Bible Translations

[Sola_Scriptura]

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

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.

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.

</font>[/QUOTE]Ok I'll take your test, on the condition you take mine. And then we both post our answers. Agreed?

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

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?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I already quoted all three passages, and if you look at the passages that mention trespass and sin they are equated with each other.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

A search on the first qestion, this portion: "missing words in Matthew 5:44"
shows 83 additional places you can find this quiz.

The search engine here is incapable of searching for this phrase,
but i wonder how many times this quiz has been copied over here
at BB bb? At least this time a link was used to conserve storage
space.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

But one does need to know Hebrew to know what the text says.

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

In my previous post, I showed this to be a direct lie. You did not even comment on the verese that explicitly refute your attack on God's word.

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

You were wrong. I wasn't wrong.

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

God did not write his Bible in English. Therefore, I don't care what the English definitions of words might be. I care about what God inspired the Evangelists to write. On this point, you are simply wrong. Get out your Greek lexicon and look up the word that God used. That should put your concerns to rest. Of course, we know that you are not that interested in the truth.

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.

IN Matt 5:22, Christ did not say, "Without a cause." That was added in by overzealous translators who violated the command to not add to Scripture. I dealt with Matt 5:22 but showing that Christ was sinless in Hebrews. Matthew does not contradict Hebrews.

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.

It wasn't taken out of the verse. It was most likely never there. The word of God (NIV) clearly declares lying to be a sin. You lied against the word of God you charged that it took this command out.

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 Greek text of the UBS and NA is not corrupt. That is false teaching. You have simply believed a lie.

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

If they teach KJVO, then they are not truth teaching churches. By definition, a truth teaching church teaches the truth. KJVO is found nowhere in truth. Therefore a truthteaching church cannot, by definition, be a KJVO church on that point. They may preach the gospel and that is good. There may not be a good fundamental church that uses modern versions. But that is not hte fault of the versions. That is the fault of the pastors and churches.

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

quote:
Originally posted by GM:
So, Dr.Bob,
Do you believe that the KJV IS Gods Preserved Word in the English Language?
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.

YOur apology notwithstanding, this is the kind of shoddy work that we have come to expect from you and others like you. You play loose with the truth. There is absolutely no excuse for this to happen time and time again.

Though I can't speak for Bob, I think Bob's point is that God never promised to preserve it only in English in 1611. With that, I would agree. The problem with your position is that you refuse ot believe that he preserved it in Greek and Hebrew. You think he only preserved in the KJV.

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.

The early church used it in certain geographical areas. It was not used for 1500 years for various reasons, none of which have to do with it not being the word of God.

I have told you time and time again, if you want to see their fruit, come and start looking. People are saved from them, lives are changed, churches are growing, people are learning, etc. The fruit is there. You simply have been deceived and are not willing to see it.

Your name is interesting. You claim to be "Sola_Scriptura" but devote your time to a doctrine that cannot be found in Scripture. Your doctrine depends on men. What a contradiction.

[ November 03, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

Ok I'll take your test, on the condition you take mine. And then we both post our answers. Agreed?

We could do this, but what good would it do? Both tests have the same basic flaw: they treat individual verses in isolation from the rest of Scripture, thus giving the false impression that key doctrines are missing in the KJV or NIV when in fact they are not.

Isn't it just easier to admit that when you take the teaching of Scripture as a whole, *regardless* of whether you use the KJV or the NIV, no cardinal Christian doctrine is affected by the differences between these two versions?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I have told you time and time again, if you want to see their fruit, come and start looking. People are saved from them, lives are changed, churches are growing, people are learning, etc. The fruit is there. You simply have been deceived and are not willing to see it.

Why shouldn't there be growth,no one is going to hinder 'em.

no cardinal Christian doctrine is affected by the differences between these two versions?

OK.The NWT has all of the "fudementals of faith" between it's covers;you could lead a person to Christ with it.Is it a "reliable translation" because of that?? Why not?? Remember,it has all of the "fudementals of faith" in it's contents;after all,
"no doctrine is effected" Right?? Why not?? It comes from the same basic underlying manuscripts as the other "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)do..That excuse of "no doctrine is effected" is nothing but an alibi for condoning the sin of OMMISSION!!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have told you time and time again, if you want to see their fruit, come and start looking. People are saved from them, lives are changed, churches are growing, people are learning, etc. The fruit is there. You simply have been deceived and are not willing to see it.

