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

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Scott J:
This TTU is a fundamentalist Christian university.

Correct. However TTU uses the CT instead of TR. Therefore TTU defends the catholics, does it? David Cloud was graduated from there. I was there. Ask David Cloud about TTU. Go ahead!

It uses the scholarly works of many textual scholars.

They are W/H scholars because of the New KJV that they produced.

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.

Are you blind?

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

The Bible said so. You miss one verse! Overlook?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
They are W/H scholars because of the New KJV that they produced.

The only problem with your "theory" is that the NKJV is based on the same texts as the KJV. No WH texts involved at all.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
They are W/H scholars because of the New KJV that they produced.

The only problem with your "theory" is that the NKJV is based on the same texts as the KJV. No WH texts involved at all. </font>[/QUOTE]No! No! The NKJV derived from the 1982 MT. The KJV derived from the TR. The KJV departs from the MT.

The New KJV disagreed with the KJV/TR 2,000 times!

These 2,000 words in the New KJV are NOT in the TR, but where???? MT includes the CT, does it?

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by tinytim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Tinytim quoted:

After all the KJV does have added words.
--------------------------------------------------


Prove it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I would love to, but once I show you a word in the KJV that is not in the TR you must promise not to condemn the KJV......

....There is your proof: A word in the KJV that isn't in the TR, and it's not even italicized!! Isn't that a wee bit dishonest. No italics, and no footnotes. Amazing. </font>[/QUOTE]Michelle, I see you haven't responded to my proof that the KJV has added words.
What do you think? Do you agree with me?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
No! No! The NKJV derived from the 1982 MT. The KJV derived from the TR. The KJV departs from the MT.

Not true. The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus. Page xxiv of the NKJV Preface states, "the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority text variant readings in the textual footnotes."

The New KJV disagreed with the KJV/TR 2,000 times!

The NKJV never disagrees with the TR. It is based on the TR.

These 2,000 words in the New KJV are NOT in the TR, but where????

Yes, they are in the TR.

MT includes the CT, does it?

No.

 

[HankD]

RE: LXX

mioque posted this URL from another thread:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypap.html

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypaplist.html

HankD

 

[HankD]

The New KJV disagreed with the KJV/TR 2,000 times!

Name one place and let's look at it.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

WHICH VERSION of the TR? There are umpteen of 'em floating around.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
The NKJV never disagrees with the TR. It is based on the TR.
Yes, they are in the TR.

The NKJV excluded the TR -- 40%!!!

Not true. The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus. Page xxiv of the NKJV Preface states, "the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority text variant readings in the textual footnotes."

The footnotes in the NKJV tell you, "NU Texts." Why are the NU texts??? They are NOT TR!!!!!

In the Preface they wrote; "complete equivalence....Dynamic equivalence..." This is a LIE!

Many comments in the NKJV Preface are nonsense and lies.

Originally posted by HankD
Name one place and let's look at it.

New KJV agreed with the NIV, not the KJV. Why? Look at NIV, NKJV and KJV:

NIV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

NKJV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

KJV Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

 

[HankD]

NIV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

NKJV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

KJV Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

This doesn't have to do with the TR. Both the W&H and the TR Greek text have the same word for worship :

Strong's 4352 proskuneo {pros-koo-neh'-o}
Meaning: 1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence 2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence 3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication 3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank 3a1) to the Jewish high priests 3a2) to God 3a3) to Christ 3a4) to heavenly beings 3a5) to demons
Origin: from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); TDNT - 6:758,948; v
Usage: AV - worship 60; 60

It is a choice of meanings since the word can mean worship or homage or obeisance.

The question is did the sons of Zebedee understand that Jesus is God come in the flesh and therefore worshipped Him.

Where there is no question the NKJV uses "worship"

NKJ Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.

This is what you said

The New KJV disagreed with the KJV/TR 2,000 times!

These 2,000 words in the New KJV are NOT in the TR, but where???? MT includes the CT, does it?

I believe what your source is saying is that the NKJV sometimes differs from the KJV in the choice of the receptor language wording and sometimes happens to agree with 1 or more MV's.

That is different than the NKJV abandoning the TR for an Alexandrian variant.

Take the following for instance:

KJV 2 Corinthians
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

NKJV 2 Corinthians
12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.

NIV 2 Corinthians
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.

Show us a place where the NKJV abandons the TR (Beza, or Stephanus or Elzivir or Scrivener) for an Alexandrian variant which is reflected in the NKJV wording.

