Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

[DeafPosttrib]

Phillip,

Let's get back to the definition of "God's Word", we have shown that it cannot be Word for Word when (it was either in this thread of another similar) I quoted a Word-for-Word translation out of the Textus Receptus and it was nowhere near that of understandable English sentence structure. Individual Words that do NOT effect doctrine that appear in a translation are a non-issue.

You continued,

How about the Words we find in the KJV which were "added" by the translators that are italicized. The translators all clearly say that these words were "added" for clarification? These are not individual words that came from the Original Manuscripts.

Amen!

I suggest you look for words in KJV shown italicized. There are many italic words in KJV. These italic words are not find in TR.

I want to show you something about the example of italic words in KJV:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 - "Let no man deceive you by any means for [italic]that day shall not come[/italic], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."

Notice 'that day shall not come' is in italicized in KJV. In the Greek(TR) does not shown 'that day shall not come'.

I recommend you go to Christian bookstore, buy book - Interlinear Greek-English New Testament' by Jay P. Green Sr. It is very good. He translated KJV from Textus Receptus. Also, there are three parallels in the book. At left side - 'Literal Translation', in the middle side is Greek words, at right side - King James Version.

Notice in Jay Green's book in 2 Thess 2:2 at left side 'Literal Translation' says, "Do not let anyone deceive you(in any) way, because that Day will not come if not first comes the falling away, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,". Notice the difference comparing of 'Literal Translation' & KJV, both are not same grammar or sentence. Now, look in the middle side between 'Literal Translation' & KJV. Notice in Greek words of 2 Thess 2:3, it says, "Let not anyone you deceive, by no way; because if not comes the falling away first, and is revealed the man of sin, the son of perdition,". Notice 'that day shall not come' is not find in TR(Greek translation). Translators added 'that day shall not come' in 1611 A.V. during translation time between year 1604 to 1611. I think, the reason, why they were doing it. I believe during translation in that time, probably, translators seem have difficult to understand what Greek sentence or grammar talking about. So, they were dicussing to make determine what the clarify way, to write down in the English sentence or grammar to make it more clear. That why they added many words in English Bible, many of them are not in TR.

I would like to add one thing to telling you something, that I notice KJV does have weak words, I pick one word of KJV does have weak. I do not mean that I attack against KJV. No, no. I support KJV. Understand, I prefer follow TR before KJV. Because KJV translated COME FROM Greek.

I want to show you in 2 Thess. 2:7 in KJV: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth(will let), until he be taken out of the way." Notice word, "letteth(will let)" in KJV. Look at Greek word for 'letteth', it says, 'holding back'. Notice at the left side - "Literal Translation" it says: "For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he(is) holding back now, until it comes out of (the) midst."

I prefer Greek word of 2 Thess 2:7 - 'holding back' than 'letteth' of KJV. Because, the word, 'letteth' sounds funny to me, and it sounds not right to me. It is weak. The correct word of TR says, 'holding back' is more clear than KJV- 'letteth'. Why?

Because, 2 Thess 2:6-7 explain about the man of sin cannot be revealed in his(man of sin) time, God knows when the right time, then He will allow man of sin to be revealed. Right now, man of sin is being holding back. Holding back means being restraining. Antichrist is now holding back from being to be revealed. God have His power to hold Antichrist from being to revealed.

See? I do not saying that I am attacking against King James Version. I support KJV 100%. Understand, KJV just translated come from Greek. If we do not have English Bible now, can we read and understand Hebrew/Greek Bible? Impossible. We thanked God for King James Version, so, we can read Bible in our own language.

Now, my point is, during 14th Century period, how can Japanese people read God's Word? The only way is, send missionary to witness gospel to people of Japan to know the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Often, KJVO says, King James Version IS the only one perfect Bible. My point is, can the people in Japan read KJV in their own language?

That what the translation is all about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Askjo, just quoting a few people who believe a particular manuscript group does not prove anything. Jim Jones and David Koresh both preached out of the KJ and probably knew more of it than many of us. Your point is moot.

Were Jim and David Christians?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
I suggest you look for words in KJV shown italicized. There are many italic words in KJV. These italic words are not find in TR.

Click 2 website and read this information:
The Italicized Words

Should the italicized words in the KJV be removed?

Jay P. Green Sr

Jay is wrong in translating from the Greek text to the MKJV, KJV II, and others. I will show you next post about him soon.

Often, KJVO says, King James Version IS the only one perfect Bible. My point is, can the people in Japan read KJV in their own language?

