when I preach (in fact, about 75% of the time). It is one of my main sources of Scripture. But I also realize that there are other translations out there that can help me to se and understand God's word better.

All this KJVOnlyism is nothing more than idolatry. You have elevated the King James Version to a status of equality with God. That is idol worship in my book, and in God's book, too (no matter what translation you read).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Trotter:
All this KJVOnlyism is nothing more than idolatry. You have elevated the King James Version to a status of equality with God. That is idol worship in my book, and in God's book, too (no matter what translation you read).

In Christ,
Trotter

Believing the AV is the only word of God in English is not idolatry. First of all you fail to remember that Jesus Christ is the Word, and as pointed out by Jonathan Edwards in a sermon of similar name, and as defined by the Bible itself, Jesus Christ is the written word, the Bible. This is why having the true english translation is so important. And for the record, since the modern versions portray a false view of Christ, weaken the doctrines of scripture, proclaim a different gospel, using them is idolatry and causes those that use them to be accursed by God, because they proclaim a false gospel. (Gal 1:8,9) Use of the AV is not a preference, it is the sure knowledge that it is God's only word in English. The new versions have no godly fruit; only ungodly fruit. As such they are of their father, the Devil. And though many unlearned and ignorant people continuously post that the alexandrian school has the most support from the texts, demonstrating their ignorance of even the basic information of textual criticism, if one would merely read the books "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler & Nix(pro modern version), "The Revision Revised" by Dean John Burgon, and other such books, then one would realize that the vast majority of Greek texts 90%+ support the Antiochian or Byzantine textual school which underlies the AV. Anyone who disagrees with this has not bothered to read the works by textual critics who openly admit this. Go read before you post again and demonstrate your repeated ignorance of facts!

I realize that those of you who use these false version will never grow in faith (Rom10:17), and are only fit for the milk of the word because you have not mastered the first six principles of the doctrine of Christ(Heb5:13-6:2), but surely common sense will prevail in your mind to go research. Perhaps you would also benefit from a reading and in depth sutdy of "Logic, And the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth" by Isaac Watts. Then it might behoove you to read what C. H. Spurgeon and other such great men of God had to say in condemnation of modern textual criticism and its link to Darwinian Evolution. You might want to also research the lives of its non-bible believing, ungodly developers of from F. C. Baur to the Bible denier Bruce Metzger. Then only after you have done this will you be fit to post. For at least then you will be willfully ignorant.

[ October 28, 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Sola_Scriptura ]

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

And for those who have claimed they have done research and haven't and those who won't do the research, here is some scripture for you: "He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Proverbs 29:1

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

Jesus Christ is the written word, the Bible.

That's not what the Scriptures teach. Jesus is the living Word of God (note the capital "W" in your KJV in Jn. 1:1 and Rev. 19:30) to whom the written word of God in the Scriptures bear witness (Jn. 5:39, Ac. 18:28, Rom. 16:25-26).

since the modern versions portray a false view of Christ, weaken the doctrines of scripture, proclaim a different gospel

Where? Can you give a specific example? I would challenge anyone to produce an example of a difference between the KJV and the modern versions that changes any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

Use of the AV is not a preference, it is the sure knowledge that it is God's only word in English.

Were either the Geneva Bible or the Tyndale Bible "God's word in English?" Are you suggesting that every English-speaking person who had the misfortune to live in the centuries before 1611 didn't have God's word?

And though many unlearned and ignorant people continuously post that the alexandrian school has the most support from the texts, demonstrating their ignorance of even the basic information of textual criticism, if one would merely read the books "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler & Nix(pro modern version), "The Revision Revised" by Dean John Burgon, and other such books, then one would realize that the vast majority of Greek texts 90%+ support the Antiochian or Byzantine textual school which underlies the AV. Anyone who disagrees with this has not bothered to read the works by textual critics who openly admit this. Go read before you post again and demonstrate your repeated ignorance of facts!

