Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

[dan e.]

.

1611 A.D. The King James Version into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. The King James translators of the New Testament used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translations.

Wouldn't the Textus Receptus NOT be based off of an original? But a copy based off of other copies dating only as far back as the 12th Century??

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry Charles, I have no problem with you using only the KJV - but if you believed oldest is best than you should probably change English translations based on this bit of info in your post.

1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament made use of the oldest Greek manuscripts which date from 175 A.D. This was the Greek New Testament text from which the NASV and the NIV were translated.

 

[dan e.]

Any more hard filling Dan. Like I said don't count me ignorant.

No need to get an ego....you copy and paste really well. Especially when your typing and grammar suddenly change drastically.

Listen, I love reading about history as much as you seem to love copy and paste. I'm not saying I know more than you. What I'm saying is that this shows nothing about your comments...that the KJV is "closer to the word of God", or that newer translations are based off of what someone else thinks.

 

[dan e.]

Interesting point C4K.....very interesting indeed.

 

[reformedbeliever]

A version, as in the KJV, is a translation of a translation. Anytime you have a translation, you have interpretation... no way around it. Ask anyone who is multilingual. When you have a translation of a translation, you have interpretation of interpretation. This is not to say that any VERSION is not reliable... I love my ESV. None are without error except the original.

Anyone who says that their translation/interpretation is perfect....... well, that is their opinion. Everyone has one.

 

[dan e.]

Charles, there is a book that you may find interesting (or you may burn it in a bon fire, who knows).

It's called "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. I'm sure everyone around here may be familiar with it. You may probably already be familiar with it. But it is an interesting book.

 

[EdSutton]

Lucky me - I have seen a lot of the Beatty mss. They are in a free museum in Dublin

I would certainly love to have the privilege of seeing some old Bible manuscripts sometime, NT or OT.

Ed

 

[readmore]

...The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible."

Read the entire article at http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

This was from an article by Dr. Laurence Vance. I felt it only fair that he get some credit for it...

 

[dan e.]

Read the entire article at http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

This was from an article by Dr. Laurence Vance. I felt it only fair that he get some credit for it...

That's funny that it came from a site called av1611.org.

Nevermind Charles, I think you'd hate that book I recommended. I still challenge you to take a look though!:thumbs:

 

[dcorbett]

I would certainly love to have the privilege of seeing some old Bible manuscripts sometime, NT or OT.

Ed

me too...but I couldn't read them in the original languages, could you? I remember staring at the Magna Carta in Salisbury, deciphering one word here and two words there. I am glad someone made it easier to read, but I wouldn't want a paraphrase, I want an accurate translation.

To me (again, this is my opinion) reading the NIV after reading the KJV is like drinking skim milk after drinking fresh cow's milk. I love the fullness and richness of the product that is closest to the original - You can still get all your vitamins and calcium from the skim, but for flavor and satisfaction, I prefer the fresh whole milk.

Again, I cannot spout theology. I only know what is in my heart, thank you Jesus for your saving grace!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Does anybody know where a free, on-line Tyndale's Bible is available?

Does anybody know where one can download a
free electronic copy of the Tyndale's Bible?

The Tyndale's Bible is even three hundred years older
than the KJVs

 

[readmore]

Free, on-line Tyndale Bible

Apparently you can read it online or download it from http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

(First link on Google after a search for tyndale bible)

 

[EdSutton]

. 1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament was printed for the first time by Erasmus. He based his Greek New Testament from only five Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dated only as far back as the twelfth century. With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek New Testament came to be known as the Textus Receptus or the "received texts."
1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was published. The Old Testament was in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and the New Testament in Latin and Greek. Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise later editions of his New Testament. Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his translation on the Old Testament into English which he did not complete because he was martyred in 1534.
1611 A.D. The King James Version into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. The King James translators of the New Testament used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translations.
1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament made use of the oldest Greek manuscripts which date from 175 A.D. This was the Greek New Testament text from which the NASV and the NIV were translated.
1971 A.D. The New American Standard Version (NASV) was published. It makes use of the wealth of much older Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available that weren't available at the time of the translation of the KJV. Its wording and sentence structure closely follow the Greek in more of a word for word style.
1983 A.D. The New International Version (NIV) was published. It also made use of the oldest manuscript evidence. It is more of a "thought-for-thought" translation and reads more easily than the NASV.
[snipped]