Did I say that? You got me WRONG!! I am not one of them.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Askjo,

If you think Jay P. Green is wrong. Maybe you are correct.

Have you study Greek translation at Bible college? I haven't take Greek class at bible college. Becaue that college do not have that course. I would have take that course at another college like Tenneesee Temple University several miles away from my old college, so I could learning Greek better.

I wish, I could know Greek better. And I would to like to know which one type of Greek, 1611 A.V. translated come from. I heard most of them saying 1611 A.V. translated come from Textus Receptus.

Also, I heard there are two different directions of manuscripts throughout church history as Vacatinus or Alexandrian translation like as what Dr. Peter Ruckman explains on Greek Translations.

I need to know which one the actual correct Greek translation, 1611 A.V. translated come from?

Anyone of you know which one is the actual correct Greek translation that, 1611 A.V. translated come from? Thanks.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Askjo,

Also, I have book written by Spiros Zodhiates. HImself born from Greece. He knows Greek language well. I would like to write a letter and send it to him, asking him which one correct Greek translation, 1611 A.V. translated come from.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Ed Edwards]

DeafPosttrib: " I heard most of them saying 1611 A.V.
translated come from Textus Receptus."

Actually, it is the other way around.
That which the 1611 A.V. was translated from was then
called the Textus Receptus. That Textus Receptus is
not now available (though we have a good idea what it says).
Recall the Textus Receptus is a family of New Testament
sources in the Greek language. The original KJV1611 edition
has 37 margine notes showing variations in the Textus Receptus (TR).
Such margin notes start with "Gr.", that is the Greek source
which is the Textus Receputus (TR).

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Regarding the above quote, Is it safe for me to then assume that you believe older is better, over that of the preservation of the scriptures?

Yes, except in cases where a given ms can be proven to be incomplete, by the existence of contemporary mss that contain more material. After all, in most BVs of today, the OT is translated from the Masoretic Text, while the Apostles often clearly quoted from a different source, as did JESUS HIMSELF. These sources were evidently older than the MT.


Can I assume you "do believe" that God has allowed his people to believe things that were added to his words? Doesn't this go against the clear warnings in the scriptures concerning God's words? If so, shouldn't we then reject them? Do you also believe that God would preserve doctrine that "weakened" his truth over that of the "stronger"? Please provide for me with the scriptures, how you justify this belief.[/i]

You want scripture? We have Scripture. Unlike the KJVOs, I can answer questions & am NOT afraid to face the music, since I know I'm fighting a FALSE DOCTRINE.

II Kings 24:8 in the KJV:
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign..."

And now II Chronicles 36:9 in the KJV:
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign..."

This little gem has been in the Masoretic Text for a long time. Books have been written trying to explain it away, but there it is, in living color, in the KJV.

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text, and in both verses above, it reads, "eighteen".

1 Kings 16:23, KJV "In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah." 28 "So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead."
29 "And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years."

When I went to school, 31 + 12 = 43, not 38. And even for those dunderheads who insist that only Omri's years in Tirzah actually count as his reign, it still only adds up to 37.

There are many other Scriptures in the OT which appear to contradict, and which have been known to the various translators for hundreds of years. God apparently chose long ago to allow these appatent conflicts to stand. I don't believe hardly anything could "weaken the truth" any more than to have such an apparent conflict. These conflicts are used by more than one Muslim to reject the Bible. Apparently God chose His Scriptures to appear that way, conflicts or not. They've been around a long time.

I believe God's purpose in allowing these apparent contradictions is to make us STUDY. As for ADDING to Scripture, God added the entire New Testament. The OT had been completed for several hundred years before Jesus came. We see Peter acknowledging Paul's letters as Scripture while Paul was yet alive.

Now, MY turn to ask a question.

Please provide us with a Scripture that supports Onlyism, either directly, or by implication - or says, either directly or by implication, that God's word is limited to just one version.

 

[Phillip]

Does anybody realize that Koine Greek is not Modern Greek?

Dr. Ruckman, yep, he knows ALL about them Alexandrian manuscripts.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Please provide us with a Scripture that supports Onlyism, either directly, or by implication - or says, either directly or by implication, that God's word is limited to just one version.

I thought you would never ask

Ephesians 4:4-6a (KJVO's anotated version = KAV):

There is one body,
and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
one bookstore,
one KJV,
6 One God and Father of all, ... "

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
II Kings 24:8 in the KJV:
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign..."

And now II Chronicles 36:9 in the KJV:
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign..."

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text, and in both verses above, it reads, "eighteen".

Not so.