I have read Burgon; his methodology is often unsound, and he is mistaken about many things. Elsewhere I posted the *fact* that all but a handful of the 90% of Byzantine MSS you refer to come from the 9th C. or later, and that the Byzantine text is completely unknown in any Greek, versional, or patristic source before the 4th C. If you dispute these claims, it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
I have read Burgon; his methodology is often unsound, and he is mistaken about many things. Elsewhere I posted the *fact* that all but a handful of the 90% of Byzantine MSS you refer to come from the 9th C. or later, and that the Byzantine text is completely unknown in any Greek, versional, or patristic source before the 4th C. If you dispute these claims, it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

What you wrote before this quote, being most foolish and filled with folly, I will not answer.

However, you claim Burgon is mistaken, provide examples.

As to the Byzantine text, make up your mind. Is it a 4th or 9th century text? And it is well known that the patristic fathers quoted what is now known as the byzantine text. It is also well known that this is almost universally quoted as we approach the 5th century. So where was the Alexandrian text all these years, from the 4th century until the 19th century? Once again demonstration is made of the lack of research on the part of those who stand against the AV and its underlying text. The oldest text type in greek is that which underlies the AV. The oldest greek text is dated 66 AD and reflects the greek of the TR. I suggest you read Dr. Carsten Thiede author of Eyewitness to Jesus.
As stated before, DO NOT POST UNLESS YOU RESEARCH! And it is obvious you haven't. BTW Mt 26:22 in the AV is right according to this oldest greek text. The rendering from the critical greek text of NA/UBS, and translations from this text like the NIV and NASB are wrong. And in typical arrogance of modern textual critics and its supporters, they know this evidence exists, but they refuse to change their critical text.
Oh well I guess ignorance is bliss.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

You also demonstrate ignorance of the 2nd century church father Tertullian whose quotes reflect the underlying AV text. Here are some more church fathers supporting TR/AV renderings:

Matt. 5:22
Traditional Text & KJV: "angry with his brother without a cause"
New Versions: "angry with his brother"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book. V, XVI, 5] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book 3, 8]

Matt. 6:9-13
Traditional Text & KJV: The Lord's Prayer, long version.
New Versions: Lord's Prayer, short version.
Church Fathers support KJV: [Didache - VIII]

Matt. 17:21
Traditional Text & KJV: "...this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
New Versions: [omit]* [fasting also removed in: Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30]
Church Fathers support KJV: [Tertulian - On Fasting, VIII] [Pseudo Clement - First Epistle, XII]
*[Who do you suppose benefits from this omission?]

Matt. 19:16,17
Traditional Text & KJV: "...Good master, ...Why callest thou me good, there is none good, but one, that is, God."
New Versions: "...Teacher, ... Why do you ask me about what is good?" *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Origen - Against Celsus, Book V, XI]
*[This is another example where the Deity of Christ is removed.]

Matt. 26:28 [identifies the "New Covenant" with Jer. 31:31-34]
Traditional Text & KJV: "the New Testament"
New Versions: "the covenant"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Cyprian - Epistle LXII]

Matt. 27:24
Traditional Text & KJV: "the blood of this just person"
New Versions: "this man's blood" *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book V, XIX]
*[Here is another subtle example of concealing the Deity of Jesus Christ.]

Mark 1:2
Traditional Text & KJV: "the prophets"
New Versions: "Isaiah the prophet" *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book III, XVI, 3]
*[An obvious mistake, Mark goes on to quote Malachi then Isaiah. This change may not appear significant, but if modern versions are correct here, then Mark made an error while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What does that do for the credibility of the rest of Scripture?]

Mark 2:17 [also Matt. 9:13]
Traditional Text & KJV: "call...sinners to repentance"
New Versions: "call...sinners"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Barnabas - V]

Mark 16:9-20
Traditional Text & KJV: [Included]
New Versions: [omit]*
Church Fathers support KJV:[Irenaeus - Book III, X, 5] [Constitutions - Book VIII, 1]
*[NASB brackets this passage, indicating it is probably not part of the original text, NIV footnotes it with a similar message, RSV excludes the entire passage, reducing it to a footnote.]

Luke 2:14
Traditional Text & KJV: "good will toward men"
New Versions: "peace to men on whom his favor rests"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Gregory - Twelve Topics on the Faith, Topic XII] [Methodius - Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, V] [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book VII, XLVII]

Luke 10:1,17
Traditional Text & KJV: "seventy"
New Versions: "seventy-two"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book II, XXI, 1] [Tertullian - Against Marcion, Book IV, XXIV]

Luke 21:4
Traditional Text & KJV: "offerings of God"
New Versions: [omit]
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book IV, XVIII, 2] [Cyprian - Treatise VIII, 15]

John 1:18
Traditional Text & KJV: "Only begotten Son."
NASB: "Only begotten God." *
NIV: "God the One and Only" **
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book III, XI, 6] [Tertulian - Against Praxeas, XV] [Origen - Against Celcus, LXXI] [Hippolytus - Against Noetus, 5] [Archelaus - Disputation with Manes, 32] [Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy, 4]
*[NASB The idea of "begotten gods" was common in Greek and Roman mythology. It has no place in Scripture. The idea of one god begetting another god forms the basis of pagan pantheism. In the Bible, all references to Jesus being "begotten" are speaking of His physical birth through the virgin Mary. Jesus is not a god begotten by God. He is the only true God manifest in flesh. It is amazing that supporters of modern Bible versions point to this verse as an example of the NASB's strength on the Deity of Christ, when in reality it makes Him only a sub-deity.]
** [NIV changes the meaning of "only begotten" to "One and Only." The Greek word is "monogenhV" [mono-genes]. "Mono" means "one" or "only:" "genes" means "born." As a compound word it means "only born" or "only begotten."

John 3:13
Traditional Text & KJV: "which is in heaven"
New Versions: [omit] *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Cyprian] Vol. 5, 622
*[This omits the idea of Jesus being the omni-present one found in the KJV.]

John 6:69
Traditional Text & KJV: "Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God"
New Versions: "you are the holy One of God" *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Cyprian - Epistle LXVIII, 8]
* [The expression, "holy one of God" is used only by demons in the KJV, (see: Mark 1:24 & Luke 4:34). It does not demonstrate faith in Christ as Peter's confession in the KJV. Such vague expressions are typical of Occult terminology. Occultists refer to God as the "Nameless Other," and to Jesus Christ as the "Nameless Weakling," etc.. They refer to Lucifer as the "One."

John 7:53-8:11
Traditional Text & KJV: included
New Versions: All twelve verses missing [or bracketed] *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book I, XXIV]
*[Internal evidence strongly implies that these verses are part of the original text. They are required by the flow of the chapters. If you exclude them the passage makes no sense. John 7:45-52 is a narrative of a conversation between the officers, chief priests, and Pharisees, where Jesus was not present, (vs.45). Yet if 7:53 - 8:11 are omitted, Jesus begins speaking without being present!]

John 9:4
Traditional Text & KJV: "I must work"
New Versions: "we must work"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Tertullian - Against Praxeas, XXII]

Acts 8:37
Traditional Text & KJV: Ethiopian Eunuch's confession.
New Versions: [omit] *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book III, 43]
*[This is the only verse in the Bible that clearly states that a person must believe the gospel before he is baptized. It does not allow for infant baptism. It is also a clear statement on the Deity of Christ.]

Rom. 1:16
Traditional Text & KJV: "...the gospel of Christ."
New Versions: "...the gospel."
Church Fathers support KJV: [Tertullian - On Prescription Against Heretics, XXIII]

Rom. 10:15
Traditional Text & KJV: "gospel of peace"
New Versions: "good news"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book III, XIII]

1 Cor. 5:7
Traditional Text & KJV: "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"
New Versions: "Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, X] [Tertullian - Against Marcion, VII]

Eph. 5:30
Traditional Text & KJV: "of his body, of his flesh and of his bones"
New Versions: "of his body" *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book V, II, 3] [Methodius - Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, I]
*[This verse gives heartburn to those who do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Modern versions have taken care of that objection.]