As C4K pointed out, in another post, do you happen to notice any apparent contradictions in some of what I have emboldened? I certainly see some. You might take some note of your own statements to the effect that "older is better". As rbell pointed out, if this is the case why do you not use a Geneva Bible? I'll go a bit further, if this is the rationale. Why do you not use a Tyndale Bible? It was first printed in 1530, or eighty years before the KJV which you claim you use. Is not an additional 80 years preferable? Or better yet, why not use the Wycliffe'Purvey Bible?? It goes back 225 years before the KJV. That 1380 date definitely is "older" than any 1611 date.

The three sentences I have underlined, in the material you quoted, represent factual errors, as well. I have in my hot little paws, even as I write, the Second Edition of the United Bible Societies, Novum Testamentum Graece. (UBS2) It has the date at the time of its completion/revision of September, 1968. The First Edition (UBS1) has the date in the preface of August 26, 1965. UBS3 has a date of 1975, and UBS4 has a date of 1993, if I am not mistaken. Therefore the NASV, now known as the NASB, could not possibly have been translated from the UBS4. First factual error.

Secondly, the NASV New Testamant was first printed in 1963. (Yep! I have one of them, too.) Guess what??? The NASV NT was not translated from ANY UBS text, for they did not yet exist, and would not for another two years.
Second factual error.

In fact, I believe the Greek text employed in the NASV NT was either the Nestle-Aland 23rd or the N/A 24th Edition. While this text is similar to the UBS texts which followed it, it is still not the same text. There is an axiom which states that two things that are different cannot possibly be the same. This applies, here.

And the OT is not translated from any Greek texts, considering the OT is written in Hebrew and Chaldee/Aramaic, to begin with.
Third factual error.

It is not asking too much for one to check their sources, to see if they are factually correct, and not just to see if one can somehow buttress their arguments and preferences, IMO. And that is what I am doing in this post. I do not particularly care what version one uses, as to his or her preference. But please do not misrepresent what is being done, and I would also request that opinions not be presented as supposed "facts".

The version/copy of the Bible I use has the words "Holy Bible" (just as I would think most of the ones, that most of the rest of the posters here use, do, as well), on the front cover, assuming one is using a "hard copy". Those words and that designation should mean something, whether it is a KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, or any other versions/editions that have been named, that I forgot.

Tyndale, John Hus, and a host of other Christians gave their very lives to defend the Holy Bible.

Richard Wurmbrand, Harlan Popov, Watchman Nee plus I have no idea of how many others, all were imprisoned for the Holy Bible, and during the Twentieth Century, with Nee dying in prison, for the Holy Bible.

And imprisonment and martyrdom is still happening today, in some parts of the world, even including in our own USA, where Cassie Burnell at Columbine HS was gunned down, for standing up for the Holy Bible.

These lives and memory deserves better than to be put down for standing for the Holy Bible.

And to my knowledge, only Hus and Tyndale, of all those I've mentioned, were queried as to "what version" was their version of choice!

Let's give "Holy Bible", in any version the respect it deserves. And that by all of us.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Does anybody know where a free, on-line Tyndale's Bible is available?

Does anybody know where one can download a
free electronic copy of the Tyndale's Bible?

The Tyndale's Bible is even three hundred years older
than the KJVs

Actually, Tyndale's Bible (~1535) is about 75 years older than the KJV (1611) Bible. Uh, unless you really mean the "New and Improved KJV, 1769 Edition", in which case it would be ~ 235 years.
First factual error.
I do it for one; I'm gonna' do it for all! :tonofbricks: :BangHead: :type: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

me too...but I couldn't read them in the original languages, could you? I remember staring at the Magna Carta in Salisbury, deciphering one word here and two words there. I am glad someone made it easier to read, but I wouldn't want a paraphrase, I want an accurate translation.