Why shouldn't there be growth,no one is going to hinder 'em.</font>[/QUOTE]People like you hinder them by preaching your false doctrine of God's word and attacking it at every turn. Some churches do compromise the word of God. I found this in the KJVOnly church I was in. The doctrine of salvation was rarely preached with any clarity. There was no biblical repentance preached. By contrast, in the churches that I have been in that use a modern version, all of them without exception preach the biblical gospel of repentance and faith for salvation.

The truth is that this "power" argument is useless. It means nothing because "power" is subjective. A church where people are growing deeper may, for various reasons, not be growing in numbers. As a whole, the modern versions greatly increase the ability of God's people to grow. If people choose to use a KJV that is fine as well. But realize that growth will typically be more difficult because God's word is not as clear.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:

Titus 3:6 (KJV) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Therefore the KJV is correct to say, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

Modern versions on Titus 2:13 said "Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. They refer this verse to 2 persons. Nonsense!

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 </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree with this website because Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. is a W/H man.

Look at Psalm 68:20 saying, "He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death."

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> no cardinal Christian doctrine is affected by the differences between these two versions?

OK.The NWT has all of the "fudementals of faith" between it's covers;you could lead a person to Christ with it.Is it a "reliable translation" because of that?? Why not?? Remember,it has all of the "fudementals of faith" in it's contents;after all, "no doctrine is effected" Right?? Why not?? </font>[/QUOTE]The NWT is an unreliable translation because it consistently mistranslates key words and phrases to conform with JW doctrine, and in doing so, departs from the "fundamentals of the faith." For instance, *nowhere* in the NWT will you find even one single reference to the cross -- and Christ's atoning death on the cross is a core Christian doctrine.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Then why does the NASb have two gods in John 1:18 like the NWT?? Looks like a doctrinal change to me

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

Then why does the NASb have two gods in John 1:18 like the NWT?? Looks like a doctrinal change to me

The doctrine of the Trinity (God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet only one God) is clearly taught in the NASB.

The Father is God --

NASB Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)

The Son is God --

NASB Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

The Holy Spirit is God --

NASB Acts 5:3-4 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

Yet there is one God --

NASB Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

In light of the teaching of Scripture *as a whole*, and the context of John chapter 1, Jn. 1:18 in the NASB is completely orthodox.

Jesus is begotten --

NASB John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus is God --

NASB John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So Jesus is "the begotten, God"

But the NASB should punctuate the verse differently --

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten, God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
So Jesus is "the begotten, God"

But the NASB should punctuate the verse differently --

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten, God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 1:18 (NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

You said "begotten , God", but I checked NASB there is NO , on John 1:18!!!

John 3:16 (NASB) For God so loved the world, that He (24) gave His only begotten Son , that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Who begat God on John 1:18 in NASB? NASB contradicts itself between "begotten GOD" and "begotten SON" because this double phrases refer to double persons.

Look at the KJV John 1:18 and 3:16 -- "begotten SON." No contradiction!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I disagree with this website because Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. is a W/H man.

If I am not mistaken Wallace is a Majority Text "man".

BTW, by what measure do you think a "W/H man" is inferior to a Desiderus Erasmus "man"?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have told you time and time again, if you want to see their fruit, come and start looking. People are saved from them, lives are changed, churches are growing, people are learning, etc. The fruit is there. You simply have been deceived and are not willing to see it.

Why shouldn't there be growth,no one is going to hinder 'em.
</font>[/QUOTE]You have turned double standards into an art form.

On the one hand, it is claimed that churches using MV's are under delusion from Satan- ungodly and bearing no fruit.

When fruit is cited, you do a complete flip-flop and say it is only because Satan isn't resisting churches using MV's.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:
The preaching on sin in modern version churches is always weaker than the preaching on sin in KJV churches.

All this and omniscience too.

You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe that these new greek and hebrew texts which your translation is from, and which the Christian church did not use from 350AD until 1881AD,

The TR was not used from 100 AD to 15?? AD. Does that disqualify it as a valid original language text? In fact, it has readings that were never part of the Greek Antiochian tradition (I John 5:7-8, Rev. 22, etc.)

...and only the pagan, baal-worshipping, Roman Church used, is truly the word of God.

And you would have us believe that the only true text for the NT was produced by a "pagan, baal-worshipping, Roman Church" scholar?

For if you expect us to believe this, then you expect us to believe God left his church all these years without his word.