Phil. 4:13
Traditional Text & KJV: "...Christ, who strengthens me."
New Versions: "...him who gives me strength."
Church Fathers support KJV: [Origen - De Principiis, Book III, II, 5]

Col. 2:18
Traditional Text & KJV: "...he hath not seen."
New Versions: "...he has seen."
Church Fathers support KJV: [Origen - Against Celcus, VIII]

Col. 3:6
Traditional Text & KJV: "on the children of disobedience"
New Versions: [omit]
Church Fathers support KJV: [Clement of Alexandria] Vol. 2, 288

1 Tim. 6:5
Traditional Text & KJV: "from such withdraw thyself"
New Versions: [omit]
Church Fathers support KJV: [Cyprian - Epistle XXXIX, 6, & Epistle LXXIII,3]

Heb. 11:37
Traditional Text & KJV: "were tempted"
New Versions: [omit]
Church Fathers support KJV: [Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, XVI, ] [Origen - Against Celcus, VII]

1 John 4:3
Traditional Text & KJV: "Christ in the flesh"
New Versions: [omit]
Church Fathers support KJV: [Polycarp - Epistle, VII] [Tertulian - On Perscription Against Heretics, XXXIII & On the Flesh of Christ, XXIV]

1 John 5:7
Traditional Text & KJV: "...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."
New Versions: [omit] *
Church Fathers support KJV: [Tertullian - Against Praxeas XXV], [Cyprian - Epistle LXXII, 12], [Cyprian - Treatise I, 6]
*[This is the only verse in the Bible that clearly teaches a Trinity. It is only natural that it would be the most widely disputed passage in the entire Bible. However, it is found in copies of the Old Latin (Itala) dating from the second century, as well as the fourth century Latin Vulgate. It was mentioned by Tertullian, [second century], and quoted as Scripture by the third century Church Father, Cyprian, with the preface, "It is written." Since this passage is so widely believed to be of late date, I have included the actual quote from Cyprian as follows.
"He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one."

Rev. 22:14
Traditional Text & KJV: "do his commandments"
New Versions: "wash their robes"
Church Fathers support KJV: [Tertullian - On Modesty, XIX] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book II, 22]

 

[Trotter]

DO NOT POST UNLESS YOU RESEARCH!

Gee, Sola, you like to shout. But what you are trying to convey is, "Don't post unless you can only agree with me!" And I don't.

I don't know where you come up with your "facts", but I would advise you to be very sure of them before you begin to slander names.

I have done my research. I am a very methodical person who wants to know and learn as much as possible when it comes to God's word. I have checked into the majority of the main translations. On the whole, I have found pretty much the same thing...look hard enough and you will find a skeleton or two in every closet. EVERY CLOSET. The KJV is no exception (see some of the posts above as to how Baptists of the time were persecuted).

The main problem that I have with all this is people putting a translation of the Bible on a pedestal. You took my allegation of Idol worship and tried to turn it around. TRIED. But, you see, I have been on the other side of idolatry, and I know very well the signs and symptoms. This whole blight of KJVOnlyism is a picture perfect representation of those symptoms.

What scares me the most is that there are many churches out there with deluded men in the pulpit, spreading lies and hate against anyone who would dare to open any other translation besides the KJV. How many have turned away from those churches, wanting nothing to do with such malice? How many have turned thier backs on the venom being spewed from those pulpits in search of the message of the gospel of Christ? How many are still on the broad road that leads to the depths of hell because the preacher was too busy trying to convince his congregation that the AV translation is the ONLY preserved word of God, instead of preaching Jesus Christ? How long will people be so ignorant to the truth that the KJV is just one translation among many, and that most (I said most) of them are trustworthy?

I feel sad for you, Sola. God's word is too precious to try to pen it up in just one translation. You are missing out on al that God offers us.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Trotter,

You missed the point yourself. The modern translations are not the word of God. The facts support this. And if you had done your homework as you claimed you would know this.

And as to slander, here is the definition:

SLA'NDER, n.

1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered. and tending to injure the reputation of another by lessening him in the esteem of his fellow citizens, by exposing min to impeachment and punishment, or by impairing his means of lining; defamation. Slander, that worst of poisons, ever finds an easy entrance to ignoble minds.

2 Disgrace; reproach; disreputation; ill name.

SLA'NDER, v.t. To defame; to injure by maliciously uttering a false report respecting one; to tarnish or impair the reputation of one by false tales, maliciously told or propagated.

I have uttered no false report against the modern textual critics or their supporters. The modern textual critics in their own words deny God and his gospel. The only slandering occuring is against godly men like Burgon, Spurgeon, the AV translators, etc. People who upheld the word of God for what it is.

Also, the only slander I've seen here is against Mr. Cloud. Oh, but he is AV only, so it must be ok.

 

[aefting]

And for those who have claimed they have done research and haven't and those who won't do the research, here is some scripture for you: "He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Proverbs 29:1

Does that mean you're going to take back your false statements about miracles and the NASV/NIV?

Andy

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Originally posted by aefting:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And for those who have claimed they have done research and haven't and those who won't do the research, here is some scripture for you: "He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Proverbs 29:1

Does that mean you're going to take back your false statements about miracles and the NASV/NIV?

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]As I stated they are called signs in the NASV/NIV, and not miracles. Acts 2:22 makes it quite clear that there is a difference. The NASV/NIV do not delineate between them.

 

[aefting]

As I stated they are called signs in the NASV/NIV, and not miracles. Acts 2:22 makes it quite clear that there is a difference. The NASV/NIV do not delineate between them.

In Acts 2:22, both the NASV and NIV say miralces, wonders, and signs -- just like the KJV. I thought you said they didn't delineate between them?

The Greek word for "miracle" in Acts 2:22 is dunamis, translated in the KJV by "power" 77 times, "mighty work" 11 times, and "miracle" only 7 times.

The Greek word for "signs" in Acts 2:22 is semeion, translated in the KJV by "sign" 50 times, and "miracle" 23 times.

It seems to me that the KJV doesn't delineate between "signs" and "miracles" either.

Now, we have passages where the NIV, NASV, and KJV all say miracle. We have passages where they all say sign. We have passages where the KJV says sign while the NAS/NIV say miracle. We have passages where the KJV says miracle and the NIV says miraculous sign and the NAS says sign.

Now, let's see what you said about these versions:

Does he not believe in miracles, we have the RV, NASV, RSV, NIV, et al.

They are not called miracles in the NAS and NIV,

As I stated they are called signs in the NASV/NIV, and not miracles. Acts 2:22 makes it quite clear that there is a difference. The NASV/NIV do not delineate between them.

I have demonstrated that these are all false statements. The NIV/NASB contains miracles, they call them miracles, and they differentiate between signs and miracles as much as the KJV. Are you now going to take back these false statements?

Andy

 

[Elk]

Dear Sola_Scriptura,
Greetings!
Regarding your message about this verse:
John 1:18
Traditional Text & KJV: "Only begotten Son."
NASB: "Only begotten God." *
NIV: "God the One and Only" **
Church Fathers support KJV: [Irenaeus - Book III, XI, 6] [Tertulian - Against Praxeas, XV] [Origen - Against Celcus, LXXI] [Hippolytus - Against Noetus, 5] [Archelaus - Disputation with Manes, 32] [Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy, 4]
*[NASB The idea of "begotten gods" was common in Greek and Roman mythology. It has no place in Scripture. The idea of one god begetting another god forms the basis of pagan pantheism. In the Bible, all references to Jesus being "begotten" are speaking of His physical birth through the virgin Mary. Jesus is not a god begotten by God. He is the only true God manifest in flesh. It is amazing that supporters of modern Bible versions point to this verse as an example of the NASB's strength on the Deity of Christ, when in reality it makes Him only a sub-deity.]
** [NIV changes the meaning of "only begotten" to "One and Only." The Greek word is "monogenhV" [mono-genes]. "Mono" means "one" or "only:" "genes" means "born." As a compound word it means "only born" or "only begotten."


This is a verse that I watch, when I look at Bible translations. I too am horrified when I look at what has been done to them in some of the most recent translations. Now how did "bosom" become "side" or "near", and well, the whole meaning has been changed, and I am a loss to understand why. Bosom is bosom. This is not side, and in fact, when people want to make the translation change here to "be politically correct or whatever with" the verses that say that Jesus is on/at the right hand of the Father. I am sorry, that is changing the translation. And furthermore, when it is said, it means that Jesus is in authority. If people look up all the appearances of "right hand" in the Greek, one might be surprised. (Not only what is there or not, but also the definition.)
I do have many complaints about what I see happening with that verse.
But to get to what you quoted about the Begotten Son versus Begotten God...I must say, there is a lot out there about that. One thing that puzzles me is that from what I gathered, in the Greek I hear that most support that it is actually "Begotten God", and I also read somewhere that by "vote" it was made into Son, as seemingly the obvious choice for that verse.
However, a lot of people are upset by the usage of "Begotten God" which I believe might have been the best choice in view of the support by existing manuscripts.????????? Or so I read. And what is so amazing to me is that this Begotten God is, I believe, needed here.
Jesus was fully God and fully Man on earth for one.
Why deny? Was HE not begotten? Do you see how wonderful that verse is when it reads Begotten God? In the same light how about Begotten Son?
Does it not have the "same" reflection, mystery, awesomeness?
Furthermore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do all things together.
Why reject something that is so wonderful?
It is awesome.

But it is not what I want that counts, it is what is the overwhelming evidence in the manuscripts? Don't you want the truth?
I do. I don't know which word (Son or God) supports most of the manuscripts. I do desire to know, but I do not.

But consider how great it is either way.

God bless you!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

You missed the point yourself. The modern translations are not the word of God. The facts support this.

The facts do not support this. The facts support the truth. Here are some of them:
- The early church prospered and saw the greatest growth in all of history in spite of the fact that they didn't have one single version of scripture. They didn't even always agree on which books to accept. Most of their Bibles were incomplete according to our 66 book standard. The factual evidence that we have says that all of these Bibles differed from the KJV.

- The fact that the KJV was translated by Anglican scholars under rules with a decidedly pro- Church of England bias. You can find their rules for translating on the internet.

- The fact that the KJV translators did not consider their translational choices to be final nor exclusive. In fact, they acknowledged that they were unsure in places so they gave variant readings in the margin. In places where a word was used only once in the Greek/Hebrew Bible, they gave their best guess.

- The fact that many modern versions meet every legitimate criterion for being called the "Word of God." Agreement with the KJV IS NOT one of the legitimate criterion.

- The fact that good English translations of God's Word other than the KJV have existed both before and after 1611.

- The fact that KJVOnlyism is not taught by scripture. It was not the view of Christ, the apostles, the early church, orthodox Bible-belieiving Christians operating in the shadows of the RCC, nor the fundamentalists who took a stand against "real liberalism" around the turn of the 20th century. FYI, "The Fundamentals" uses scripture from the AV, RV, and ASV. In fact, no one espoused what modernistic KJVO's believe until some time after 1950. There were people who believed in the superiority of the KJV and traditional texts over newer versions and the CT. But no knowledgeable, fundamental scholar held that the KJV was perfect or beyond emending.

There is much more but the above "facts" are enough for me to "know" that KJVOnlyism is not "fact".

And if you had done your homework as you claimed you would know this.

What a pompous thing to say. You have absolutely no hard, factual evidence to support your claims yet you go on as if it is everyone else who just haven't done their homework. More importantly, you have absolutely no scriptural support for your position. In fact, the example of scripture (Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1) is that different versions from the KJV are acceptable to Jesus... he read from an Isaiah that differs from the KJV Isaiah.

Also, the only slander I've seen here is against Mr. Cloud. Oh, but he is AV only, so it must be ok.

It is never "OK" to slander anyone. I have personally taken some of Cloud's quotes and compared his implied meanings of the quotes to the original context of the author he quotes. There are cases where Cloud is dishonest in his use of people's words.

He is also guilty of resurrecting a 20 years "dead" false allegation against John MacArthur this past summer.

I have had him refuse to answer questions that would force him to face the double standard he applies in characterizing translators. He engages in criticism and character assassination against "modern" scholars but refuses to review the KJV translators under the same rule.

He may be personally honest but his "scholarship" is not honest.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

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

I have read Burgon; his methodology is often unsound, and he is mistaken about many things. Elsewhere I posted the *fact* that all but a handful of the 90% of Byzantine MSS you refer to come from the 9th C. or later, and that the Byzantine text is completely unknown in any Greek, versional, or patristic source before the 4th C. If you dispute these claims, it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

What you wrote before this quote, being most foolish and filled with folly, I will not
answer.</font>[/QUOTE]Why are you afraid of answering my questions? Do you believe that the Geneva Bible and the Tyndale Bible are the word of God? Can you provide a single example of a difference between the KJV and, say, the NIV which changes any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole?

However, you claim Burgon is mistaken, provide examples.

Certainly. One serious methodological flaw running throughout Burgon's work is his uncritical use of patristic citations from uncritical editions of their works. Burgon routinely claims that a particular Father is quoting from what he calls the "traditional text" even though a close examination of the alleged citation shows nothing of the sort. Two examples will illustrate this. (1) Burgon cites Justin (Apology 1.15) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.5.2) in support of the variant "to repentance" at Mt. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17, yet neither of these Fathers explicitly names the Gospel he is quoting from, and the passage is found in Lk. 5:32, a non-disputed parallel. So how do we know that these Fathers aren't quoting Lk. 5:32? (2) Burgon lists Papias as a witness to the Longer Ending of Mark based on a passage from Eusebius (Church History 3.39.9). But Eusebius was relating a story told by one of Philip's daughters about a man named Justus Barsabus who drank poison without any ill effects -- hardly a reference to the longer ending of Mark! This careless use of patristic citations was pointed out to Burgon's disciple Edward Miller in a review article in the Guardian. Miller was forced to re-examine his teacher's citations, and to withdraw a number of them. His retraction is found in vol 2 of The Traditional Text of the Gospels pp. 150-151.

So here is one example of how Burgon is both methodologically flawed and mistaken.

As to the Byzantine text, make up your mind. Is it a 4th or 9th century text?

As I stated before, the Byzantine text is unknown before Constantine; an early form of the Byzantine text makes its appearance in the 4th C.; and the fully-formed, completely standardized Byzantine text appears in the 9th C.

And it is well known that the patristic fathers quoted what is now known as the byzantine text. It is also well known that this is almost universally quoted as we approach the 5th century. So where was the Alexandrian text all these years, from the 4th century until the 19th century?

You are mistaken. Kurt Aland did a study of the citations of early church Fathers and found that none of them before Chrysostom (d. 407 A.D.) had a Byzantine text. (I would be happy to give you the figures for each of the Fathers in the study in full if you wish). And even Chrysostom -- the first Father to use an early form of the Byzantine text -- had a text that was not completely Byzantine. Aland examined Chrysostom's patristic citations in 915 test passages and discovered that Chrysostom’s text is only 40.5% Byzantine -- and 8.5% Alexandrian!

Once again demonstration is made of the lack of research on the part of those who stand against the AV and its underlying text. The oldest text type in greek is that which underlies the AV.

Sorry, but it isn't. You can believe that if you wish, but it won't make the evidence to the contrary go away.

The oldest greek text is dated 66 AD and reflects the greek of the TR.

No it doesn't, as I've shown elsewhere in another thread. P66 is a mixed text, but overall it resembles the Alexandrian text more than any other text type. All you have to do to confirm this is to check the apparatus of the NA27 and see how many times P66 agrees *with* the text of P75-B *against* the TR.

BTW Mt 26:22 in the AV is right according to this oldest greek text. The rendering from the critical greek text of NA/UBS, and translations from this text like the NIV and NASB are wrong. And in typical arrogance of modern textual critics and its supporters, they know this evidence exists, but they refuse to change their critical text. Oh well I guess ignorance is bliss.

I assume you're referring to the variant where the TR reads ηρξαντο λεγειν αυτω εκαστος αυτων ("they began every one of them to say to him") while the NA27/UBS4 reads ηρξαντο λεγειν αυτω εις εκαστος ("they began to say to him one after the other.") If so, then the textual evidence is more complex than your statement indicates. The earliest support for the reading of the TR comes from A (5th C.) and W (5th C.), while earliest support for the reading of the NA27/UBS4 is found in Aleph (4th C.) and B (4th C.) The reading εις εκαστος αυτων ("every one of them") is *possibly* the reading of P45 (3rd C.), but we can't be certain because P45 is defective in this place. So the oldest certain reading of Mt. 26:22 is that of the NA27/UBS4. I might add that neither our eternal salvation nor any central Christan doctrine rests on which of these two readings is correct.