To me (again, this is my opinion) reading the NIV after reading the KJV is like drinking skim milk after drinking fresh cow's milk. I love the fullness and richness of the product that is closest to the original - You can still get all your vitamins and calcium from the skim, but for flavor and satisfaction, I prefer the fresh whole milk.

Again, I cannot spout theology. I only know what is in my heart, thank you Jesus for your saving grace!

Fresh cow's milk is a little too warm for my tastes. But my cats loved it that way. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[JerryL]

Anybody else notice that Ed Edwards voted for every possible answer to the poll?:laugh:

 

[charles_creech78]

As C4K pointed out, in another post, do you happen to notice any apparent contradictions in some of what I have emboldened? I certainly see some. You might take some note of your own statements to the effect that "older is better". As rbell pointed out, if this is the case why do you not use a Geneva Bible? I'll go a bit further, if this is the rationale. Why do you not use a Tyndale Bible? It was first printed in 1530, or eighty years before the KJV which you claim you use. Is not an additional 80 years preferable? Or better yet, why not use the Wycliffe'Purvey Bible?? It goes back 225 years before the KJV. That 1380 date definitely is "older" than any 1611 date.

The three sentences I have underlined, in the material you quoted, represent factual errors, as well. I have in my hot little paws, even as I write, the Second Edition of the United Bible Societies, Novum Testamentum Graece. (UBS2) It has the date at the time of its completion/revision of September, 1968. The First Edition (UBS1) has the date in the preface of August 26, 1965. UBS3 has a date of 1975, and UBS4 has a date of 1993, if I am not mistaken. Therefore the NASV, now known as the NASB, could not possibly have been translated from the UBS4. First factual error.

Secondly, the NASV New Testamant was first printed in 1963. (Yep! I have one of them, too.) Guess what??? The NASV NT was not translated from ANY UBS text, for they did not yet exist, and would not for another two years.
Second factual error.

In fact, I believe the Greek text employed in the NASV NT was either the Nestle-Aland 23rd or the N/A 24th Edition. While this text is similar to the UBS texts which followed it, it is still not the same text. There is an axiom which states that two things that are different cannot possibly be the same. This applies, here.

And the OT is not translated from any Greek texts, considering the OT is written in Hebrew and Chaldee/Aramaic, to begin with.
Third factual error.

It is not asking too much for one to check their sources, to see if they are factually correct, and not just to see if one can somehow buttress their arguments and preferences, IMO. And that is what I am doing in this post. I do not particularly care what version one uses, as to his or her preference. But please do not misrepresent what is being done, and I would also request that opinions not be presented as supposed "facts".

The version/copy of the Bible I use has the words "Holy Bible" (just as I would think most of the ones, that most of the rest of the posters here use, do, as well), on the front cover, assuming one is using a "hard copy". Those words and that designation should mean something, whether it is a KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, or any other versions/editions that have been named, that I forgot.

Tyndale, John Hus, and a host of other Christians gave their very lives to defend the Holy Bible.

Richard Wurmbrand, Harlan Popov, Watchman Nee plus I have no idea of how many others, all were imprisoned for the Holy Bible, and during the Twentieth Century, with Nee dying in prison, for the Holy Bible.

And imprisonment and martyrdom is still happening today, in some parts of the world, even including in our own USA, where Cassie Burnell at Columbine HS was gunned down, for standing up for the Holy Bible.

These lives and memory deserves better than to be put down for standing for the Holy Bible.

And to my knowledge, only Hus and Tyndale, of all those I've mentioned, were queried as to "what version" was their version of choice!

Let's give "Holy Bible", in any version the respect it deserves. And that by all of us.