Right back at you... and much more. If you are right then we should all "go home" to the Roman church since it is God's faithful restorer of the Bible text.

However, NO modern version church, that I or anyone I know has attended is a godly church. Every single one is corrupt. (This brings the total to over 3000)

You know, perhaps the problem isn't the churches but rather your definition of "godly". We saw a little of it earlier.

You know there was a group of folks back in Jesus' days on earth that liked to go around and measure their holiness against those they thought of as inferior. They had their own extra-biblical, interpretative standards as well. However, they likewise missed the spirit of God's law while choking on the letter.

Paul also ran up against some folks that thought they were holier because of their "higher standards" for holiness/godliness. He wrote about them in Galatians and said they should be accursed.

 

[Johnv]

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

In the KJV, "sodomite" ONLY means one of two things:

1 - a temple prostitute.
2 - a resident of Sodom.

It does not mean "homosexual" in general, not in the KJV, and not in modern English. A sodomite in modern English is someone who engages in the act of sodomy. Most people who engage in sodomy are married persons engaging in heterosexual intimacy, and most of the time, they engage in sodomy with their spouses only.

 

[tinytim]

Hello, I'm pretty new to BB, and to let everyone know, I'm not KJVO. I used to be, and then God opened my eyes to the truth. Here's how:
1. By comparing Luke 4:17-19 with Isaiah 61:1,2 and the use of just a little common sense logic to understand that if There are no mistakes in the KJV passage of Isaiah 61:1,2 then the scripture that Christ quotes in luke 4 must be identical word for word. Of course it's not. So that left me to only one of two conclusions, either Christ misquoted God's Word (which is impossible), or he was reading from a different version from the approved text of KJVO camp. I did a little digging and found out that Christ was actually reading from a text (in Luke 4). It was different from the one used by the KJV translators in Isaiah 61. When I realized that Christ used different versions than those approved by KJVO people, then I felt that to be Christ like I could too!
2. Also, when talking to KJVO people about preservation of scripture, a passage seems to always pop up. They seem to always use PSalms 12:6,7 to prove that God will always preserve His words "from this generation forward"
The passage says,
"Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
They take this whole passage out of context because the word "them" in vs 7 points to verse 5 that says:
"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set [him] in safety [from him that] puffeth at him."
(They seem to always leave out Vs 5). The whole chapter 12 is talking about the preservation of God's people. If you doubt me, check out any good reference books that cover these verses. Now my KJV bible says, "... if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life," I'd be concerned about intentionally taking a verse "out" of context to prove any point, because in effect your removing the truth of God's message!

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

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

So Jesus is "the begotten, God"

But the NASB should punctuate the verse differently --

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten, God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 1:18 (NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

You said "begotten , God", but I checked NASB there is NO , on John 1:18!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Correct -- that's why I said the NASB should punctuate the verse differently by placing commas around "God."

John 3:16 (NASB) For God so loved the world, that He (24) gave His only begotten Son , that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Who begat God on John 1:18 in NASB?

God the Father begat God the Son (Heb. 1:5-6). Orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father.

NASB contradicts itself between "begotten GOD" and "begotten SON" because this double phrases refer to double persons.

Look at the KJV John 1:18 and 3:16 -- "begotten SON." No contradiction!

Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Jesus "begotten?" Yes. So what's the problem with "begotten God?" Both are true! Not only that, but Jn. 1:18 in the NASB is a clear and ringing affirmation of Jesus' deity, because it calls him "God!"

If Jn. 1:18 in the NASB is a problem, then so is Heb. 1:5-6 in the KJV --

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Heb. 1:5 KJV)

"THIS DAY I have begotten thee?" Was there a day *before* Jesus was "begotten?" Was there a time when Jesus didn't exist?

"And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Heb. 1:6 KJV)

"FIRSTBEGOTTEN?" But elsewhere the KJV says Jesus was the "ONLY-begotten!"

See the problems that arise when you don't take the teaching of Scripture *as a whole* into consideration?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by tinytim:

The whole chapter 12 is talking about the preservation of God's people.

And not just Psalm 12. If you do a study of how the word "preserve" is used throughout the Book of Psalms in the KJV, you'll find that it *always* refers to God's people and *never* to God's words.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Scott J:

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

I disagree with this website because Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. is a W/H man.

If I am not mistaken Wallace is a Majority Text "man".</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Wallace is neither a "Majority Text" man nor a "W-H" man -- he's a "best possible text" man, and that means the NA27-UBS4 Greek text.