HankD

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by HankD:

Show us a place where the NKJV abandons the TR (Beza, or Stephanus or Elzivir or Scrivener) for an Alexandrian variant which is reflected in the NKJV wording.

HankD

Hank its the same as with the KJVo group saying "words" are changed when a new group of more modern words are used to mean the very same thing (and usually much clearer). A standard KJVo stunt to try to prove variation. You have to look at each one in detail. Exactly, your point above.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
This TTU is a fundamentalist Christian university.

Correct. However TTU uses the CT instead of TR. Therefore TTU defends the catholics, does it?</font>[/QUOTE] TTU doesn't defend Catholics as far as I am aware... BTW, which of the CT's were collated by a Roman Catholic? It seems that the only text in use that was made by a RC is the TR.

David Cloud was graduated from there.

Let me be as clear as I can. I have personally documented deception on the part of David Cloud as have many others. He differs from Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, etc only by degrees- not by nature. He holds a false doctrine and distorts the truth in an effort to support it.

Ask David Cloud about TTU. Go ahead!

I wouldn't ask Cloud for directions to McDonalds... he would misquote the map.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It uses the scholarly works of many textual scholars.

They are W/H scholars because of the New KJV that they produced. </font>[/QUOTE] I truly wish that you knew what you were talking about.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.

Are you blind?</font>[/QUOTE] No. To the best of my knowledge, none of these schools exclude people who think the TR or MT are superior.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Please tell us if any of these schools accept any translation of the TR other than the KJV.

The Bible said so. You miss one verse! Overlook? </font>[/QUOTE]What in the world was this supposed to have meant? The Bible doesn't say anything in relation to my request.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
The NKJV excluded the TR -- 40%!!!

That is a lie. The NKJV is based on the TR.

The footnotes in the NKJV tell you, "NU Texts." Why are the NU texts??? They are NOT TR!!!!!

And FOOTNOTES are not the text in the NKJV any more than the marginal notes in the KJV are the text of the KJV.

NIV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

NKJV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

KJV Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

You seem ignorant of the fact that the word "worship" means to prostrate yourself, or to kneel down.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

NKJV Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

KJV Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't have to do with the TR. Both the W&H and the TR Greek text have the same word for worship :

Do you mean kneeling down without worshipping Him? NIV and NKJV said so.

NIV and NKJV tell you that the passage shows NO worship because kneeling down and worshipping are different meaning. For example, I kneel down Jesus without worshipping Him.

The Greek word for kneeling down is gonupeteo.

Strong's 4352 proskuneo {pros-koo-neh'-o}
Meaning: 1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence 2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence 3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication 3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank 3a1) to the Jewish high priests 3a2) to God 3a3) to Christ 3a4) to heavenly beings 3a5) to demons
Origin: from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); TDNT - 6:758,948; v
Usage: AV - worship 60; 60

I looked up my Strong's and found 4352. Strong's does NOT say "kneeling" or "knee."

The greek word for worship is proskuneo .

Are gonupeteo and proskuneo same meaning?

Where did the NKJV and the NIV get the word, "kneeling down" according to the Greek term?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
That is a lie. The NKJV is based on the TR.

I have this information saying 40% non-TR in the NKJV. I suggest you to ask D. A. Waite about that. I am sure - he will be happy to answer you anything about the NKJV, the TR and the non-TR.

And FOOTNOTES are not the text in the NKJV any more than the marginal notes in the KJV are the text of the KJV.

Who need this NU? You?

You seem ignorant of the fact that the word "worship" means to prostrate yourself, or to kneel down.

Wrong definition! For example, I kneel down Jesus without worshipping Him.

The Greek word for kneeling down is gonupeteo.
The Greek word for worship is proskuneo.

Are they same meanings?

 

[HankD]

The Greek word for kneeling down is gonupeteo.
The Greek word for worship is proskuneo.

Are they same meanings?

Their meanings intersect in the semantic domain.

Strong's 4352 proskuneo {pros-koo-neh'-o}
Meaning: 1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence 2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence 3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

Also, please give an example of the usage of "gonupeteo" in the NT.


HankD

 

[HankD]

I have this information saying 40% non-TR in the NKJV. I suggest you to ask D. A. Waite about that. I am sure - he will be happy to answer you anything about the NKJV, the TR and the non-TR.

askjo, you made the claim, you need to document what you are saying. It is not up to us to go find the evidence to prove you right.

At very least you need to show us where the NKJV abandons the TR and chooses an Alexandrian variant reflected by the NKJV translation.

That the NKJV chooses the same modernised English word as another MV for the same Greek word used in both the TR and Aleph (for instance), is a given. If that is what you mean then I have no disagreement. It happens, so what?