Ed

I do give the Holy BIBLE the respect. I Love the HOLY BIBLE and just because I fill the old ones are better that is my belief. I do not down you for reading your new and old bibles. I can not read a New one because I have read a old one. And I am reading older one then the one I have. Just because someone don't read New ones just because you do or others do does not mean that they are a bad person. If you want the truth of the real words of God are you going to read a new one or go and find the oldest one. I am going to see if I can find the oldest one. If you had read what I posted about the king Jame verson 1611 and how they translated it you had read that they did not do it for there glory but for the glory of God. It was translated not for them. But it was written of HOLY MEN OF OLD as the HOLY SPIRIT MOVE on them. It said what it said in rev. right does that give us the right to make it better. Just because a man thinks it is not translated right does not mean it is. Maybe God gave them men that first translated it the wisdom to make a book of what God wanted it to be. There for I stand in what I believe older is better FOR ME.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Look this is the way I see it the older ones where translated to english so
we can understand them only. Some of the new ones where fix because
some person wanted to put it to what they thought it ment.
I rather read a translated bible then to read a bible that was
changed because a man thought it ment this or that.

An old faithful English Bible, the Tyndale Bible of 1530 reads like this
(thanks to Readmore I have a copy of the Tyndale Bible on
my computer):

Revelation 22:7
Beholde I come shortly.
Happy is he that kepeth the sayinge
of ye prophesy of this boke.

New Bible changes quoted in Post #28:

Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly:
blessed is he that keepeth the sayings
of the prophecy of this book

Cut & Paste comentary:
Actually the KJV1769 Edition reads like this:

Re 22:7 (KJV1769 Edition (Standard):
Behold, I come quickly:
blessed is he that keepeth the sayings
of the prophecy of this book.

So it wasn't quoted right, but I cut some slack, it was just Cut or Pasted wrong???

I note that the old Bible says Jesus will come back "shortly" but
the new Bible says "quickly". The new Bible is NOT as accurate
in the 21st Century (2001-2100) as the old Bible is. 'shorty'
means 'not long from now' but in the 21st century, the new
Bible reading of 'quickly' can mean 'not long from now' or
could mean 'once it starts it will come dowin
fast'. Having two meanings, they could mean different things.
The one meaning that both have in common give an idea
of what the understanding of this verse is. It is always better
to have more than one reading to facilitate the capability of
the Holy Spirit to make us see what is going on in the Scripture.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Their post imply you are ignorant, unlearned, and incapable.

Ed notes (to all) that the first appearance of the words
'ignorant' , 'unlearned' , and 'incapable'
(in this topic) was made
by Brother Cutter. Perchance the opinions
about Brother charles+creech78 are the opinions
of Brother Cutter & not the opinions of other
posters who quote Brother charles_creech78?

Oh well, Brother Cutter has a generic appology
so I guess we all should make a generic acceptance
of that appology.

 

[charles_creech78]

An old faithful English Bible, the Tyndale Bible of 1530 reads like this
(thanks to Readmore I have a copy of the Tyndale Bible on
my computer):


New Bible changes quoted in Post #28:
Cut & Paste comentary:
Actually the KJV1769 Edition reads like this:

Re 22:7 (KJV1769 Edition (Standard):
Behold, I come quickly:
blessed is he that keepeth the sayings
of the prophecy of this book.

So it wasn't quoted right, but I cut some slack, it was just Cut or Pasted wrong???

I note that the old Bible says Jesus will come back "shortly" but
the new Bible says "quickly". The new Bible is NOT as accurate
in the 21st Century (2001-2100) as the old Bible is. 'shorty'
means 'not long from now' but in the 21st century, the new
Bible reading of 'quickly' can mean 'not long from now' or
could mean 'once it starts it will come dowin
fast'. Having two meanings, they could mean different things.
The one meaning that both have in common give an idea
of what the understanding of this verse is. It is always better
to have more than one reading to facilitate the capability of
the Holy Spirit to make us see what is going on in the Scripture.

kai; ejavn tiß ajfevlh/ ajpo; tw'n lovgwn tou' biblivou th'ß profhteivaß tauvthß, ajfelei' oJ qeo;ß to; mevroß aujtou' ajpo; tou' xuvlou th'ß zwh'ß kai; ejk th'ß povlewß th'ß aJgivaß, tw'n gegrammevnwn ejn tw'/ biblivw/ touvtw/.