LXXE 2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign,

LXX 8 uiov oktwkaideka etwn iwakim en tw basileuein auton kai trimhnon ebasileusen en ierousalhm kai onoma th mhtri autou nesya yugathr ellanayan ex ierousalhm

Only the Alexandrian LXX reads 18 in both verses and that is an obvious gloss.

LXXE II Chronicles 36:9 Jechonias was eight years old when he began to reign,

LXX 9 oktw etwn iexonias en tw basileuein auton kai trimhnon kai deka hmeras ebasileusen en ierousalhm kai epoihse to ponhron enwpionkurion.

ALXX 9 uiov oktwkaideka etwn ieconiav en tw basileuein auton kai trimhnon kai deka hmerav ebasileusen en ierousalhm kai epoihsen to ponhron enwpion kuriou.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
II Kings 24:8 in the KJV:
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign..."

And now II Chronicles 36:9 in the KJV:
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign..."

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text, and in both verses above, it reads, "eighteen".

Not so.

LXXE 2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign,

LXX 8 uiov oktwkaideka etwn iwakim en tw basileuein auton kai trimhnon ebasileusen en ierousalhm kai onoma th mhtri autou nesya yugathr ellanayan ex ierousalhm

Only the Alexandrian LXX reads 18 in both verses and that is an obvious gloss.

LXXE II Chronicles 36:9 Jechonias was eight years old when he began to reign,

LXX 9 oktw etwn iexonias en tw basileuein auton kai trimhnon kai deka hmeras ebasileusen en ierousalhm kai epoihse to ponhron enwpionkurion.

ALXX 9 uiov oktwkaideka etwn ieconiav en tw basileuein auton kai trimhnon kai deka hmerav ebasileusen en ierousalhm kai epoihsen to ponhron enwpion kuriou. </font>[/QUOTE]When do you think the Septuagint was truly written. I hear rumours that some scholars are questioning the validity of it being around during the time of Jesus. Do you have any further information relating to this?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
Have you study Greek translation at Bible college? I haven't take Greek class at bible college.

Me, too! But I have a little booklet, "What Today's Christian needs to know about THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT" bt G.W. Anderson. I found it in website.

You click this:
What today's Christian needs to know about The Greek New Testament

Tenneesee Temple University

This TTU is a W/H university.

I list 2 groups of TR colleges and W/H colleges:

For W/H colleges only

Tennessee Temple University
Bob Jones University
Liberty University
Dallas Theological Seminary
and more...

For Textus Receptus only

Penscola Christian College
Fairhaven Baptist College (Chesterton, Indiana)
Heritage Baptist University (Greenwood, Indiana)
Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary
and more...

You see the difference between the W/H colleges and the TR colleges.

And I would to like to know which one type of Greek, 1611 A.V. translated come from. I heard most of them saying 1611 A.V. translated come from Textus Receptus.

Right, the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Hebrew Text (Ben Chayyim).

I warn you that Ben Asher text of Hebrew Old Testament is a false text.

Also, I heard there are two different directions of manuscripts throughout church history as Vacatinus or Alexandrian translation like as what Dr. Peter Ruckman explains on Greek Translations.

Vaticanus or Alexandrian manuscripts are W/H texts because W/H loved the Vaticanus manuscript mostly. That's why Westcott and Hort were closet Catholics.

I need to know which one the actual correct Greek translation, 1611 A.V. translated come from?

The Textus Receptus text is Beza's 1598 edition.

Most Christian Bookstores do not sell the TR Greek text. But you can order it from The Bible For Today through the Internet.

You click here:
The Bible For Today

Also, I have book written by Spiros Zodhiates. HImself born from Greece. He knows Greek language well. I would like to write a letter and send it to him, asking him which one correct Greek translation, 1611 A.V. translated come from.

I heard about Spiros Zodhiates. Is he a TR man or a W/H man? I will let you know later because I lost my memory about him a long time. I will look for his background.

Any questions?

 

[skanwmatos]

Askjo said:

I warn you that Ben Asher text of Hebrew Old Testament is a false text.

Can you list the differences between the Ben Asher text and the Ben Chayyim text? There are only 8 places which are different which would affect the translation.

The Textus Receptus text is Beza's 1598 edition.

Not even close. See http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1525.html#000005 to discover where the KJV came from.

 

[HankD]

The Textus Receptus text is Beza's 1598 edition.

Actually the KJV TR is Scrivener's 1894/1902 Edition.

Yes, I know it's almost 300 years after the AV 1611 but with the KJVO all things are possible (post-revelation?).

HankD

 

[Pastor_Bob]

There were many Greek texts that had the name Textus Receptus ascribed to them. "The term originated through a highly exaggerated statement -- actually a publisher's blurb -- in the preface to the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. In this Latin preface they called their book 'the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.' This is how this Latin term textus receptus (text received) came to be applied to a particular text of the Greek New Testament. On the European continent, aside from Great Britain, the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament." Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by skanwmatos

See http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1525.html#000005 to discover where the KJV came from.

Quite a lot of information contained in this post. Could you cite your sources? I would be interested in obtaining the book you reference.

According to Metzger, the KJV translators were given instructions that the Bishops' Bible was to be followed and "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit;" that certain other translations should be used where they agreed better with the text, namely, "Tindoll's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's [=the Great Bible, so named from the name of the printer], and Geneva."

It is interesting that, again according to Meztger, that only about 4% of the KJV wording can be attributed to the Bishops' text.

The Bible in Translation Bruce M. Metzger pg. 71, 67

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Phillip:
When do you think the Septuagint was truly written. I hear rumours that some scholars are questioning the validity of it being around during the time of Jesus. Do you have any further information relating to this?

I realize this question was addressed to skanwmatos, and I trust he will answer in time. Allow me to answer based on the information that I've gathered.

It is understood that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Old Greek in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphius. This would have been around 285 - 246 B.C. Of course, this translation was named the Septuagint to refer to the seventy-two translators. Septuagint means "seventy." This translation is often referred to as LXX which, of course, is the Roman numeral 70.

As I stated in another thread, the first century Christians had adopted the Septuagint as more authoritative than even the Hebrew Scriptures from which they were translated. Many of the converts to Christianity were Gentile converts. As a result, more and more Jews rejected the Septuagint.

I have no reason to believe that the Septuagint was not available in Jesus' day.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Textus Receptus text is Beza's 1598 edition.

Actually the KJV TR is Scrivener's 1894/1902 Edition. </font>[/QUOTE]It was published by Cambridge University Press in 1894/1902. However the Preface said, "The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority."

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
When do you think the Septuagint was truly written. I hear rumours that some scholars are questioning the validity of it being around during the time of Jesus. Do you have any further information relating to this?

I can speculate as well as anyone, but my speculations are no more valid than anyone else's. What I know is that about 30 papyrus fragments exist bearing portions of the OT in Greek. With the exception of the Ryland Papyrus #458, all date at or after 150 AD. The Ryland fragment dates to about 150 BC but contains only portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy none of which is quoted in the NT.

Other evidence would include a quote from Jesus, son of Sirach who spoke of a Greek version of the Law, Prophets, and other books which he claimed was "uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue." He was writing in about 130 BC.

Philo refers to the Letter of Aristeas which most scholars relegate to the realm of myth, but he does quote the OT in Greek around 40 AD. Whether he translated it himself or was quoting a Greek OT is unknown.

Josephus also referred to the Letter of Aristeas and also quotes the OT in Greek around 90 AD.

My speculation is that several different translations of the OT into Greek may have existed at the time of Christ and the Apostles, but we have no manuscript evidence to support that speculation.

We do know that several attempts were made in the post Apostolic era to translate the OT into Greek, and one wonders, if a good translation already existed, why duplicate the effort? But Aquila (128 AD), Theodotion (180 AD), and Symmachus (200 AD) all did so.

The oldest existing (nearly) complete manuscripts of the Greek OT are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. Those major Codices date from 325 AD to about 500 AD.

 

[Scott J]

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

This TTU is a W/H university. </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. This TTU is a fundamentalist Christian university. It uses the scholarly works of many textual scholars.

I list 2 groups of TR colleges and W/H colleges:

And demonstrate your ignorance of this subject in doing so.

For W/H colleges only

Tennessee Temple University
Bob Jones University
Liberty University
Dallas Theological Seminary
and more...

Please cite where any of these schools has rejected the TR or MT text positions. Please cite where any of these schools has rejected the KJV. In fact, the KJV is still the official version of BJU.

For Textus Receptus only

Penscola Christian College
Fairhaven Baptist College (Chesterton, Indiana)
Heritage Baptist University (Greenwood, Indiana)
Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary
and more...

Please tell us if any of these schools accept any translation of the TR other than the KJV.

You see the difference between the W/H colleges and the TR colleges.

The first ones are thoroughly orthodox and biblical in their doctrines on scripture. The second ones maybe so, maybe not- depending on how far they carry their preferences. PCC is definitely over the edge.