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I have this information saying 40% non-TR in the NKJV.

Then your information is wrong. The NKJV is translated from exactly the same Greek text as the KJV.

I suggest you to ask D. A. Waite about that. I am sure - he will be happy to answer you anything about the NKJV, the TR and the non-TR.

I don't have to ask anybody. Unlike you I can read English and Greek. The Greek text is the same.

Who need this NU? You?

Nice try to dodge the issue, but the fact remains footnotes are not the text.

Wrong definition! For example, I kneel down Jesus without worshipping Him.

The Greek word for kneeling down is gonupeteo.
The Greek word for worship is proskuneo.

Are they same meanings?

You can't just make up lies about these things! Somebody will always check up on you and you will get caught! The Greek word in the TR at Matthew 20:20 (the verse you quoted) is proskunousa and the Greek word in the CR is proskunousa! Exactly the same Greek word. So, it is obvious you lied! The NKJV follows the TR reading which is identical to the CT reading.

Why do you try to defend a book of Truth was lies?

 

[skanwmatos]

I just checked out what Don Waite has to say about the NKJV. Here it is.

These are lengthy computer print-out studies which point out instances of dynamic equivalence in these three popular versions. These amount to over 2,000 for the NKJV,

Notice he says there are 2,000 instances of dynamic equivalence in the NKJV but doesn't say there are 4,000 places where it departs from the TR.

In the way Dean Burgon repudiates the English Revised Version of 1881 and defends the Authorized King James Bible, this book will also form a strong basis for defending the King James Bible against the modern versions such as the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, TEV, NIV, NRSV, CEV, the footnotes in the study edition of the NKJV, and many others.

Again notice he says only the footnotes in the study edition of the NKJV reflect the CT, not the text, which follows the TR.

Time to check your "facts."

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


robycop,

--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

You state this as though it were fact, and is NOT fact. We know only that Jesus quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. You also base your conclusions on the assumptions that the Masoretic text is not as accurate as the older sources, based upon the logic that older is more accurate. This statement clearly denies faith that God had, and would preserve his words for every generation. Those who deny this promise and truth, are believing in man's wisdom and methods, rather than God's wisdom and promise of preservation.

Then you go further to state that the contemporary mss that contain more info. should be included. Please explain what you mean by contemporary mss. Are you speaking of the Alexandrian family of mss? These are not contemporary, but older, and they disagree much even amongst themselves and omitt, rather than include. How reliable can these be? It is also assumed, that those scholars who proceeded the KJV translators, as well as the translators themselves, did not have access to these manuscripts, and that they were unaware of them. This is untrue. They REJECTED these mss because they disagreed with the
recieved texts. Please, for your sake, and the sake of your love for the word of God, stop believing the lies.

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

Please provide evidence for this, that the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text. And even if this is so, just because something is "older" does not validate its accuracy.


--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

I am sorry that you cannot understand what God is telling you in this passage. As you stated in your closing of this last post, that God has put contradictions in his word of truth for generations. May I point out something to you. God has put what "seems" to be contradictions in his words of truth, but are not contradictions at all. Those who study his word, and desire to know what he has said, understand that these are not contradictions. Those responsible for the modern versions try to "fix" what they interpret contradictions, which are not at all contradictions, and shows their lack of understanding what the scriptures say, and then alter God's pure words of truth, which make the word of God to be lying.

Please notice that Omri "began" to "reign" 12 years in Irael, "in the year of Asa King of Judah", "6 years in Tizrah". Omri then died, and "in the 38th year of Asa King of Judah", Ahab the son of Omri began to reign over Israel 22 years.

The text does not say at what time "in" that year he began to reign. It could have been at the end of that year. It also does not say the same for Ahab. The text also makes it clear that 6 of those 12 years that Omri reigned, he reigned over Tizrah. To say that this was mistranslated and in error, is not the truth. To translate what one " thinks" is meant is in error, and one then misses out on all the details God has given to us concerning this. Remember also Mark 4:1-20, John 14:15-31, John 15, 16 and John 17.


--------------------------------------------------
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 have provided abundant scriptures, as have others to why one should "REJECT" the modern versions which are based upon texts that have altered God's pure words of truth. Call it what you will, onlyism, cultism, etc. My stand on this is based upon the scriptures and faith in God's promises of preservation for every generation. You have yet to provide me the scriptures, or anyone else for that matter, your stand for these and show quite clearly your denial of and lack of trust in God's promise of preservation. Your trust rather rely's more upon the methods and reasoning of men.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle